It's not really surprising that FFG's decision so far has been "screw it, we'll deal with it later somehow".

Meanwhile, we get a thread trying to fix it or wondering about his use every week.

And that was my non-constructive contribution to this thread. Thank you.

The Tie/A was a great ship when it was original released. It gave Empire players access to a shielded ship and the ability to utilize secondary weapons. Once you start taking critical damage shields are amazing to have. Wave 2 drastically changes the meta. Once the Tie/I becomes available for play the Tie/A quickly falls out of favor. The reason for this is the statistical nature of the dice. Attack dice have better chance of generating damage than defense dice are capable of preventing. So, the Tie/I with its additional attack, superior maneuverability, and cheaper squad points quickly becomes a favorite. Once wave 3 is released the Tie/B fills in for the last role that the Tie/A had going for it, its ability to carry missiles.

In an expanded play where ships could hyper drive in and out of the game play the Tie/A would once again have a huge advantage. Without this the Tie/A has little competitive value. FFG has generated a few new mechanics since the original release of the Tie/A that could revitalize the ship in the modern meta: title cards and modifications. The question becomes whether or not FFG wants to revisit this older material or press on to generate new ships.

Personally, I own four Tie/A. I would buy new models with new cards if released (such as the Aces), but I would prefer it if FFG just did a card only release. I have plenty copies of this model already.

1. Attack dice are better than defense dice. Attack dice have 3 hits + crit. Evade dice have 3 evades.
2. TIE Advanced costs the same as the Rookie X-wing, but they swap attack and defense dice.
3. Because of 1 and 2, it costs more than it should compared to other ships. Lots of math involved, but it's about 4 points overcosted using the 12 point Academy TIE Fighter as a baseline.
4. Vader's pilot ability is one of the best in the game.
5. I have house rules for making them balanced, but can only hope FFG fixes them like they are doing with A-wings.
6. I own 4.

Hi MajorJuggler,

I always appreciate your mathematical inputs, so I've got some question for you regarding some of these points.

Point 1: (Red > Green). Does it matter that a green dice is never rolled except when at least one red dice is rolled first? Aren't the red's blanks the first line of defense? In other words, is R3G2>R2G3, when you contemplate longevity?

Also, was the balance between the Rookie/Red X and the Tempest/Storm TIE/x1 upset when Empire was robbed of its initiative by the tournament rules which make initiative a random thing, rather than giving it to the Empire automatically?

Given that your calculations are mostly based on the joust (though I do know that you inculcate the dial) with the TIE/ln as the base, do you take account of the tactical roles that ships have? There's is a lot of chatter here about how a TIE/x1 is not as specialized as other ships are. However, not being specialized is another way of saying that it might be a jack of all trades/master of none.

I'm not MJ, but here we go anyway.

Point 1: (Red > Green). Does it matter that a green dice is never rolled except when at least one red dice is rolled first? Aren't the red's blanks the first line of defense? In other words, is R3G2>R2G3, when you contemplate longevity?

If I understand the question, then not really. Under normal circumstances, 2 Attack/3 Agility will never catch up to 3 Attack/2 Agility in damage.

Also, was the balance between the Rookie/Red X and the Tempest/Storm TIE/x1 upset when Empire was robbed of its initiative by the tournament rules which make initiative a random thing, rather than giving it to the Empire automatically?

No. The generic Advanced was *never* particularly powerful, except as a missile carrier (a role that came with its own problems); its offensive efficiency was too low even in Wave 1. The closest I ever got to making it work was in a list that counted on getting an early missile kill and then turtling up, but it wasn't as reliable as just running a pair of TIE Fighters.

Given that your calculations are mostly based on the joust (though I do know that you inculcate the dial) with the TIE/ln as the base, do you take account of the tactical roles that ships have? There's is a lot of chatter here about how a TIE/x1 is not as specialized as other ships are. However, not being specialized is another way of saying that it might be a jack of all trades/master of none.

As far as I know, a ship's role or niche isn't taken into account in either MJ's jousting value or the adjusted value.

