Does the Tie Bomber need a fix?

I think so. The ship had one showing in Nationals at Top16 as a Scimitar/Howl swarm, and this is the statistic of use over the previous number of regionals, which is a much larger data sample.

Collected by MajorJuggler, thank you.

While not quite as useless as the Tie Advanced, the Tie Bomber is also starting to fade into obscurity. Its overall uses are simply for its longetivity and not for its ordnance capabilities. Its use is one dimensional and one build only so far.

This longetivity though has very little cost effectiveness. I can't remember where I saw it, but the calculated attacks an x-wing needs to kill a tie advanced is 13.5, versus 20 for the tie advanced to kill the xwing. The bomber has similar problems, and actually has it even worse, as critical damage is even more likely to cause maneuvering problems or premature death.

What sucks about the Bomber?

It takes critical hits incredibly easily, especially in my case: Blinded Pilot, just as I set up a crucial close range shot. (It has happened four times now). Also, the critical that destroys a secondary weapon is just not fun. Unfair! Why can't we get criticals that shoot off astromechs and crew? They're much more vulnerable.

Its hard to get ordnance off.

Ordnance isn't cost effective.

Fix!

Sturdy Construction

Modification, 1 point (Opportunity cost: Munitions Failsafe)

Tie bomber only, or Equip only in conjunction to a ship with a torpedo, missile or bomb.

Right before you would receive and reveal a face-up damage card, put a tracking token, and a stress token* on this ship. On the next turn, after you reveal your dial, suffer that face-up damage card instead.

Remove the tracking token and discard this card.

*optional

Impact!:

This allows a Bomber to get a crucial attack through, for a torpedo or a close-up shot. It also allows it to drop a bomb. Making the Bomber quite a bit more cost effective for one more attack.

It makes the Bomber seem like it has 4hull and 2 shield instead usually. Being able to absorb some form of damage, which would help balance the ship better without going against lore.

Costs of this upgrade:

You can't take Munitions Failsafe.

It gives you a stress that you have to deal with next turn. No k-turn.

It adds more cost to your bomber.

Only works for critical hits.

Balance considerations:

By making it cost one point it makes it a choice to cram onto a Howl Fat swarm.

It could cost zero points, but that might make it an auto include instead of munitions failsafe, which is not cost effective for a bomber.

(Would really be nice if someone can find me the cost effectiveness value of the Bomber, jousting stats?)

It could not stress the pilot. It probably would work just fine. It's also an extra line of text.

Making the "equip only in conjunction to a torpedo, missile or bomb" would allow other ships to take this upgrade also. Though, funny enough, it might be perfect for the bomber and no other ship! The Falcon would pay too much and lose Engine Upgrade. The B-wing probably doesn't benefit with its little agility once it gets to 3 hull.

The Firespray might benefit if it has those ordnances (not cannon)!

The Tie Advanced, and the generic X-wing with a missile might benefit too!

A trade-off of Torpedo/Missile slots for Bombs is a consideration. it seems something like that may be used for the Y wing. But overall I think the Bomber is in a good place at the moment, 6 Hull is very good for it's size and it is still cheap. It should be "easy meat" if unprotected and players can always buy an escort for them.

The Bomber jousting value is really good, you can't increase the ship's brute force anymore or else you risk making Bombers auto include instead of TIE Fighters, and that would be a bad thing.

On phone so don't have link handy, but you can search "Using Lanchester's Square Law" and look for my thread.

There is also a link to it in the MathWing: Accuracy Corrector OP.

The Bomber needs ordnance to be useful and cost effective. Note the cute specific kinds, but the basic ones: proton torpedo and concussion missiles. Then they will still need a slight nudge, I think, to make them the best ordnance carriers. Bomber only ordnance related mods or something.

Ordnance fixing is a lot more complicated I think. Also, I disagree with changing bomb radius. Youre much more likely to bonk one of your ships on another guy, and stay within your own bomb radius.

