The HLC can also be boosted by such abilities as Opportunist or Expose, and Jan Ors Pilot ability, to get up to 6 dice for your (Rebel) ship at EVERY range. Who says Bombers can't be destroyed by a one-shot?

Expose does not work with HLC. It boosts your Primary Attack value. HLC is a secondary weapon.

This concludes your daily "Expose is not that good" post.

Thank you for the reminder. I haven't run Expose (ever) so I was going off my memory of the card.

I don't get it. HLC is very popular, but I must be missing something. I can see it rocking my knee socks if it were in a 1 or 2 attack dice ship, but paying 7 points to add 1 attack to a shuttle or Firespray while it softens your crits doesn't seem like money well spent to me.

What am I missing?

There are very few cards that are duds. I tend to look through the upgrades and try and pair them up with the right pilot. The key to success is finding the synergy between the right pilot and the right upgrade. A lot of people have said Autoblaster sucks, but I used it the other day to terrific effect. Most of the upgrades have a definite application that makes them shine, and once you find it, you'll look at the cards differently.

And if you are target locked - your rerolls CAN crit - it is only that FIRST roll that must modify crits to be regular hits. So you CAN indeed get crits out of a HLC

Really? I had never heard this before. We've never played it that way at my FLGS. It certainly makes FCS a much more valuable upgrade to use with HLC.

It's in the FAQ/Errata.

Autoblaster is pretty good on Ten Numb. That gets around the weakness of high agility ships using defense dice to cancel crit hits and using evade tokens to cancel a regular hit. Against low agility ships like the bomber or Lambda that can't evade, you are not getting much value out of using it over your regular attack. It actually hurts when you get a crit using the Autoblaster if you aren't using Ten Numb, because that will be the only hits that they can evade with their dice.

For 2 points less you could have Ibtisam with advanced sensors and Push the Limit. Lots of rerolls, barrel rolling before you take a hard turn can flank some enemies, actually benefitting from the stress tokens that push the limit gives you.

As far as Heavy Laser Cannon, it is my favorite choice for Krassis Trelix. On a Lambda shuttle, I think Fire-Control System + Gunner for the same points is a better investment, and doesn't become a useless 7 points when you are at range 1. Gunner + FCS at range 1 is murder. Especially nice when you consider you get to reaquire a target lock after each attack, even if you were unable to take actions that turn from stress or collission.

Cheap Lambda with that combo + Engine upgrade is 32 points.

Cheap Tie-Phantoms can take that combo for 32 points.

Soon B-wings with the new title will be able to take that combo, starting at 29 points if the title is a 0 cost. Though if near-guaranteed hits is worth the cost of not being able to take advanced sensors is up to you.

I don't get it. HLC is very popular, but I must be missing something. I can see it rocking my knee socks if it were in a 1 or 2 attack dice ship, but paying 7 points to add 1 attack to a shuttle or Firespray while it softens your crits doesn't seem like money well spent to me.

What am I missing?

There are very few cards that are duds. I tend to look through the upgrades and try and pair them up with the right pilot. The key to success is finding the synergy between the right pilot and the right upgrade. A lot of people have said Autoblaster sucks, but I used it the other day to terrific effect. Most of the upgrades have a definite application that makes them shine, and once you find it, you'll look at the cards differently.

While this is true, it is also good to realize that the game is not perfect, and beyond that humans are naturally fairly poor judges of probability. So when it comes to judging probability, usually going to hard math is our best option, and this can reveal issues that may not be apparent from simple experience.

Most cards that are "not as good as they seem" are typically victims of our naturally poor ability to judge probability. Expose, autoblaster, and Stealth device are all good examples of this. Stealth Device, for example, FEELS like a better upgrade than Hull Upgrade, but as many others have pointed out, it averages out to be just as effective while actually being more expensive, making hull upgrade the superior option.

Autoblaster falls into the same trap. It feels effective (because it is), but what is hard to feel is that-statistically speaking-taking four shots at point blank is only slightly less effective, and it's impossible to judge how much more effective 5 points in upgrades would have been to your overall game And in a game with dice, over the long run it is all about averages, so autoblaster is generally just a poor choice.

That being said, math shouldn't dictate what you take, it should inform you to make better decision. Stealth device is indeed mechanically inferior to hull upgrade, but understanding that, and how people think, you can take advantage of the psychological effects and make better decisions on when these (usually sub-par) upgrades ARE good choices.

Stealth Device, Autoblaster, and Expose all have significant psychological impact. When you realize your opponents will avoid range 1 against the Autoblaster (despite it not actually being any more dangerous than a regular shot), and avoid shooting at stealth device ships at range 3 (despite them really being no harder to kill than a ship with a hull upgrade), you can get better use out of these upgrades.