Point 1: (Red > Green). Does it matter that a green dice is never rolled except when at least one red dice is rolled first? Aren't the red's blanks the first line of defense? In other words, is R3G2>R2G3, when you contemplate longevity?

If I understand the question, then not really. Under normal circumstances, 2 Attack/3 Agility will never catch up to 3 Attack/2 Agility in damage.

Okay, for S&Gs I just ran some numbers myself, and you're absolutely right.

Also, was the balance between the Rookie/Red X and the Tempest/Storm TIE/x1 upset when Empire was robbed of its initiative by the tournament rules which make initiative a random thing, rather than giving it to the Empire automatically?

No. The generic Advanced was *never* particularly powerful, except as a missile carrier (a role that came with its own problems); its offensive efficiency was too low even in Wave 1. The closest I ever got to making it work was in a list that counted on getting an early missile kill and then turtling up, but it wasn't as reliable as just running a pair of TIE Fighters.

Yeah, you're right. The initiative does not give it enough of an advantage in terms of being able to shoot first. Also, being able to shoot first is nice, but if the Empire automatically has initiative then it's at a disadvantage in terms of target locking and range in an ordnance standoff.

As far as I know, a ship's role or niche isn't taken into account in either MJ's jousting value or the adjusted value.

Hm, I guess I would call that concept its degree of comparative advantage. Making the last best case for the Advanced would therefore rely on an analysis of tactical roles among Imperial ships. That's not a 1am project, I'm afraid. Still, the Advanced is a bit of a all-round vessel. It's not cheap cannon fodder like the TIE, nor is it a flanker like the Interceptor. However, it is almost as tanky as a bomber and better dial and more agility and that evade action.

I wonder, then, if its niche is not as more durable Assault Missile carrier against Z-swarms?

I'm trying to make a case for the Advanced beyond Vader here. I still like Vader because of the two actions and the fact that he's Vader, but yeah, I'm not going to get another one.

By the way, thanks for stepping in for MJ. I've seen some of your debates and I know enough mathematics to respect those methodological debates.

Tie Advanced: FFG's big error

Strange, I remember somebody saying the Phantom was FFG's big error.

Silly autocorrect .. they clearly meant "Phantom Menace was Lucas' big error"

Ok, fair enough. I was (un)fortunate enough to end up with 3 of these after a trade, so I'm trying to decide how many to keep... it looks like one for nostalgia.

I would give it a month and see what Gencon releases news wise. Many people have only 2 advanced ties in their collections so having one extra won't hurt.

This. I'd wait to see if they finally do bring something out for it as many are hoping/expecting/almost begging for them to do.

I have three myself and would love to use them more. They just look so cool.

Still, the Advanced is a bit of a all-round vessel. It's not cheap cannon fodder like the TIE, nor is it a flanker like the Interceptor. However, it is almost as tanky as a bomber and better dial and more agility and that evade action.

Whether the Advanced has a better dial than the Bomber is a question that admits a great deal of personal preference, but it's worth noting that it's the only ship in the game that has access to neither a 1-turn or a 1-straight. Particularly in combination with its single K-turn option, I think that leaves it at a serious disadvantage. It's not a knife-fighter like an Interceptor or a TIE Fighter, but it also can't boom-and-zoom the way a Defender or a Firespray can. Even the Bomber has better approach control, because it can slow-roll.

I actually feel like the most comparable dial is actually the Lambda's: the Advanced has a white 2-turn and a K-turn, which is an advantage, but no stop maneuver--and their forward options are functionally identical.

I wonder, then, if its niche is not as more durable Assault Missile carrier against Z-swarms?

Not with the TIE Bomber in the game, no. The Advanced does have a better lifespan, assuming it spends actions on defense, but in terms of efficiency (both on defense and as a missile carrier), Scimitar Squadron has it thoroughly beaten.

I'm trying to make a case for the Advanced beyond Vader here. I still like Vader because of the two actions and the fact that he's Vader, but yeah, I'm not going to get another one.

I've said this elsewhere, and it's not unique to me, but I think the real problem is that it's a tank without a taunt. It has really brilliant defensive efficiency, but no way to leverage it, because there's no reason for your opponent to engage a TIE Advanced (with the partial exception of Vader, who can be a vexing finisher).