Also, think about the events that leads up to the use of this upgrade:

Your bomber gets shot first because nearly everything in this game has higher PS than those poor bombers with 0 initiative bid.

Takes a critical with its terrible 2 evade dice, you even cringe at the loss of your focus which would have helped immensely on your attack back.

You take a crit. Its nasty. You're praying it doesn't say: Munitions destruction, or Blinded Pilot, or even all the other ones that make your ship maneuver even more like a pig with side blinders on.

Oh! I can use my upgrade!

Upgrade lets you stave off that damage for a round and take that crucial shot you need. A range 1 attack, or an alpha strike. You shoot off your munitions! You are happy. Your opponent is less happy. Your bomber gets to be aggressive and cost efficient.

The Bomber jousting value is really good, you can't increase the ship's brute force anymore or else you risk making Bombers auto include instead of TIE Fighters, and that would be a bad thing.

On phone so don't have link handy, but you can search "Using Lanchester's Square Law" and look for my thread.

There is also a link to it in the MathWing: Accuracy Corrector OP.

The Bomber needs ordnance to be useful and cost effective. Note the cute specific kinds, but the basic ones: proton torpedo and concussion missiles. Then they will still need a slight nudge, I think, to make them the best ordnance carriers. Bomber only ordnance related mods or something.

Hmm. Ok.

Maybe change to "Equip only to a ship that has a torpedo, missile or bomb equipped"?

--

This means it can't be used in a naked fat swarm. Only in lists with ordnance. Also makes the ordnance more likely to go off.

What's the jousting value of a bomber with a 4 point basic missile. Noting that I think typically, the ordnance has maybe a 50% chance of going off? (Statistic I'm making up.)

By the way the column deciphering is helpful, see the Regionals thread.

1 is occurance

2 is weighted average score

3 is winners weighted by attendance

4 is effectiveness (#2/#1)

5 is tournament winning effectiveness (#3/#1)

Honestly, Bombers will improve as global fixes to ordnance creep into the game. They are putting in cheaper missiles/torps and addimg additional ways to get them off. I agree more bomb slots would be nice, but otherwise they are ok.

I don't calculate jousting values of ordnance since they are a one-off.

Ordnance is its own really interesting can of worms. I mean to MathWing it sometime, in detail.

Has to wait for a couple more chapters of my dissertation to be finished first though. ;-)

By the way the column deciphering is helpful, see the Regionals thread.

1 is occurance

2 is weighted average score

3 is winners weighted by attendance

4 is effectiveness (#2/#1)

5 is tournament winning effectiveness (#3/#1)

Thanks, could not find that.

--

Honestly, Bombers will improve as global fixes to ordnance creep into the game. They are putting in cheaper missiles/torps and addimg additional ways to get them off. I agree more bomb slots would be nice, but otherwise they are ok.

Yes, but that simply makes the basic original missiles and torps overcosted and never used.

Also, you may think they're ok, but tournament statistics say that most people would not spend their time using them.

Does anyone know how cost effective bombs are? I have a dreadful time getting them off except against PS2 Zs or Xs. Everyone else either jukes me or BR/Boosts away from it.

I have Regionals stats for bombs too. Seismic Charges occasionally get used.

The other 2 don't.

FYI those are just wave 4 stats. Wave 3 is also somewhat relevant, especially as 5+ rebel swarm starts to catch on more.

You should quote the wave 3 stats too, there are more games so you get a slightly more even distribution of bombs (as in, more than zero for other than seismic)

Do you mind showing me where those are? I don't know.

Also, exactly why do you think Wave 3 is relevant again? I'm just not quite understanding the logic.

Ain't broke.

Don't fix.

As with practically every other ship in the game, all it "really needs" is a System Upgrade slot and a generic with an EPT.

Bombers aren't much of a splash include, you tend to see a bunch of them together.

