I agree. . Edits are great.

Regionals results are a poor measurement of the effectiveness of high agility high cost ships. Over a series of games stolid reliable low agility tanky builds will perform more stably, and thus lose less matches in the hands of good players. They rely less on luck. In individual games E-Wings perform very well. In tournaments they are a disaster in the making. Thus they will be undervalued by large tournament statisitics.(I'm also saying they don't belong in large tournaments as they don't fit the meta.)

Hm. High agility and high cost ships would include:

• TIE Phantom
• TIE Defender
• E-wing
• TIE Interceptor
• TIE Advanced (medium cost)

If nothing else, ACD Phantoms with 4 agility are doing pretty well, so I would have to disagree. The variance is higher, which does hurt lower HP ships like the Interceptor, but the E-wing has 5 hull / shields.

This reminds me that I want to run calculations on the distribution for the number of attacks that are statistically required to kill a given stat line.

You might find this of use: https://gist.github.com/wickedgrey/9fbcffb3f33e26eb475c

For what you're wanting to do, call vs(attack(2, 1, False), defense(1, 0, False, 'E')) to get eg. the results of a TF with HR shooting at a Falcon with an evade, with no focuses on either side. The return value is the average damage, as well as a dict of damage totals to probabilities of that total. Feel free to PM me, etc. if you have questions.

Someday I'll maybe turn it into something a bit more fully featured, but... Pretend it is MIT licensed, if that sort of thing matters to you.

sometimes i think you "math wingers" just don't understand things on a functional level

though numbers do help and don't lie (i don't disagree 100%)

the high agility ships generally also come with a solid dial and ways to easily outmaneuver your opponent and not get shot at all while still having a shot (minus the E wing which is just an over glorified x wing)

so your numbers only work in games that are nothing but jousting

this is the reason why phantoms are dominating even over the lists with little to no agility but the hp's to stack up instead are that they are positioning themselves well that those "beefy" ships aren't shooting and are instead losing their sheilds and hull even faster than higher agility ships would in the situations where they have no shot at all

and though high agility ships are always a gamble, as flat blanks always manage to come up and bite you in the as s at one point or another; when in the hands of a good player being able to arc dodge will generally come out on top in the end

the only real up hill battle the high agility and highly maneuverable ships have to worry about is the turreted ships such as the falcon; which will ruin an interceptors day and make the game an uphill battle from the start

I'm sure they understand. its more that its a little hard to put a quantitative statement about maneuverability and the disparity of player skill in visualizing good places to put your ship. (Not that many people haven't tried.)

Also, some of us are kind of dumb brute force players who simply fly solidly and wait for you to make a mistake.

"The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

-Sun Tsu

sometimes i think you "math wingers" just don't understand things on a functional level

though numbers do help and don't lie (i don't disagree 100%)

the high agility ships generally also come with a solid dial and ways to easily outmaneuver your opponent and not get shot at all while still having a shot (minus the E wing which is just an over glorified x wing)

so your numbers only work in games that are nothing but jousting

It's unclear why you associate understanding the math that underlies the combat resolution mechanics of the game with not understanding "things on a functional level."

Obviously not getting shot at is better than getting shot at, all else equal. It's so obvious, in fact, that it goes unsaid. A meteorologist talking about snow doesn't always feel the need to point out it's made from frozen water, either.

However, the game is about shooting, and so it's interesting to know precisely what the various outcomes of a particular shot might be. It's also interesting to know how the addition of a particular upgrade card would change those outcomes, and how those outcome changes differ from what would happen with a different upgrade card.

Generalizing this out to broad classes of situations allows us to say "these are the sorts of situations where this card would be useful, while these other situations are better served by equipping this other card, and here's some numerical indicators of how much better or worse it is in those situations." It lets people zero in on likely ways to make the card be effective without having to determine it empirically (ie. by playing many, many games and keeping detailed stats).

I think that this kind of examination is a lot more useful than "jus arc dodge lol".

Put it on a swarm of z-95? Like 6 or so. Thats 12 hits.

Put it on a swarm of z-95? Like 6 or so. Thats 12 hits.

It's a Systems slot upgrade

I agree. . Edits are great.

Regionals results are a poor measurement of the effectiveness of high agility high cost ships. Over a series of games stolid reliable low agility tanky builds will perform more stably, and thus lose less matches in the hands of good players. They rely less on luck. In individual games E-Wings perform very well. In tournaments they are a disaster in the making. Thus they will be undervalued by large tournament statisitics.(I'm also saying they don't belong in large tournaments as they don't fit the meta.)

