Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

And for the longest time, TIE swarms ruled the meta and everyone had to build expecting to see one. I've played in four tournament now, and have yet to actually face a YT.

This is simply because YT centric builds are really bad vs Swarms. Its not auto lose but its pretty close. If you lose your YTs (and yes taking 13 hull off Chewbacca can be tricky) the points differential is probably insurmountable for your remaining ships. You may beat interceptors but you are going to struggle with anything packing Howlrunner + 5-7 APs or Scimitars.

Since at any significant tournament theres going to be at least 1 or 2 swarm players, running a YT heavy list is effectively declaring you dont really want to place. They are also pretty bad vs any list with more than 1 B-Wing.

Turreted ships are great in casual games but on the competitive scene they are still extremely vulnerable to the dominant plays in the meta.

I hear what you're saying.

When I run Rebels, I like to pair up a turret with a non-turret ship. When the opposition focuses on the turret (Y or HWK) I use the other (X-wing or B-wing) to take out the aggressors. It works some of the time.

HOWEVER... when it doesn't work, it's because I'm being picked apart by the enemy tearing me up one ship at a time. When focused fire is brought against the turrets, it's the end of my nice little list.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them.

(but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them.

(but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

I think the lesson of the YT is focus fire, any way you can. The joy is when it burns there won't be much left of your opponent's list.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them.

(but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them.

(but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

No. It's that the best defense an Interceptor has(due to it's fragility) is to avoid arcs, and after that rely on focus and evade tokens. Against a YT with Gunner there is no oit of Arc, and Tokens become a game of avoid all but one damage or suffer another attack without being able to modify it. As I said, it's a combination of factors including how well Gunner and Marksmanship work to strip tokens and cripple shieldless ships, how much worse defense is than offense, the fact Boost and Barrel Roll rarely help against a Falcon, how easy it is to 1 shot an Interceptor, etc. It isn't anecdotal, it's in how the metagame works.

It is 100% anecdotal with a pinch of confirmation bias. Statistically 3 dice should not take down a 3 Df 3 Hull ship with any sort of regularity since the 3 hits/ 0 evades event is an outlier. Even with marksmanship and gunner the interceptor is no more vulnerable than a regular TIE. If you want to argue points effectiveness then interceptors have the same base cost/dice as the regular TIEs and their cost effectiveness scales better with additional points on virtue of having the 3rd red die (eg - Howlrunner w/ PTL = 10.5 pt/dice compared to Soontir w/ PTL = 10 pt/dice).

The real problem is that when people play interceptors they want to play with absurdly tooled up interceptors which reduces the number of red dice they bring to the table. This more than anything else is what makes the difference between a win and a loss vs a YT list since it does better when theres less red dice thrown at it. If you swarm up interceptors (4 ints + howlrunner or 4 ints + 1 elite int) you will have no fear of the YT as long as you focus fire the sucker down first.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them. (but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

No. It's that the best defense an Interceptor has(due to it's fragility) is to avoid arcs, and after that rely on focus and evade tokens. Against a YT with Gunner there is no oit of Arc, and Tokens become a game of avoid all but one damage or suffer another attack without being able to modify it. As I said, it's a combination of factors including how well Gunner and Marksmanship work to strip tokens and cripple shieldless ships, how much worse defense is than offense, the fact Boost and Barrel Roll rarely help against a Falcon, how easy it is to 1 shot an Interceptor, etc. It isn't anecdotal, it's in how the metagame works.

It is 100% anecdotal with a pinch of confirmation bias. Statistically 3 dice should not take down a 3 Df 3 Hull ship with any sort of regularity since the 3 hits/ 0 evades event is an outlier. Even with marksmanship and gunner the interceptor is no more vulnerable than a regular TIE. If you want to argue points effectiveness then interceptors have the same base cost/dice as the regular TIEs and their cost effectiveness scales better with additional points on virtue of having the 3rd red die (eg - Howlrunner w/ PTL = 10.5 pt/dice compared to Soontir w/ PTL = 10 pt/dice).

The real problem is that when people play interceptors they want to play with absurdly tooled up interceptors which reduces the number of red dice they bring to the table. This more than anything else is what makes the difference between a win and a loss vs a YT list since it does better when theres less red dice thrown at it. If you swarm up interceptors (4 ints + howlrunner or 4 ints + 1 elite int) you will have no fear of the YT as long as you focus fire the sucker down first.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them. (but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

No. It's that the best defense an Interceptor has(due to it's fragility) is to avoid arcs, and after that rely on focus and evade tokens. Against a YT with Gunner there is no oit of Arc, and Tokens become a game of avoid all but one damage or suffer another attack without being able to modify it. As I said, it's a combination of factors including how well Gunner and Marksmanship work to strip tokens and cripple shieldless ships, how much worse defense is than offense, the fact Boost and Barrel Roll rarely help against a Falcon, how easy it is to 1 shot an Interceptor, etc. It isn't anecdotal, it's in how the metagame works.