D&D used to have this problem, too, particularly in Third Edition: fighters weren't terribly effective as damage-dealers, with the idea that they were supposed to soak up the hits while the thieves and spellcasters went to town. But in practice, there was no reason for the big nasty demon or whatever not to ignore the fighter entirely and jump on the lightly armored folks that actually posed a threat.

That problem was fixed in Fourth Edition (whatever its other faults) with the marking mechanic shared by most classes in the "defender" role. A fighter couldn't quite force an enemy to engage him or her, but every tanking class could apply a debuff and/or ratchet up its own damage-dealing potential if the monsters didn't pay attention. So in my opinion that's what the Advanced really needs, although I couldn't tell you how FFG plans to do it: it needs to present opponent with the tactical choice of either engaging it (which means its defensive efficiency is useful) or paying some kind of cost for ignoring it.

EDIT: Oh, and you can look at it as "I'm not going to get another Advanced unless it gets some kind of fix", or you can say "Rebel Aces demonstrated FFG's commitment to finding ways to fix underused ships, so I should buy another Advanced while demand is low!"

I suppose it depends on whether, given a gun at half of its ammunition capacity, you perceive the magazine as half-empty or half-full.

By the way, thanks for stepping in for MJ. I've seen some of your debates and I know enough mathematics to respect those methodological debates.

Yeah, I still owe him a direct apology for really jumping on his case when he first presented his math. I continue to disagree with some aspects of his methods, and with the validity of his overall conclusions--coming up with the numbers makes a number of assumptions that can lead to bad applications, if the assumptions are ignored by the end user--but he's making a sincere attempt to solve a real problem, and his work has a lot of value as a general indicator of efficiency.

1. Attack dice are better than defense dice. Attack dice have 3 hits + crit. Evade dice have 3 evades.
2. TIE Advanced costs the same as the Rookie X-wing, but they swap attack and defense dice.
3. Because of 1 and 2, it costs more than it should compared to other ships. Lots of math involved, but it's about 4 points overcosted using the 12 point Academy TIE Fighter as a baseline.
4. Vader's pilot ability is one of the best in the game.
5. I have house rules for making them balanced, but can only hope FFG fixes them like they are doing with A-wings.
6. I own 4.

Hi MajorJuggler,

I always appreciate your mathematical inputs, so I've got some question for you regarding some of these points.

Thanks Vorpal for filling in, I think he pretty much covered it all.

But I'll add some more.

Yes it matters, but I think the two main reasons that red dice are better than green dice are:

1. There are 4 hits on attack dice vs 3 evades on defense dice
2. The attacker is more likely to have a focus token than the defender, making the red eyeballs worth more than green eyeballs.

Between these two factors it is common for the red dice have 6/8 good results vs green dice only have 3/8 or 5/8. Answering your original question is actually more complicated, but the scenario you are describing is essentially that green dice can have "wasted" evades, but red dice can never have "wasted" hits, except when over-killing a target. To answer/quantify that original question, I would have to run the numbers with evade dice having 4 evades vs. 3, and giving both sides the same likelihood of having focus tokens. I might go do that at some point just because I'm curious, but it's purely a theoretical exercise.

To put real numbers to it, my math puts 3 attack dice as having about 1.75x damage output of 2 attack dice. But 3 defense dice only gives about 1.4x the durability of having 2 defense dice.

And to put numbers to the "why is it overcosted by 4 points"?:

• The TIE Advanced is about 76% more durable than a TIE Fighter, considering shields absorb some crits.
• Ship value goes roughly proportional to the square root of its attack power * durability.
• 12 *(1.76)^0.5 = 15.9, so the TIE Advanced stat line is worth about 16 points at PS1 = 17 points at PS2.
• The rest of the differences between the TIE Fighter and TIE Advanced are about a wash: + Target Lock + Missiles, -dial. So overall the TIE Advanced's overall value is about the same as its jousting value based on just its statline. Ergo, 21 points (actual cost) - 17 points (predicted value) = 4 points overcosted.