Having said that 3 Academy pilots is the same points cost as 2 Scimitars with seismic charges. You get more health for your buck (and PS) and probably more damage potential.

The addition of Fleet Officer also increases their usefulness as it makes ordnance slightly more viable (though it still pretty much sucks). The bomber would benefit (as would the Y) of cheaper proton torps, 3 points and I think they are viable at least, 4 points not so much.

...And Jonus is still pretty good with a potential push towards HLC as the meta shifts.

I am not sure there's anything wrong with the bomber as a ship other than terribly priced named pilots, and too few of them. With the multitude of ordnance now they are actually a pretty versatile ship.

I look forward to the day that they have a modification to turn it into the Officer transport version. Doombomber! Marabomber! Ysannebomber (maybe not so much).

The TIE-Bomber is fine as it is. Unfortunately, most of the older ordnance upgrades appear to be overcosted. Munitions Failsafe helps, somewhat, but it's still not a perfect solution.

One very strong card that sees nowhere near as much play as it should is Proximity Mine.

People tend to disregard it because "blah blah blah not guaranteed damage", but what it is really good for is controlling space.

Think about how many games hinge on asteroid placement.

Bombers aren't much of a splash include, you tend to see a bunch of them together.

Having said that 3 Academy pilots is the same points cost as 2 Scimitars with seismic charges. You get more health for your buck (and PS) and probably more damage potential.

The addition of Fleet Officer also increases their usefulness as it makes ordnance slightly more viable (though it still pretty much sucks). The bomber would benefit (as would the Y) of cheaper proton torps, 3 points and I think they are viable at least, 4 points not so much.

...And Jonus is still pretty good with a potential push towards HLC as the meta shifts.

I am not sure there's anything wrong with the bomber as a ship other than terribly priced named pilots, and too few of them. With the multitude of ordnance now they are actually a pretty versatile ship.

I look forward to the day that they have a modification to turn it into the Officer transport version. Doombomber! Marabomber! Ysannebomber (maybe not so much).

If Bombers are more cost effective than Tie Fighters, why don't you see them more? Bombs are not the best tool against Falcons also. Tie fighters have higher damage output. They're more maneuverable.

Again:

TIE Fighter 15.26% 17.55% 25.36% 115.0% 166.1%

TIE Bomber 0.749% 0.644% 0% 85.91% 0%

A crew Bomber could be a lot of fun. =P Though, Vader Bomber doesn't sound cost effective either.

As for:

Ain't broke.

Don't fix.

As with practically every other ship in the game, all it "really needs" is a System Upgrade slot and a generic with an EPT.

I put in the time to also put in objective statements to support my argument. If you want to take this tack, which is brought up every time there is a thread like this, I'd like to ask you to substantiate your given assumption.

A high ps generic with an EPT would be fun too.

Inadequate sample size, metagame not representative of actual relative ship strength, blah blah blah.

Inadequate sample size, metagame not representative of actual relative ship strength, blah blah blah.

Okay. What is the sample size of MJ's stuff? And what would be an adequate sample size?

I'm a ex-poster of Starcraft forums. We have seen this type of argument for over 12 years. It tends to be unsubstantiated because the person with this opinion cannot come up with an adequate sample size that is reliably measurable and simply shrugs and says that its better not to collect data at all and that no data is representative of anything.

Changes to that game are still made on a reaction to a quantitative analysis of results, to the chagrin of those who don't want it changed. (Though in Starcraft, this has to do more with race bias than "ain't broke, don't fix" mentality).

Again also, you have a point to make, and nothing to back it up.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying but I feel this type of argument has been done and isn't particularly logical. Also, a thread like this can only be for fun or home-fixing, as it seems FFG tries to avoid doing what people say here.

I flew an all Bomber list at Regionals. It did pretty well. The things a tank and it carries missiles and bombs. I don't know what you'd really add outside of a lambda pumping out free target locks.