It is 100% anecdotal with a pinch of confirmation bias. Statistically 3 dice should not take down a 3 Df 3 Hull ship with any sort of regularity since the 3 hits/ 0 evades event is an outlier. Even with marksmanship and gunner the interceptor is no more vulnerable than a regular TIE. If you want to argue points effectiveness then interceptors have the same base cost/dice as the regular TIEs and their cost effectiveness scales better with additional points on virtue of having the 3rd red die (eg - Howlrunner w/ PTL = 10.5 pt/dice compared to Soontir w/ PTL = 10 pt/dice).

The real problem is that when people play interceptors they want to play with absurdly tooled up interceptors which reduces the number of red dice they bring to the table. This more than anything else is what makes the difference between a win and a loss vs a YT list since it does better when theres less red dice thrown at it. If you swarm up interceptors (4 ints + howlrunner or 4 ints + 1 elite int) you will have no fear of the YT as long as you focus fire the sucker down first.

If your Token is stripped or you missed your action you have a 1 in 10 chance of being one shotted by a marksmanship roll(not counting Crits). That's not an outlier. Beyond that you have a very good chance of being crippled by the inevitable crit even if you survive. An outlier is something you won't see happen often. You'll typically see 1-2 of those shots a tournament running multiple Interceptors. From there people know an Interceptor is the easiest ship in the game to focus down for its points and play accordingly.

I think you better check your math on that one because its more like 5% rather than 1 in 10. But lets be generous and call it 10% for the sake of argument and its better to overstate rather than understate risk. Still an acceptable risk. At range band 3 its less again.

EDIT: Again I'm not saying that Interceptors are an optimal choice vs YTs. They aren't. The optimal response to a YT is the wall of AP. I'm just saying that the whole 'YTs make Interceptors unplayable' is more player psychology than mathematical fact.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them. (but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

No. It's that the best defense an Interceptor has(due to it's fragility) is to avoid arcs, and after that rely on focus and evade tokens. Against a YT with Gunner there is no oit of Arc, and Tokens become a game of avoid all but one damage or suffer another attack without being able to modify it. As I said, it's a combination of factors including how well Gunner and Marksmanship work to strip tokens and cripple shieldless ships, how much worse defense is than offense, the fact Boost and Barrel Roll rarely help against a Falcon, how easy it is to 1 shot an Interceptor, etc. It isn't anecdotal, it's in how the metagame works.

It is 100% anecdotal with a pinch of confirmation bias. Statistically 3 dice should not take down a 3 Df 3 Hull ship with any sort of regularity since the 3 hits/ 0 evades event is an outlier. Even with marksmanship and gunner the interceptor is no more vulnerable than a regular TIE. If you want to argue points effectiveness then interceptors have the same base cost/dice as the regular TIEs and their cost effectiveness scales better with additional points on virtue of having the 3rd red die (eg - Howlrunner w/ PTL = 10.5 pt/dice compared to Soontir w/ PTL = 10 pt/dice).

The real problem is that when people play interceptors they want to play with absurdly tooled up interceptors which reduces the number of red dice they bring to the table. This more than anything else is what makes the difference between a win and a loss vs a YT list since it does better when theres less red dice thrown at it. If you swarm up interceptors (4 ints + howlrunner or 4 ints + 1 elite int) you will have no fear of the YT as long as you focus fire the sucker down first.

If your Token is stripped or you missed your action you have a 1 in 10 chance of being one shotted by a marksmanship roll(not counting Crits). That's not an outlier. Beyond that you have a very good chance of being crippled by the inevitable crit even if you survive. An outlier is something you won't see happen often. You'll typically see 1-2 of those shots a tournament running multiple Interceptors. From there people know an Interceptor is the easiest ship in the game to focus down for its points and play accordingly.

I think you better check your math on that one because its more like 5% rather than 1 in 10. But lets be generous and call it 10%. Still an acceptable risk. At range band 3 its less again.

And at Range 1 it's more. But here's the math.

We're talking the second gunner attack, when tokens are most likely stripped. You have a 5/8 chance to roll a blank/focus on your evade dace. 5/8 to the third power(for 3 dice is) will happen 24.414% of the time. 3 Attack dice with marksmanship is a 75% chance of a hit or crit per dice. .75 to the third(for 3 hits) happens 42.1875% of the time. Multiply the two together and you get 10.299%. That's just over a 10% chance, and doesn't count in the fact a crit is almost inevitable and a 2 hit kill nearly guaranteed.

That's the math. It's not a good ratio for Interceptors.

(It's about a 6% chance at range 4 or with a Stealth Device.) But still a near guarnteed 2 hit kill with crits popping up far too often.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

Where did I say (or even suggest) the game is not balanced?