The math is slightly more involved (I use an exponent of 0.52, not 0.5), but it doesn't really change anything. It's just horribly overcosted. The next closest ship is probably the A-wing, which is, not coincidentally, the #2 least-used ship.

Eh, I don't think so. Worrying about who has initiative is worth a fraction of a point per ship. When the TIE Advanced is over-costed by 4 points relative to its little brother, secondary affects like this are dwarfed by the underlying problem.

Nope, I don't take into consideration the tactical roles, which is why you still need to interpret the results when ships are specialized. One of the best examples of this is the TIE Bomber. Mathematically, its jousting value and overall value are quite good. The problem is that it's jousting value is still slightly lower than the TIE Fighter, so you generally only ever take it to use Missiles/Torpedoes or Bombs. Missiles/Torpedoes are very poor performance for their cost, so that just leaves Bombs. Bombs are... OK but not enough to make you take TIE Bombers at a top Regionals table. So as a result the TIE Bomber doesn't really get used.

TIE Interceptors are another good example. The jousting value is mediocre, but its overall value is better because of its actions (Boost) and dial (green 2 turns). That doesn't mean that it's automatically a good ship for every squad, because it's a glass cannon that needs to be protected.

The TIE Advanced suffers from having no tactical "purpose", but again, this is a secondary effect: the main problem is that the ship is so horribly overcosted that it can't be redeemed without a massive change. My personal house rule for the TIE Advanced gives it a free FCS, specifically because it gives them unique capability (FCS + Missile Slot = happy Cluster Missiles). It opens up the design space and makes them balanced to boot. FCS is a "soft" 2 point buff (it's not really worth 2 points on the Advanced, but its close), so FCS and a -2 cost adjustment is basically a 4 point buff and puts them right where they should be. For reference my house rules are:

Title. TIE Advanced only.

Cost: -1 (Vader) / -2 (others)

This ship may equip a Fire Control System at zero cost.

To the OP.

The TIE-Advanced is not an awful ship.

Many of the "this ship is poor/subpar" opinions (heh including my own) reflect considerations of the current state of the overall game, strategies, statistical analysis and fleet list building.

In an absolute sense are there other ships with superior/similar roles or performance that cost less: yes.

Does it cripple my sense of fun if you run them? No, not really. I like fielding names I know so I typically run Boba Fett in Slave I, and Vader in his TIE advanced. I even throw in Vader on the shuttle/space cow if I want to field the list with canon-named pilots or passengers only. It would be nice if Mara Jade was an elite pilot for a Z-95/TIE(any) but I digress.

And also, with each new expansion, the viability of almost every ship increases. The TIE-A is no exception.

So my view is try the TIE-A few times. As mentioned above Vader as a pilot is quite remarkable...and given the ever-changing landscape of the game, it is possible you'll find a fit for him in your given favorites.

Cheers and happy gaming!

Thanks to all for responding, I really do appreciate your thoughts and insights.

Whether the Advanced has a better dial than the Bomber is a question that admits a great deal of personal preference, but it's worth noting that it's the only ship in the game that has access to neither a 1-turn or a 1-straight. Particularly in combination with its single K-turn option, I think that leaves it at a serious disadvantage. It's not a knife-fighter like an Interceptor or a TIE Fighter, but it also can't boom-and-zoom the way a Defender or a Firespray can. Even the Bomber has better approach control, because it can slow-roll.

I actually feel like the most comparable dial is actually the Lambda's: the Advanced has a white 2-turn and a K-turn, which is an advantage, but no stop maneuver--and their forward options are functionally identical.

...

The Advanced does have a better lifespan [than the Bomber], assuming it spends actions on defense, but in terms of efficiency (both on defense and as a missile carrier), Scimitar Squadron has it thoroughly beaten.

Good points on the dial. I trust you're right on the need for actions for defense to make it more tanky, but does that mean that you've worked out the relative value of shield points to hull points, and shield points are less than 1.33x as valuable as hull points?