In the end, it doesn't benefit us to dismiss the mathematical weaknesses of certain upgrades just because we don't want to accept that we are naturally bad at probability, but it also doesn't benefit us to dismiss upgrades purely based on numbers. If we take the time to really learn the math behind the game, AND the psychology behind the math, we can make better decisions about how to use these upgrades and not fall into mental traps about their use and suitability.

i usually tend to just take what I think sounds fun to play. I don't have to win to have a good time. again (i've said this many times here) I'm happier just taking 4 rooks with torps (and we all know ordinance isn't as "good" as it should be) then the latest and greatest meta list.

think about it like this:

You will ALWAYS roll 4 dice. Your opponent will NEVER get a range 3 bonus.

If you are at range 1 you just opt to use your regular attack - (Which for all current ships that can take cannon would be 3+1=4)

Opt to use your regular attack at Range 1? More like you have no choice because the range on the HLC clearly states Range 2-3.

So when you slap it on a B-Wing, Firespray, Shuttle, etc that would get 4 attack dice at Range 1 (3 for Attack, +1 for Range 1), yes, you can always roll 4 dice, just remember at Range 1 you ALWAYS have to use your primary, there's no option about it.

The Ion Cannon, however is Range 1-3, so at Range 1, you'll have decisions to make with regards to your shooting options.

Of course you OPT to use your regular attack. You could otherwise refuse to attack at all. EVERY attack is an optional attack - you are never forced to attack. =P

I don't get it. HLC is very popular, but I must be missing something. I can see it rocking my knee socks if it were in a 1 or 2 attack dice ship, but paying 7 points to add 1 attack to a shuttle or Firespray while it softens your crits doesn't seem like money well spent to me.

What am I missing?

There are very few cards that are duds. I tend to look through the upgrades and try and pair them up with the right pilot. The key to success is finding the synergy between the right pilot and the right upgrade. A lot of people have said Autoblaster sucks, but I used it the other day to terrific effect. Most of the upgrades have a definite application that makes them shine, and once you find it, you'll look at the cards differently.

While this is true, it is also good to realize that the game is not perfect, and beyond that humans are naturally fairly poor judges of probability. So when it comes to judging probability, usually going to hard math is our best option, and this can reveal issues that may not be apparent from simple experience.

Most cards that are "not as good as they seem" are typically victims of our naturally poor ability to judge probability. Expose, autoblaster, and Stealth device are all good examples of this. Stealth Device, for example, FEELS like a better upgrade than Hull Upgrade, but as many others have pointed out, it averages out to be just as effective while actually being more expensive , making hull upgrade the superior option.

Autoblaster falls into the same trap. It feels effective (because it is), but what is hard to feel is that-statistically speaking-taking four shots at point blank is only slightly less effective, and it's impossible to judge how much more effective 5 points in upgrades would have been to your overall game And in a game with dice, over the long run it is all about averages, so autoblaster is generally just a poor choice.

That being said, math shouldn't dictate what you take, it should inform you to make better decision. Stealth device is indeed mechanically inferior to hull upgrade, but understanding that, and how people think, you can take advantage of the psychological effects and make better decisions on when these (usually sub-par) upgrades ARE good choices.

Stealth Device, Autoblaster, and Expose all have significant psychological impact. When you realize your opponents will avoid range 1 against the Autoblaster (despite it not actually being any more dangerous than a regular shot), and avoid shooting at stealth device ships at range 3 (despite them really being no harder to kill than a ship with a hull upgrade), you can get better use out of these upgrades.

In the end, it doesn't benefit us to dismiss the mathematical weaknesses of certain upgrades just because we don't want to accept that we are naturally bad at probability, but it also doesn't benefit us to dismiss upgrades purely based on numbers. If we take the time to really learn the math behind the game, AND the psychology behind the math, we can make better decisions about how to use these upgrades and not fall into mental traps about their use and suitability.

They both cost three.

And stealth device is superior to all. I dismiss your "math" in favor of my flashy upgrade which scares opponents! =P

Stealth Device, Autoblaster, and Expose all have significant psychological impact. When you realize your opponents will avoid range 1 against the Autoblaster (despite it not actually being any more dangerous than a regular shot), and avoid shooting at stealth device ships at range 3 (despite them really being no harder to kill than a ship with a hull upgrade), you can get better use out of these upgrades.

Sorry, but I don't think that "assume your opponents are stupid and don't understand how powerful your upgrades are" is a viable strategy. I'd much rather just spend my points on cards that are good even when my opponent doesn't make stupid mistakes.

Stealth Device, Autoblaster, and Expose all have significant psychological impact. When you realize your opponents will avoid range 1 against the Autoblaster (despite it not actually being any more dangerous than a regular shot), and avoid shooting at stealth device ships at range 3 (despite them really being no harder to kill than a ship with a hull upgrade), you can get better use out of these upgrades.