Hm. High agility and high cost ships would include:

• TIE Phantom
• TIE Defender
• E-wing
• TIE Interceptor
• TIE Advanced (medium cost)

If nothing else, ACD Phantoms with 4 agility are doing pretty well, so I would have to disagree. The variance is higher, which does hurt lower HP ships like the Interceptor, but the E-wing has 5 hull / shields.

This reminds me that I want to run calculations on the distribution for the number of attacks that are statistically required to kill a given stat line.

The other 3 agility ships all struggle to stay valuable across long series of games. They have? O find ways of acclerating their cost buyback. Interceptors without Push are nigh on useless. E-Wings have epicly amazing abilities that can frontload a lot of damage. Defenders and the Advanced are not doing well...

I agree. . Edits are great.

Regionals results are a poor measurement of the effectiveness of high agility high cost ships. Over a series of games stolid reliable low agility tanky builds will perform more stably, and thus lose less matches in the hands of good players. They rely less on luck. In individual games E-Wings perform very well. In tournaments they are a disaster in the making. Thus they will be undervalued by large tournament statisitics.(I'm also saying they don't belong in large tournaments as they don't fit the meta.)

Hm. High agility and high cost ships would include:

• TIE Phantom
• TIE Defender
• E-wing
• TIE Interceptor
• TIE Advanced (medium cost)

If nothing else, ACD Phantoms with 4 agility are doing pretty well, so I would have to disagree. The variance is higher, which does hurt lower HP ships like the Interceptor, but the E-wing has 5 hull / shields.

This reminds me that I want to run calculations on the distribution for the number of attacks that are statistically required to kill a given stat line.

You might find this of use: https://gist.github.com/wickedgrey/9fbcffb3f33e26eb475c

For what you're wanting to do, call vs(attack(2, 1, False), defense(1, 0, False, 'E')) to get eg. the results of a TF with HR shooting at a Falcon with an evade, with no focuses on either side. The return value is the average damage, as well as a dict of damage totals to probabilities of that total. Feel free to PM me, etc. if you have questions.

Someday I'll maybe turn it into something a bit more fully featured, but... Pretend it is MIT licensed, if that sort of thing matters to you.

sometimes i think you "math wingers" just don't understand things on a functional level

though numbers do help and don't lie (i don't disagree 100%)

the high agility ships generally also come with a solid dial and ways to easily outmaneuver your opponent and not get shot at all while still having a shot (minus the E wing which is just an over glorified x wing)

so your numbers only work in games that are nothing but jousting

this is the reason why phantoms are dominating even over the lists with little to no agility but the hp's to stack up instead are that they are positioning themselves well that those "beefy" ships aren't shooting and are instead losing their sheilds and hull even faster than higher agility ships would in the situations where they have no shot at all

and though high agility ships are always a gamble, as flat blanks always manage to come up and bite you in the as s at one point or another; when in the hands of a good player being able to arc dodge will generally come out on top in the end

the only real up hill battle the high agility and highly maneuverable ships have to worry about is the turreted ships such as the falcon; which will ruin an interceptors day and make the game an uphill battle from the start

I just did some relatively quick MathWing analysis of Accuracy Corrector…

This also does not consider the benefit of keeping your focus if you were only going to have 2 hits anyway. This lets you save the focus token for defense, which increases your durability. This might make this upgrade worthwhile on the Aggressor.

To register a minority report, here--delayed from last night, because I didn't want to try typing it out on my smartphone keyboard--I think the last paragraph is the most important part of the OP, and it essentially overrides the rest of the analysis.

I agree that Accuracy Corrector doesn't do much for you if you have (a) 3 or more attack dice, and (b) a token to modify them. It's clear from just looking at the distribution of successes on (e.g.) 3 dice with focus: Accuracy Corrector will only be triggered about 16% of the time.

What's more important to me, though, is exactly the use case MJ describes in that last paragraph: if you don't have a token available for offense, the Accuracy Corrector fixes half your rolls--and brings the average number of successes up to about 95% of what you'd get with a focus or target lock token (2.13 successes with the Corrector, versus 2.25 with a token). That's huge, because it changes the way the action economy functions.

And, importantly, it changes that economy in ways that violate the assumptions underlying MJ's model: suddenly a 30-point Knave Squadron Pilot + Accuracy Corrector can afford to hold its focus (or evade) for defense every turn. I'm not sure precisely what that does to its jousting value, but my intuition says it's an enormous gain: for instance, think of what people spend on the Falcon to get reliable action-less offense.