I've said this elsewhere, and it's not unique to me, but I think the real problem is that it's a tank without a taunt. It has really brilliant defensive efficiency, but no way to leverage it, because there's no reason for your opponent to engage a TIE Advanced (with the partial exception of Vader, who can be a vexing finisher).

...

EDIT: Oh, and you can look at it as "I'm not going to get another Advanced unless it gets some kind of fix", or you can say "Rebel Aces demonstrated FFG's commitment to finding ways to fix underused ships, so I should buy another Advanced while demand is low!"

I've been reading discussions about 'end game' and how certain ships might be more troublesome than others. I suppose durability and ignorability both play into a ship's probability of making it to the end game. And, as a guy who played a lot of chess when he was younger, I understand how an end game is different from the beginning and middle. But how do the virtues and vices of a ship change as a game grows old? Do the coefficients in MJ's equation slightly alter per round? (MJ, since you're here, what do you think of this, or is that beyond the desirability of parsimony?)

I hope that they don't do another fix, and not just because I'm determined not to get any more TIE/x1s, or that I don't want to face an opportunity cost. I'm a thematic player. I like the Advanced being 'just Vader'. I like it that when you put it on the field, the opponent goes: "Oh, you brought Vader." Now, I would prefer it to be "Oh NO! You brought Vader!", but we can't have everything.

As a deep lover of the Star Wars universe, I do want the game to reflect the SWU, and that SWU doesn't have a lot of TIE/x1s flying around. Also, I think that FFG should stop printing the Advanced and let it become a bit of a collector's item.

Tie Advanced: FFG's big error

One of a few, but yeah it IS Big IMO.

Lord Vader should affect people in the same way a serious Falcon or Phantom affects people... period... cause!

I trust you're right on the need for actions for defense to make it more tanky, but does that mean that you've worked out the relative value of shield points to hull points, and shield points are less than 1.33x as valuable as hull points?

To add my 2 cents: I ran the damage numbers taking critical hits explicitly into account. weighting double damage crits as 2x, and all other crits as 1.33x. It turned out that shields are worth about only 15% more than hull for a predominantly focus-based economy.

The coefficients would only change if the underling action economy or the kinds of ships remaining (representing a different "meta" of base attack and defense dice) is far different at the end game than in the start of the game. Even if it did, I calculated the ranges for the ship jousting costs based on the meta (not action economy yet), and generally the values don't change all that much. In this case, the change is basically zero, because it's relative to a TIE Fighter, and both have 2 attack and 3 agility. The durability is basically linearly scaled because it has 2 more shields, so the TIE Advanced's relative durability increase over the TIE Fighter is almost completely independent of what's shooting at it.

I'm glad they are keeping everything in print, it's not a collectible game. I'm sure at some point they will do something to buff the Advanced.

Vader is good. Especially with an Engine Upgrade.

Hey,

Again, mad respect on the math. Especially because if you (or somebody else weren't doing it) I'd be tempted to give it a go myself, and I can't afford that kind of time-sink. Also, I haven't spent enough time with this type of mathematics for many years, and it would take me too many hours (days?) to brush up on it all. Also, in the end, I would probably not get as far s you've gotten.

Question: do you use specialized software beyond just a spreadsheet to work this stuff out?

Yes it matters, but I think the two main reasons that red dice are better than green dice are:

1. There are 4 hits on attack dice vs 3 evades on defense dice
2. The attacker is more likely to have a focus token than the defender, making the red eyeballs worth more than green eyeballs.

Between these two factors it is common for the red dice have 6/8 good results vs green dice only have 3/8 or 5/8. Answering your original question is actually more complicated, but the scenario you are describing is essentially that green dice can have "wasted" evades, but red dice can never have "wasted" hits, except when over-killing a target. To answer/quantify that original question, I would have to run the numbers with evade dice having 4 evades vs. 3, and giving both sides the same likelihood of having focus tokens. I might go do that at some point just because I'm curious, but it's purely a theoretical exercise.

Yeah, now that I've seen the math for myself, I accept that the whatever factor that might be is simply outweighed by the reality of your point 1. I guess I've just been fixated on the notion that 25% of the time with 2 reds and 12.5% with 3 reds, it doesn't matter how many greens you have. With that in mind, the green dice is conditional on the red dice coming first, and you should therefore not equate die sides on the green as having probability as those on the red. Does the concept of the "wasted green" cover that notion?