Sorry, but I don't think that "assume your opponents are stupid and don't understand how powerful your upgrades are" is a viable strategy. I'd much rather just spend my points on cards that are good even when my opponent doesn't make stupid mistakes.

Psychology aside I often leave hlc out of my list. I can't seem to build a 4x rebel list featuring a hlc. That will change after I get more z's of course. Regardless, I've most often went for more ships and less upgrades. That being said krasis is a natural for hlc. And the shuttle.

Psychology aside I often leave hlc out of my list. I can't seem to build a 4x rebel list featuring a hlc. That will change after I get more z's of course. Regardless, I've most often went for more ships and less upgrades. That being said krasis is a natural for hlc. And the shuttle.

2 HLC blues, 2 rookie Pilots, Pure Hate.

Psychology aside I often leave hlc out of my list. I can't seem to build a 4x rebel list featuring a hlc. That will change after I get more z's of course. Regardless, I've most often went for more ships and less upgrades. That being said krasis is a natural for hlc. And the shuttle.

2 HLC blues, 2 rookie Pilots, Pure Hate.

Hmmmmmm

And if you are target locked - your rerolls CAN crit - it is only that FIRST roll that must modify crits to be regular hits. So you CAN indeed get crits out of a HLC

Really? I had never heard this before. We've never played it that way at my FLGS. It certainly makes FCS a much more valuable upgrade to use with HLC.

It's in the FAQ/Errata.

Good, I'll have something I can show my opponent as he/she stares in amazement after I have one-shotted one of their ships.

2 HLC blues and 2 Rooks is a really really painful list to fly against.

The psychological side of it isn't stupidity. It's risk assessment. You don't park your Interceptor range one in front of an Autoblaster. It changes how they fly. The same holds for stealth device. You don't ahoot the ship with 4 defense dice and an evade token unless you have to. It makes some plays not as smart as they could be. Expose has no value.

But that isn't the claim I was responding to. The actual claim was that an opponent will fear an autoblaster/stealth device/etc so much that they'll play around it even when it isn't a threat . In fact, they even claimed that this is a reason not to pay too much attention to the math, because people don't play based on the numbers. And this is just plain stupidity. If you're depending on your opponent being so terrified of "OMG CANT CANCEL HITS" that they fly their b-wing list away from range-1 then you're depending on having a stupid opponent.

Another way to get crits with the HLC is mercenary co-pilot, and you can use 2 of them on a shuttle but its only at range 3. I've never tried it, but it can be done.

Screwing around with trying to get crits from a HLC is really not worth it. You're spending points on upgrades that have no effect if your target has shields, evades all of the damage, or loses all of their HP anyway without considering the crit effects. Just remember that crits on a re-roll are legal, take them if you happen to spend a TL with a HLC shot, and spend those upgrade points on something more efficient.

The psychological side of it isn't stupidity. It's risk assessment. You don't park your Interceptor range one in front of an Autoblaster. It changes how they fly. The same holds for stealth device. You don't ahoot the ship with 4 defense dice and an evade token unless you have to. It makes some plays not as smart as they could be. Expose has no value.

But that isn't the claim I was responding to. The actual claim was that an opponent will fear an autoblaster/stealth device/etc so much that they'll play around it even when it isn't a threat . In fact, they even claimed that this is a reason not to pay too much attention to the math, because people don't play based on the numbers. And this is just plain stupidity. If you're depending on your opponent being so terrified of "OMG CANT CANCEL HITS" that they fly their b-wing list away from range-1 then you're depending on having a stupid opponent.

@iPeregrine: Most x-wing players don't know the dice odds. Autoblaster range 1 or target-locked & focused HLC range 2: which does more damage to a Tie fighter with an evade action?

Can you correctly answer this in the short time you get in a game to decide? If you can correctly answer it fast enough that people still play you at face-to-face X-wing (No, you cannot run dice sims in a face-to-face game, we would not allow it. I am playing you, not Siri), then you know how involved the calculation is, or how long you had to spend memorising results, and you know why that puts you in an elite minority. Most people simply can't do, or ignore, anything beyond very basic game maths. Of course in a tournament you'd expect players to be better at it, but no-one can do it perfectly.

As for the other point, all human vs human activiies involve a psychological meta-game, even games said to be "pure strategy" like chess, and even activies said to be "pure physical" like athletics. This doesn't mean you can win by only playing that and ignoring the action on the board, but it does mean that you can gain an advantage on the board by using it.

One example in X-Wing is that I frequently play the A-Wing, and when I do a boost maneuver that might or might not take a plane out of arc depending on which direction I go, we have a conversation that goes something like "See I don't know which way you went but if you went right like I assume you did, a boost to the right should take me out of arc..." then watching the opponent's facial reaction to the boost I know exactly which way to bank the plane ... Yea, some people have a good poker face. Most people don't.

