Bombers suck because bombs suck. Good bombs would make this craft worth the points.

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.

Depends on the system complexity, and on just what your 2000 samples are measuring.

Don't be obtuse.

I won't claim to be the most experienced X-Wing player, but I think the issues still lie with ordinance, rather than the ship itself.

I own a decent amount of Rebel and Empire, and I do own a Tie Bomber. I'm still dabbling with my list building, but here's the things I've noticed.

Target lock

Torps and Missiles require a target lock to fire. This stops you performing other actions both defensive and offensive, just to fire the weapon. So no barrel rolling out of firing arcs, no evades or focuses. Makes you more vulnerable, or less offensive. The second part of the target lock problem is that low PS ships are less likely to be in range when they move to gain the target lock, so they will need to weather a turn of fire, AND be in position next turn to fire.

Single Shot

This is somewhat mitigated by munitions failsafe, but you're increasing the cost of your ordinance. An Ion Missile is 2 points requires a target lock, does 1 damage, causes 2 ion tokens, and with munitions failsafe, it's 3 points. Compared to an ion cannon which is 3 points, doesn't require target lock (but functions better if you do), does 1 damage, causes 1 ion tokens and can be fired every time you want. For the same points cost, you lose 1 ion token to be able to fire it better and all the time.

Cost

Touched on briefly above, but the cost of ordinance is too much for what is a 1 shot weapon. If I gave my bomber an assault missle to put pressure on swarms, an ion missile to threaten key ships and a failsafe because I'm already investing a lot, I'm sitting at 24 points and I'm still not that confident that it will do what it needs to do when it needs to do it. The bomber will probably be around for quite some time, so I think the platform is solid, it's just not reliable, not for the points.

This is why ships with ordinance are rarely equipped with ordinance, and specialist ordinance carriers are just not as good as a turret or cannon equipped ships. Much prefer a Defender with an ion cannon or HLC than a bomber with missiles or torpedoes. The bomber never makes it into my lists.

I do run Lt Blount, I think his ability is really solid, even so it's never for direct damage, only for secondary effects. I currently run him with an ion missile to scare Phantoms and Soontier Fel because seriously, screw those guys.

If I were to change the way ordinance works I'd look:

1) Remove the requirement to spend the target lock. You'd still only be able to fire ordinance on a ship you have a target lock on, but you wouldn't *spend* the target lock to make the attack. You could then spend the target lock to reroll the attack if it failed. Makes ordinance much more reliable, but it still keeps it limited enough. (Funnily enough, when I first read the rules, I thought this was how it worked)

2) Remove the 1 shot nature of the ordinance. Either by upping the hard limit (each has enough for 2 shots) or by doing it on a die roll (every time you make an attack roll an attack die, on a blank or eye, you have run out of missiles). Munitions failsafe would need to be reworded if you went for the second option.

3) Drop the cost. Most would be 1 or 2 points, with the really heavy hitters being 3 points. Nothing over that.

The bomber itself I think is fine. The mechanic it specialises in is weak, so I struggle to find a use for it.

I'd like a cheap EPT bomber, like royal guard, to get deadeye (if low PS), PTL for focus/TL, etc.

One thing i think bombers and a lot of other ships in the game need is a generic pilot with an EPT. This could come into play a whole lot now, especially since we have Epic games. I think EVERY ship should have a generic pilot with EPT.

For instance, I love the Defender, but there's only one named pilot I'd ever really use, and only 2 pilots (both of which are names uniques) that have EPTs.

All the bomber pilots only get benefits specifically geared towards secondary weapons. I get that they are bombers and all. I'd honestly wish it considered maybe a seismic charge as a primary, unlimited ammo sort of weapon, with front blasters as secondary, maybe. Unlimited seismic charges (one on the field at a time, per bomber) would definitely make the TIE bomber a high value ship, but it's not anywhere near unkillable. I'd say it was a glass cannon, but I think in this case, would be more of a glass... egg layer?

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.

Depends on the system complexity, and on just what your 2000 samples are measuring.

Don't be obtuse.

Oh, 'depends on system complexity'! Well, that sounds like a condition that is a bit beyond 'intuitively obvious to anyone'.

My mistake. I had taken you for a statistics-rejecter.

So, please enlighten me: characterize this system's degree of complexity over the more usual uses of statistics (e.g. voter behavior), and tell me what sample size we should need to draw reasonable inferences with a high enough level of confidence and a low enough margin or error.

In the meantime, could you show me a better dataset than MajorJuggler's?

I'd rather see some sort of "Fully Loaded" modification, restricted to Y-wings and Bombers that let's them reuse ordnance. Then the heavy one-shot weapons can actually see some use. Having multiple slots allows multiple options at a time, so you can have APT/PT and choose when to use them. Once the weapon is used, it goes inactive and the mod allows you an action to rearm whatever it is, so as to avoid missile spam.

@Lilikin: Bombs suck? Sorry but that's rubbish! Bombs are an additional attack that don't cost an action (apart from the never-used mine) and the damage can't be defended/avoided. A whole Tie swarm fits into range 1 around a bomb and the cheapest one only costs 2 points. The Proton Bomb can cause crits no matter if the enemy ship has shields or not. What about all that sucks exactly?