The math is slightly more involved (I use an exponent of 0.52, not 0.5), but it doesn't really change anything. It's just horribly overcosted. The next closest ship is probably the A-wing, which is, not coincidentally, the #2 least-used ship.

I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere, but does the Chardaan Refit fix the A?

Nope, I don't take into consideration the tactical roles, which is why you still need to interpret the results when ships are specialized. One of the best examples of this is the TIE Bomber. Mathematically, its jousting value and overall value are quite good. The problem is that it's jousting value is still slightly lower than the TIE Fighter, so you generally only ever take it to use Missiles/Torpedoes or Bombs. Missiles/Torpedoes are very poor performance for their cost, so that just leaves Bombs. Bombs are... OK but not enough to make you take TIE Bombers at a top Regionals table. So as a result the TIE Bomber doesn't really get used.

I'm guessing you would first need an adequate taxonomy of roles. I once did that taxonomy in a forum thread for the roleplaying game, but that was based on the lore rather than a ground-up analysis of stats and implications.

Also, as a lover of the bomber, has the introduction of epic and huge ships changed its value at all? From a lore perspective, the bomber shouldn't be an efficient ship in a dog fight, given that (lore-wise) it wasn't intended to be a space superiority vessel, but.. well, a bomber. Conceptually, it should shine against huge ships. Do you know if it does?

...uh oh, I see you've replied... and I just got this done. Okay, I'm posting this and then going to read your other stuff.

Vader is good. Especially with an Engine Upgrade.

I agree, that's how I play him too.

Does he also make 'Expose' worthwhile card, given his ability to barrel roll out of arc before using an action to activate expose, or am I just better off barrel rolling and focusing? Focus is just better, right?

To add my 2 cents: I ran the damage numbers taking critical hits explicitly into account. weighting double damage crits as 2x, and all other crits as 1.33x. It turned out that shields are worth about only 15% more than hull for a predominantly focus-based economy.

Good to know. Thanks!

Could you explain the focus-based economy a bit more? It sounds intriguing.

The coefficients would only change if the underling action economy or the kinds of ships remaining (representing a different "meta" of base attack and defense dice) is far different at the end game than in the start of the game. Even if it did, I calculated the ranges for the ship jousting costs based on the meta (not action economy yet), and generally the values don't change all that much. In this case, the change is basically zero, because it's relative to a TIE Fighter, and both have 2 attack and 3 agility. The durability is basically linearly scaled because it has 2 more shields, so the TIE Advanced's relative durability increase over the TIE Fighter is almost completely independent of what's shooting at it.

Actually, if anything, it seems to me that your base equation should hold better at the end game than at the beginning, given that your calculations are based on dyadic pairings, right? Or am I misremembering the method you used? The end game is a simpler system as long as we don't try to inculcate the degree to which ships come into it scathed by battle (which they usually do).

I'm glad they are keeping everything in print, it's not a collectible game. I'm sure at some point they will do something to buff the Advanced.

Well, there's clearly no factoring for taste.

I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere, but does the Chardaan Refit fix the A?

No it does not. Because the A-Wing was hardly broken to begin with.

Proton Rockets might be the first step towards fixing the TIE Advanced.

I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere, but does the Chardaan Refit fix the A?

No it does not. Because the A-Wing was hardly broken to begin with.

Care to elaborate?

MJ has both theory (the abstract math) and empirical data (the tournament data) to back up his point. What do you have to support your argument?

Proton Rockets might be the first step towards fixing the TIE Advanced.

Hm, it's possible. Is it worth the 3 points?

Question: do you use specialized software beyond just a spreadsheet to work this stuff out?

I use MATLAB because I have it handy for my engineering endeavors (at the moment primarily dissertation simulations), and it is far more convenient to program loops than copy / pasting a bazillion cells in Excel. Not to mention I can make custom functions to my hearts delight, to calculate anything. And the plotting functions are far better.