Or, for another perspective, consider Accuracy Corrector on a generic B-wing (it actually doesn't like any of the named pilots very well, except maybe Nera). One of the main functions of Advanced Sensors, in my view, is to open up the B-wing dial: you can make use of its red maneuvers, and particularly the 1-turn, while still participating in the action economy. FCS has a similar effect, with additional options as well as additional constraints: if you're attacking last round's target again this round, you can use a red maneuver and still modify your dice, or you can use a white maneuver with a barrel roll and still have your TL.

And Accuracy Corrector does something similar: it nails your offensive output at an acceptable level regardless of whether you spend an action on buffing your offense. That means your action is free to be used for defense or for repositioning--or not to be used at all, in the case of a quick turn or a K-turn.

So no, you shouldn't use take an Accuracy Corrector with the purpose of using it as a buff to your offense. But viewing it as an offensive buff is too narrow; I think it's more accurately pictured as a substitute for an offensive action, freeing your action up for something more interesting or more useful.

I just did some relatively quick MathWing analysis of Accuracy Corrector… This also does not consider the benefit of keeping your focus if you were only going to have 2 hits anyway. This lets you save the focus token for defense, which increases your durability. This might make this upgrade worthwhile on the Aggressor.

To register a minority report, here--delayed from last night, because I didn't want to try typing it out on my smartphone keyboard--I think the last paragraph is the most important part of the OP, and it essentially overrides the rest of the analysis.I agree that Accuracy Corrector doesn't do much for you if you have (a) 3 or more attack dice, and (b) a token to modify them. It's clear from just looking at the distribution of successes on (e.g.) 3 dice with focus: Accuracy Corrector will only be triggered about 16% of the time.What's more important to me, though, is exactly the use case MJ describes in that last paragraph: if you don't have a token available for offense, the Accuracy Corrector fixes half your rolls--and brings the average number of successes up to about 95% of what you'd get with a focus or target lock token (2.13 successes with the Corrector, versus 2.25 with a token). That's huge, because it changes the way the action economy functions.And, importantly, it changes that economy in ways that violate the assumptions underlying MJ's model: suddenly a 30-point Knave Squadron Pilot + Accuracy Corrector can afford to hold its focus (or evade) for defense every turn. I'm not sure precisely what that does to its jousting value, but my intuition says that's an enormous gain: for instance, think of what people spend on the Falcon to get reliable action-less offense.Or, for another perspective, consider Accuracy Corrector on a generic B-wing (it actually doesn't like any of the named pilots very well, except maybe Nera). One of the main functions of Advanced Sensors, in my view, is to open up the B-wing dial: you can make use of its red maneuvers, and particularly the 1-turn, while still participating in the action economy. FCS has a similar effect, with additional options as well as additional constraints: if you're attacking last round's target again this round, you can use a red maneuver and still modify your dice, or you can use a white maneuver with a barrel roll and still have your TL.And Accuracy Corrector does something similar: it nails your offensive output at an acceptable level regardless of whether you spend an action on buffing your offense. That means your action is free to be used for defense or for repositioning--or not to be used at all, in the case of a quick turn or a K-turn.So no, you shouldn't use take an Accuracy Corrector with the purpose of using it as a buff to your offense. But viewing it as an offensive buff is too narrow; I think it's more accurately pictured as a substitute for an offensive action, freeing your action up for something more interesting or more useful.

Although it does suck that every ship that gets this gets Fire Control System.

As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't do much on Lambdas, doesn't work well on Phantoms, and even leaves B-Wings without much to show for it. But E-Wings and the Virago look good.

Aye! Non linear thought brings us to the right conclusions. .

Although it does suck that every ship that gets this gets Fire Control System.

As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't do much on Lambdas, doesn't work well on Phantoms, and even leaves B-Wings without much to show for it. But E-Wings and the Virago look good.

Just to be clear, MJ wasn't at all wrong. If you want an offensive upgrade, FCS is better because it will let you stack focus + TL; if you're fairly sure you'll be able to modify your dice (e.g., you're running Keyan + PTL), then Accuracy Corrector is probably (and provably) superfluous.

All I'm really trying to say is that ruling out one purpose for the AC doesn't mean there's no purpose for it.

Aye! Non linear thought brings us to the right conclusions. .Although it does suck that every ship that gets this gets Fire Control System.As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't do much on Lambdas, doesn't work well on Phantoms, and even leaves B-Wings without much to show for it. But E-Wings and the Virago look good.