I think that the YT is a very hard counter to Interceptors.

And the Interceptor is according to many a tad UP for the points.

I myself do not have that feeling (yet?), thus far I do fine with them when I play them. (but I am fairly new and have played only a handful of games with them.)

Its less the YT itself being the hard counter and more Gunner being the hard counter. The YT is just the best ship to get the most out of Gunner. Without gunner Evade solves most (if not all) of your problems. Without gunner the YT finds it very hard to make damage stick and if it cant make enough damage stick before it gets blown up you will have problems.

EDIT: Also I would like to point out that the whole idea that the YT is the hard counter or in any way affects the playability of Interceptors is more anecdotal/confirmation bias than anything thats really grounded in reality.

4x APs or 2x B-wings (equiv. points) will consistently out damage and out 'tank' a YT even with Gunner against an Interceptor by a pretty large margin. The 360 turret is just more forgiving of poor play.

No. It's that the best defense an Interceptor has(due to it's fragility) is to avoid arcs, and after that rely on focus and evade tokens. Against a YT with Gunner there is no oit of Arc, and Tokens become a game of avoid all but one damage or suffer another attack without being able to modify it. As I said, it's a combination of factors including how well Gunner and Marksmanship work to strip tokens and cripple shieldless ships, how much worse defense is than offense, the fact Boost and Barrel Roll rarely help against a Falcon, how easy it is to 1 shot an Interceptor, etc. It isn't anecdotal, it's in how the metagame works.

It is 100% anecdotal with a pinch of confirmation bias. Statistically 3 dice should not take down a 3 Df 3 Hull ship with any sort of regularity since the 3 hits/ 0 evades event is an outlier. Even with marksmanship and gunner the interceptor is no more vulnerable than a regular TIE. If you want to argue points effectiveness then interceptors have the same base cost/dice as the regular TIEs and their cost effectiveness scales better with additional points on virtue of having the 3rd red die (eg - Howlrunner w/ PTL = 10.5 pt/dice compared to Soontir w/ PTL = 10 pt/dice).

The real problem is that when people play interceptors they want to play with absurdly tooled up interceptors which reduces the number of red dice they bring to the table. This more than anything else is what makes the difference between a win and a loss vs a YT list since it does better when theres less red dice thrown at it. If you swarm up interceptors (4 ints + howlrunner or 4 ints + 1 elite int) you will have no fear of the YT as long as you focus fire the sucker down first.

If your Token is stripped or you missed your action you have a 1 in 10 chance of being one shotted by a marksmanship roll(not counting Crits). That's not an outlier. Beyond that you have a very good chance of being crippled by the inevitable crit even if you survive. An outlier is something you won't see happen often. You'll typically see 1-2 of those shots a tournament running multiple Interceptors. From there people know an Interceptor is the easiest ship in the game to focus down for its points and play accordingly.

I think you better check your math on that one because its more like 5% rather than 1 in 10. But lets be generous and call it 10%. Still an acceptable risk. At range band 3 its less again.

And at Range 1 it's more. But here's the math.

We're talking the second gunner attack, when tokens are most likely stripped. You have a 5/8 chance to roll a blank/focus on your evade dace. 5/8 to the third power(for 3 dice is) will happen 24.414% of the time. 3 Attack dice with marksmanship is a 75% chance of a hit or crit per dice. .75 to the third(for 3 hits) happens 42.1875% of the time. Multiply the two together and you get 10.299%. That's just over a 10% chance, and doesn't count in the fact a crit is almost inevitable and a 2 hit kill nearly guaranteed.

That's the math. It's not a good ratio for Interceptors.

(It's about a 6% chance at range 4 or with a Stealth Device.) But still a near guarnteed 2 hit kill with crits popping up far too often.

You are not taking into account the evade dice. Its 5.96% for 3 hits (of any calibre) to 3 blanks/eyes

[(5/8)^3 x (5/8)^3] = 5.96%

EDIT: Oops misread the first bit. Yeah you are right. Theres an additional hit on the red dice had to count mine. Still 10% Is acceptable.

Acceptable is debateable. In games with nothing on the line yes. My point is that the danger is far from Anecdotal. It's a real danger and happens a lot. It makes Squints unreliable over a series of games. These numbers apply to every 3 dice attack an Interceptor takes after it's spent its tokens during a tournament. It's why Interceptors tend to be a bad strategy in tournaments where the winner has to win every game. They'll place high, but a single loss and they are done.

The reason YT-1300s are so good against interceptors is not that the risk of being one-shotted. It's that round after round you get to shoot at the same interceptor with a quality shot. I believe much of the interceptor's points are baked into it's maneuverability and it being able to limit or avoid shots with barrel rolls and boosts or both - this factor is completely negated by the YT-1300 and the only option you are left with is to joust with a ship that is way overpriced and fragile for jousting.