Vader is good. Especially with an Engine Upgrade.

I agree, that's how I play him too.

Does he also make 'Expose' worthwhile card, given his ability to barrel roll out of arc before using an action to activate expose, or am I just better off barrel rolling and focusing? Focus is just better, right?

Expose is terrible. Although in this case you can +1 attack +focus, vs TL+F because Vader has 2 actions. If you could change your dial from 2/3/x/x to 3/2/x/x then the ship value would scale proportional to:

(1.75*0.71)^0.52 = 1.12x

But it costs you an action. Blah.

I'm sure you've mentioned it somewhere, but does the Chardaan Refit fix the A?

No it does not. Because the A-Wing was hardly broken to begin with.

On the contrary, the A-wing at 17 points is mathematically terrible. At 15 points it will be about as cost efficient as the B-wing, but at a lower point value, and with different mechanics: Boost vs. System Upgrade, and lower stat line and cost.

Good points on the dial. I trust you're right on the need for actions for defense to make it more tanky, but does that mean that you've worked out the relative value of shield points to hull points, and shield points are less than 1.33x as valuable as hull points?

One of my default mathematical assumptions (when I say something like "a ship with 3 Attack and focus does an average of 1.53 damage per round to a ship with 2 Agility") is that all damage results are equal. And as a consequence of ignoring the difference between hits and crits, I can't meaningfully represent the difference between hull and shields.

It's not true, of course, but it's close--and, moreover, it's necessary if you want to handle things like average damage numbers without running simulations using a lot of other, more complex assumptions.

The other reason not to do it, though, is that the effect of critical damage can range from 0 to 1, and the effects are highly variable. Crits are relatively unusual events in the first place, and they can easily fail to cause any additional damage: if you have shields, if it's a "bad" crit (like Munitions Failure for a ship with no secondary weapons), or if you would simply be destroyed by the number of damage cards you take, regardless of their additional effects. So the crits that "count" are a relatively small proportion of an already unusual event--so I'm comfortable saying shields are much less valuable than 1.33 hull. (MJ's estimate of 15% is at least a decent ballpark.)

I've been reading discussions about 'end game' and how certain ships might be more troublesome than others. I suppose durability and ignorability both play into a ship's probability of making it to the end game. And, as a guy who played a lot of chess when he was younger, I understand how an end game is different from the beginning and middle. But how do the virtues and vices of a ship change as a game grows old? Do the coefficients in MJ's equation slightly alter per round? (MJ, since you're here, what do you think of this, or is that beyond the desirability of parsimony?)

It's probably beyond meaningful quantitative modeling. Picture trying to model the value of chess pieces based on possible board positions in different phases of a match, and then add in the massive increase in complexity of X-wing as compared to chess...

I'd say values do differ substantially, however, even if the precise determination of their magnitude is impossible. To take an obvious example, the Defender is overcosted by MJ's estimate, and even setting that aside I think its dial is too conservative for its current cost (at least on the generic pilots). But in a one-on-one situation, its value almost certainly grows: the white K-turn offers an advantage in the action economy that relatively few ships can match without upgrades. The Phantom has a similar advantage, in terms of forcing an opponent to sacrifice attack opportunities rather than actions, and the Falcon has another kind of end-game advantage due to its turret.

I hope that they don't do another fix, and not just because I'm determined not to get any more TIE/x1s, or that I don't want to face an opportunity cost. I'm a thematic player. I like the Advanced being 'just Vader'.

Suppose, then, that all you have to go on is the dogfight in the last act of A New Hope. Darth Vader is clearly flying a different fighter than other Imperial fighter pilots, but where did it come from? It has advanced technology, including a targeting computer that Vader relies on despite his Force abilities, and it appears just as polished and "complete" as the more common version. So the only reason to believe that it's unique is that we only see one... but of course it's reasonable to infer that the Imperial military machine is massive, and we only see a tiny fraction of it on-screen.

Once you admit the EU, there are a lot of things that describe Vader's fighter as a prototype--but there are enough of them floating around that it's clear that it saw at least limited production, even if it was never widely adopted by the Imperial Navy, and that Vader was not its only pilot.