Just to be clear, MJ wasn't at all wrong. If you want an offensive upgrade, FCS is better because it will let you stack focus + TL; if you're fairly sure you'll be able to modify your dice (e.g., you're running Keyan + PTL), then Accuracy Corrector is probably (and provably) superfluous.All I'm really trying to say is that ruling out one purpose for the AC doesn't mean there's no purpose for it.

I know I'm just curious if the every other attack modified by FCS leaving other attack options open might not be a better deal for 1 point less. You'll see Ibposted virtually the same argument you did earlier. But FCS can do similar things.

AC only makes sense if you don't have an offensive action. This doesn't mean AC is only defensive. A guaranteed 2 hits coming off a k-turn sounds pretty good to me. Granted you could do the same thing with AS. Or perhaps you're stressed and end up bumping. That free 2 hits sounds even better. Flechette cannon, ion torpedoes, mara.... the list of stress/ion dealers just keeps growing.

Don't forget the key words on AC, 'you may'.

Something else Accuracy Corrector does is affect the psychology of an opponent. If I know I'm gonna be fired at by a ship with AC, I'm going to be wondering if I should hold onto my focus for defense- knowing that I'll have at least 2 hits to dodge- or if I should just take my lumps and buff my own attacks. In some sense, this isn't a whole lot different than usual, but I think it's subtly different.

Currently, I can spend my offensive focus token and hope my opponent flubs her rolls. If my opponent has AC equipped, though, I can't hope that roll is all blanks. All blanks means I face 2 hits. Minimum. Suddenly my focus token matters a great deal more. By having an AC on the board, a player makes it more likely that their opponent will fire at them with TL only, instead of TL + Focus.

That's worth something, even if you never actually pop your Accuracy Corrector.

I think it will work great on E wings to either - use the focus for defense rolls (helping out the three dice a lot) or being more agile by taking barrel roll actions to get opponents in your arc or get out of an arc and still being able to put forth a decent attack.

Shuttle AC with Gunner will be nice too. Get those hits through!

I think the big difference between FCS and AC in terms of offensive potential, is FCS typically favors a higher PS and AC favors lower PS.

FCS can do the most if you stack focus+TL but that assumes that you A) are shooting at the target you shot at previously, and B) still have your focus token when you shoot. A higher PS ship is more able to choose its targets and fires before they've needed to use their token for defense.

AC provides consistent damage in a tokenless environment. 2 guaranteed hits is a much scarier prospect for higher PS ships that have already spent their tokens.

And nobody in this thread has yet mentioned the alpha-strike potential. FCS does diddly squat in the first engagement (Coran and gunner/FCS phantoms being the exceptions), whereas AC does the same **** thing.

FCS is a cheaper upgrade that suits more expensive pilots, while AC is a more expensive upgrade that suits cheaper pilots. The balance there seems intentional and elegant. I like this card.

I think it's potentially really good on the Lambda. The Lambda has all kinds of ways to use it's actions for non-offensive purposes. Jendon effectively gives his action away to another ship. Yorr stops being able to take actions as he accumulates stress. When Fleet Officer hits the table, any old Lambda will be pumping it's action into supporting other ships. AC also lets you take the red stop and retain better offense. Along that line of thought, any ship that likes to use red maneuvers a lot (B-wings have a lot of red maneuvers) can use this equipment and get a relative offensive boost while using a red maneuver, or on turns after a red maneuver when they haven't cleared the stress.

Hmm. I tend to get two hits before cancellation anyway on my lambda by using gunner and stuff. But it might be cool to try accuracy and tactician instead.

Really start wanting to try something with two systems.

Not going into the math on it. I like the AC for the shuttle. I think it works well as type of advanced sensors if you wish to bump and still try and press hits through, as well it saves actions for other tasks. Such as perhaps once the fleet officer arrives ? Drop the focus tokens for friends, then shoot resting on at least 2 hits, regardless of what you roll. Works well with gunner ( I roll awful btw, so this is coming from that guesstimation )

I don't think it will be a power build, but it does lead to a more seat of your pants fly style, where even if you need to stress you can still get a semi reliable shot off, might synergize well with some cannon upgrades. Like Ion for instance, as it promises at least 2 hits that need to be dodged to not be ioned.