But if you could add tiny little lambda ships into a bomber that would be pretty sweet.

With all that ship it could have a better targeting system I guess, perhaps a range 4 target lock ability.

But really I think the ship is a steal at 16pts.

I flew an all Bomber list at Regionals. It did pretty well. The things a tank and it carries missiles and bombs. I don't know what you'd really add outside of a lambda pumping out free target locks.

But if you could add tiny little lambda ships into a bomber that would be pretty sweet.

With all that ship it could have a better targeting system I guess, perhaps a range 4 target lock ability.

But really I think the ship is a steal at 16pts.

And what about with ordnance? As most have already claimed its good naked, but my proposed idea can't be taken on a naked bomber.

Inadequate sample size, metagame not representative of actual relative ship strength, blah blah blah.

Okay. What is the sample size of MJ's stuff? And what would be an adequate sample size?

I'm a ex-poster of Starcraft forums. We have seen this type of argument for over 12 years. It tends to be unsubstantiated because the person with this opinion cannot come up with an adequate sample size that is reliably measurable and simply shrugs and says that its better not to collect data at all and that no data is representative of anything.

Changes to that game are still made on a reaction to a quantitative analysis of results, to the chagrin of those who don't want it changed. (Though in Starcraft, this has to do more with race bias than "ain't broke, don't fix" mentality).

Again also, you have a point to make, and nothing to back it up.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying but I feel this type of argument has been done and isn't particularly logical. Also, a thread like this can only be for fun or home-fixing, as it seems FFG tries to avoid doing what people say here.

I share in your annoyance, rest assured. It should be intuitively obvious to anyone that data representing matches played by 2000 players over the course of a year is inadequate. Hence my glibness. I, like you, am reluctant to re-hash this silly argument.

Let's agree to disagree and move on with the conversation, yeah?

I think the Bomber has a number of possibilities that have been largely unexplored by the metagame.

Ion Pulse Missiles combined with a bomb or mine makes for a nasty loadout - one that is going to see dramatic improvement with the release of Ion Torpedoes.

Inadequate sample size, metagame not representative of actual relative ship strength, blah blah blah.

Okay. What is the sample size of MJ's stuff? And what would be an adequate sample size?

I'm a ex-poster of Starcraft forums. We have seen this type of argument for over 12 years. It tends to be unsubstantiated because the person with this opinion cannot come up with an adequate sample size that is reliably measurable and simply shrugs and says that its better not to collect data at all and that no data is representative of anything.

Changes to that game are still made on a reaction to a quantitative analysis of results, to the chagrin of those who don't want it changed. (Though in Starcraft, this has to do more with race bias than "ain't broke, don't fix" mentality).

Again also, you have a point to make, and nothing to back it up.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be annoying but I feel this type of argument has been done and isn't particularly logical. Also, a thread like this can only be for fun or home-fixing, as it seems FFG tries to avoid doing what people say here.

I share in your annoyance, rest assured. It should be intuitively obvious to anyone that data representing matches played by 2000 players over the course of a year is inadequate. Hence my glibness. I, like you, am reluctant to re-hash this silly argument.

Let's agree to disagree and move on with the conversation, yeah?

I think the Bomber has a number of possibilities that have been largely unexplored by the metagame.

Ion Pulse Missiles combined with a bomb or mine makes for a nasty loadout - one that is going to see dramatic improvement with the release of Ion Torpedoes.

Yes. Cool. Sorry about that.

Yeah. The ion torps has me excited too. I really want to see one land.

I share in your annoyance, rest assured. It should be intuitively obvious to anyone that data representing matches played by 2000 players over the course of a year is inadequate. Hence my glibness. I, like you, am reluctant to re-hash this silly argument.

Um, a sample size of 2000 is 'intuitively' 'inadequate' only to those people who rely on their intuition to understand this stuff. Those of us who have some training and education in statistics know that a sample size of 2000 is pretty **** respectable.