I don't want to step on anyone's right to adopt whatever constraints he or she wants with regard to headcanon, but there's no reason you can't have a whole squadron of Advanced x1 on the table while remaining perfectly thematic.

The Refit was needed, but I sort of disagree with the why. The Z-95 is what made the Refit necessary. Before it, the A-wing was the main Rebel filler and/or cheap torpedo option. Both of which is sort of trumped by the Z-95. The Refit allows the A-wing to compete with the Z-95 for filler options.

Is this ship sub-par? Why?

Will anything be done to make the ship more appealing?

J

1 word to describe my feelings towards the Tie-Advanced:

Nope

If you play Darth Vader, (in the Tie Advanced x1) then that's acceptable, but normal Tie Advanced? Nope.

You know, if FFG released a new model for the Tie Avenger, and added a boost action and reduced the cost, I'd be absolutely down with that.

The Refit was needed, but I sort of disagree with the why. The Z-95 is what made the Refit necessary. Before it, the A-wing was the main Rebel filler and/or cheap torpedo option. Both of which is sort of trumped by the Z-95. The Refit allows the A-wing to compete with the Z-95 for filler options.

A-wing usage in Wave 3 Regionals is very low. It could have been given Refit earlier, or even released 2 points cheaper and it would have been fine.

I use MATLAB because I have it handy for my engineering endeavors (at the moment primarily dissertation simulations), and it is far more convenient to program loops than copy / pasting a bazillion cells in Excel. Not to mention I can make custom functions to my hearts delight, to calculate anything. And the plotting functions are far better.

Hehehe, yeah, I fell back into Star Wars during my dissertation-writing. It was a great escape, but I hope you're not letting it get the better of you. YMMV, but the dissertation was a big motivational struggle for me, and it took me too many years to complete.

Now that I'm teaching, I have the same motivational problems, but at least I've got a paycheck now. On that note, I won't engage in this enlightening discussion as deeply as my inner nerd would really like me to, so you'll forgive me if I don't comment on every bit you posted, even if it does authentically fascinate me.

I also won't hold out hope for Expose.

It's probably beyond meaningful quantitative modeling. Picture trying to model the value of chess pieces based on possible board positions in different phases of a match, and then add in the massive increase in complexity of X-wing as compared to chess...

Quite so, certainly if you're committed to quantitative modeling from the ground up. I don't mind macro-level modeling, and as a social scientist I may be more comfortable with accepting assumptions bout the micro level as you and MJ might be. However, I'm not really sure where I would start on that. I do like the rock<paper<scissors<rock assumption that seems to be going around about builds. I wonder if one might construct an asymmetric network model around that.

Once you admit the EU, there are a lot of things that describe Vader's fighter as a prototype--but there are enough of them floating around that it's clear that it saw at least limited production, even if it was never widely adopted by the Imperial Navy, and that Vader was not its only pilot.

I don't want to step on anyone's right to adopt whatever constraints he or she wants with regard to headcanon, but there's no reason you can't have a whole squadron of Advanced x1 on the table while remaining perfectly thematic.

I totally see where you're coming from. I also assume that you're right that there were squadrons of them - even if it was just to do the testing of their value. Now, given what we know about the TIE/x1 from this simulation that we love to play, it's clear that many TIE pilots died to bring us this information, that the TIE/x1 just doesn't cut it for the cost of its production.

Here's where I'm coming from, and it's strictly a personal orientation that may be idiosyncratic. I like stories that don't involve other people's characters. I also like representativeness. So, for me, the Imperial Navy is a huge bureaucracy and it relies on its constraints of availability. TIE/x1s are not in its usual arsenal, nor do expensive hyperspace-capable fighters fit Imperial naval doctrines. My fascination (as a social scientist) is in modeling the Imperial Navy as an institution, and playing that out. It's how I like to nerd out in my mind. It's also why I'm annoyed by the Phantom and the Defender, given how I feel they transgress the notions in my headcanon as you put it.

Then again, I like flying Vader, so... I'm not all that dogmatic about the above either.