Also, it opens up boosts as more a no brainer choice with the better engines, without sacrificing hit potential much. ( Which is something advanced sensors won't do ) Could prove be something of a poor mans Buzzsaw, or Buzzsaw on a budget. Shuttle, engine, AC. Would end up 4 points cheaper, allow you to boost freely, while still promising 2 hits each shot it takes. Might call it jigsaw ? ( As it jinks this way and that yet still trys to saw through some damage with just a little oomph if your natural roll is awful. )

Not going into the math on it. I like the AC for the shuttle. I think it works well as type of advanced sensors if you wish to bump and still try and press hits through, as well it saves actions for other tasks. Such as perhaps once the fleet officer arrives ? Drop the focus tokens for friends, then shoot resting on at least 2 hits, regardless of what you roll. Works well with gunner ( I roll awful btw, so this is coming from that guesstimation )

I don't think it will be a power build, but it does lead to a more seat of your pants fly style, where even if you need to stress you can still get a semi reliable shot off, might synergize well with some cannon upgrades. Like Ion for instance, as it promises at least 2 hits that need to be dodged to not be ioned.

Also, it opens up boosts as more a no brainer choice with the better engines, without sacrificing hit potential much. ( Which is something advanced sensors won't do ) Could prove be something of a poor mans Buzzsaw, or Buzzsaw on a budget. Shuttle, engine, AC. Would end up 4 points cheaper, allow you to boost freely, while still promising 2 hits each shot it takes. Might call it jigsaw ? ( As it jinks this way and that yet still trys to saw through some damage with just a little oomph if your natural roll is awful. )

Shuttle + AC + Ion Cannon + Tactician + Intelligence Agent + Engine Upgrade (34)

34 points of Ion/Stress goodness.

Heck just Shuttle + Ion Cannon + AC is quite nice.

A guaranteed Ion vs any agility 1 ship even with stress and no actions.

I should also point out this may become a more useful upgrade when we factor in the new high stress environment of the new meta. Action denial through the use of Mara Jade, Tactician, Flechette Torpedoes, R3-A2 etc might make this more useful in the longer term.

For us MathWingers - this does quite significantly reduce the variance of the roll compared to Focus and/or Target Lock even if the mean isn't so high.

Edit: nevermind, I didn't read the whole thread

I'm just gonna say that I think a system slot for the TIE advanced would stil be great. As long as it came from a title that also gave the advanced some other perk as well...

Question:

How do the numbers crunch for Cluster Missiles with this upgrade? Seems like an obvious pairing - except for the fact that there are currently no ships which feature both a System Upgrade and Missile slot.

Good question. I'll add it to the list of things to MathWing evenutally. Not going to do it right now though.

Not going into the math on it. I like the AC for the shuttle. I think it works well as type of advanced sensors if you wish to bump and still try and press hits through, as well it saves actions for other tasks. Such as perhaps once the fleet officer arrives ? Drop the focus tokens for friends, then shoot resting on at least 2 hits, regardless of what you roll. Works well with gunner ( I roll awful btw, so this is coming from that guesstimation )

I don't think it will be a power build, but it does lead to a more seat of your pants fly style, where even if you need to stress you can still get a semi reliable shot off, might synergize well with some cannon upgrades. Like Ion for instance, as it promises at least 2 hits that need to be dodged to not be ioned.

Also, it opens up boosts as more a no brainer choice with the better engines, without sacrificing hit potential much. ( Which is something advanced sensors won't do ) Could prove be something of a poor mans Buzzsaw, or Buzzsaw on a budget. Shuttle, engine, AC. Would end up 4 points cheaper, allow you to boost freely, while still promising 2 hits each shot it takes. Might call it jigsaw ? ( As it jinks this way and that yet still trys to saw through some damage with just a little oomph if your natural roll is awful. )

That only works if they were cheaper than Advanced Sensors. They work well on ships that can't or don't want to modify their attack dice. That's their best bet and how they ahould be looked at.

I think it has a niche even costing as much as the Adv Sensors. As it also works once stressed, if you stay stressed, bumped, what have you. That goes more to how you choose to fly however. While also being useful on ships that want to use their actions on things aside from just fixing dice. As well on ships that have passive abilities who may be bumping a lot to draw bumps from others, say if Mara is on, for example.

I think it has more use then its being given credit for. Will it be overly competitive ? Time always tells, but its use I think will end up apparent after awhile of use.

So I stopped reading the posts about page 2 as my head started to hurt and I'm sorry if this has been asked but does this basically prevent the A-Wing from ever getting a System Slot now? I know a lot of people were hoping that it might as thematically it was supposed to be a highly advanced ship.

So I stopped reading the posts about page 2 as my head started to hurt and I'm sorry if this has been asked but does this basically prevent the A-Wing from ever getting a System Slot now? I know a lot of people were hoping that it might as thematically it was supposed to be a highly advanced ship.

Probably. But the A-wing is cheap enough that it might not be game-breaking, merely very good.