Yes I know your specific claim is slightly different but it's a very literal minded interpretation of a single point. Basically what I am saying is that it's naive to assume x-wing is only played by emotionless robots with savant-like mathematical skills. It's very clear to me that the majority of players can't do dice maths, and are greatly affected by psychological issues. Where the fear aspect comes from is that the autoblaster takes Tie-players out of their comfort zone by removing their primary defence.

I still have not learned to love the mighty HLC! I think the best use is on a B-Wing; it's a relatively cheap, more positional unit (small base FTW, Mo-fo's).

I can't get on board with using it on a Firespray, even the mighty Krassis Trellix. I think the rear-arc is such a boon for that ship, I wouldn't ever want to second guess using it, you know, hesitating to manouver the Firespray to make use of that unique ability because I want to get my money's worth from the HLC. I also find that big 'ol base, which is so handy for helping you use the rear-arc, becomes a hinderence when trying to position so you can use the HLC on a 'Spray. But then, I have seen K-Trel with HLC being favoured by many folks on this board so mebbe I just need to get my flyin' skillz honed. Or is there some really powerful list and/or set of tactics that I'm not employing to make best use of the Krassis-T-plus-HLC combo)?

Defender seems like a good option; it's dodgy, tough, small-based...seems like a workable way to use it.

And The Lambda? Initially seems like a great fit, especially 'cos they have that lovely 'I-brake-for-Stress!' bumper-sticker that means they can just park their big, bulky white-butt where they are and blat away. Not much experience doing this though. I'd have thought Adv Sensons and Engine upgrade would be essential if you want your shuttle to actually be able to move anywhere effectively.

All these options are 'spensive though! I don't know if there's not always just a better way to spend 7 point. For example, on a Firespray, you've got yourself a Gunner which is ALWAYS available and useful, not least of all for the 'double-dip-means-tokens-stripped' style of shooting (shoot, they use tokens to dodge the fire, you shoot again and this time they just have a 'naked' roll to rely on), and a seismic charge for that some outlay.

HLC's are a barrel of laughs when they hit summat though, no doubt. Anyone got some favourite two (or even three) HLC builds that are effective? The defender list posted earlier did, I admit, look fun...

HLC doesn't work on the auxiliary (rear) firing arc of the Firespray...

HLC doesn't work on the auxiliary (rear) firing arc of the Firespray...

I believe that was the point of the post above. The poster was discussing why they don't like the HLC, and their love of rear . Arc shooting was a key factor.

As much as I like the Firespray, I think the Defender is going to be a better HLC platform.

As much as I like the Firespray, I think the Defender is going to be a better HLC platform.

I do agree the Defender is better for HLC. But I don't think the Cannon is the best buy on either of them.

Also, hlc on rexlar brath. Crits for everyone.

The psychological side of it isn't stupidity. It's risk assessment. You don't park your Interceptor range one in front of an Autoblaster. It changes how they fly. The same holds for stealth device. You don't ahoot the ship with 4 defense dice and an evade token unless you have to. It makes some plays not as smart as they could be. Expose has no value.

But that isn't the claim I was responding to. The actual claim was that an opponent will fear an autoblaster/stealth device/etc so much that they'll play around it even when it isn't a threat . In fact, they even claimed that this is a reason not to pay too much attention to the math, because people don't play based on the numbers. And this is just plain stupidity. If you're depending on your opponent being so terrified of "OMG CANT CANCEL HITS" that they fly their b-wing list away from range-1 then you're depending on having a stupid opponent.

The point is to help players that want to use and find niches for all the upgrades, but have resisted gaining an understanding of the actual statistics behind them to use the upgrades they are going to use anyways more effectively. A lot of players have a natural mistrust of "mathhammer" or "mathwing", and tend to think that the math is either "just math" (and somehow wrong) or that by learning the math behind the game they are not going to be actually playing the game anymore and just letting math make their decision for them.

I was trying to illustrate that the math is still useful to know, and doesn't preclude them from using the upgrades they like (even if they are not the most efficient choices statistically). They can still get use out of them if they understand what is really going on, like the fact that autoblaster really isn't any more effective than most range 1 shots.

And assuming your opponent isn't aware of the statistics behind the game isn't assuming their stupid. It's assuming they are a regular human being and play like 98% of players. Very few players will understand that Stealth Device doesn't make a ship any more durable than hull upgrade (I think it's actually worse statistically. It saves 1 hull less than 50% of the time, but hull upgrade saves 1 hull 100% of the time), so you may as well Humans naturally have issues with judging probability, and in general it takes study to overcome. Statistically it's a good bet, and it is especially fun to play around with in casual games.

Seems odd to use statistics to prop up your argument on the one hand, but totally dismiss them on the other hand.