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.

Depends on the system complexity, and on just what your 2000 samples are measuring.

Don't be obtuse.

Introverdant, what is your background on statistics?

You may be correct, but without a rigorous technical approach that numerically quantifies the statistical certainties, you have not actually said anything meaningful.

Well, what about something simple that shifts the opportunity cost... something like this:

Prolific Munitions

Modification

Cost 2 (possibly 3 as it would force multiple systems to be taken to be of benefit)

Effect: Reduces the cost of secondary weapons by 2 (not sure if bombs are considered secondary or not...)

My thoughts are that it would allow TIE Bombers to load up at a reduced cost but still have the cost incured. A single weapon system is going to cost the same so would only benefit multiple buys. Off the top of my head this would directly help the following:

TIE Bomber

TIE Defender (only because it has a Secondary Gun and an ordnance slot)

Firespray

Y-Wing

B-Wing

This way it allows additional munitions to be released that follow the same build design but gives some relief to those ships designed to have a larger ordnance payloads

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.

You don't see Bombers more often because the metagame is conservative. They really are nearly as efficient as TIE Fighters on offense, with some advantages in their dial (e.g., slow-rolling) and typically better defensive efficiency.

@Lilikin: Bombs suck? Sorry but that's rubbish! Bombs are an additional attack that don't cost an action (apart from the never-used mine) and the damage can't be defended/avoided. A whole Tie swarm fits into range 1 around a bomb and the cheapest one only costs 2 points. The Proton Bomb can cause crits no matter if the enemy ship has shields or not. What about all that sucks exactly?

I... like using the mines. More so than the other two. Are they really not used much? I like the fact that they sit there and wait, and don't blow up until someone makes it blow up. It's much easier to use them, I think, than the bombs, because you can't always predict where someone is flying to. It's a one shot deal, and if you guess wrong, it goes away without hurting anybody.

@Lilikin: Bombs suck? Sorry but that's rubbish! Bombs are an additional attack that don't cost an action (apart from the never-used mine) and the damage can't be defended/avoided. A whole Tie swarm fits into range 1 around a bomb and the cheapest one only costs 2 points. The Proton Bomb can cause crits no matter if the enemy ship has shields or not. What about all that sucks exactly?

I... like using the mines. More so than the other two. Are they really not used much? I like the fact that they sit there and wait, and don't blow up until someone makes it blow up. It's much easier to use them, I think, than the bombs, because you can't always predict where someone is flying to. It's a one shot deal, and if you guess wrong, it goes away without hurting anybody.

The big objection, I think, is the action cost. At least, that's MY big objection.

wait that makes prox mines even easier to lay down. Fly in front of a higher PS guy and watch him cry.

Also, if you drop a prox mine right under a Phantom, since the radius is larger, doesnt that mean that whichever way he decides to decloak he will go through it?

...

Is that really how it works? Seems a little overpowered. Am i missing something here?

wait that makes prox mines even easier to lay down. Fly in front of a higher PS guy and watch him cry.

Also, if you drop a prox mine right under a Phantom, since the radius is larger, doesnt that mean that whichever way he decides to decloak he will go through it?

...

Is that really how it works? Seems a little overpowered. Am i missing something here?

If you can manage to place your mine token exactly centered on the Phantom's base, then yes, that's exactly how it works.

Ouch. I am going to try that.

wait that makes prox mines even easier to lay down. Fly in front of a higher PS guy and watch him cry.

Also, if you drop a prox mine right under a Phantom, since the radius is larger, doesnt that mean that whichever way he decides to decloak he will go through it?

...

Is that really how it works? Seems a little overpowered. Am i missing something here?

If you can manage to place your mine token exactly centered on the Phantom's base, then yes, that's exactly how it works.

There's an FAQ tidbit that specifies this.

"Note that a Proximity Mine token that is dropped on a ship is placed under the ship's base and does not immediately detonate. A ship is only considered overlapping a Proximity mine token when it executes a maneuver, decloaks, or performs a boost or barrel roll."

So, it won't explode immediately. Other ships technically have a chance to go through the mine first, which could keep you from hitting the phantom with it. Pretty unlikely scenario, but it's something to think about

How is his background relevant? An argument is correct or it isn't. Amateurs should be able to win arguments against professors.

Inference becomes exponentially harder with increasing system complexity. Maybe that's what he was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality

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.

Depends on the system complexity, and on just what your 2000 samples are measuring.

Don't be obtuse.

Introverdant, what is your background on statistics?

You may be correct, but without a rigorous technical approach that numerically quantifies the statistical certainties, you have not actually said anything meaningful.

How is his background relevant? An argument is correct or it isn't. Amateurs should be able to win arguments against professors.

Inference becomes exponentially harder with increasing system complexity. Maybe that's what he was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality

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.

Depends on the system complexity, and on just what your 2000 samples are measuring.

Don't be obtuse.

Introverdant, what is your background on statistics?

You may be correct, but without a rigorous technical approach that numerically quantifies the statistical certainties, you have not actually said anything meaningful.

This assumes the amateur is still using all of his terms and information correctly. Also still any argument is better served with some backing data. Also, experience in the field can lead to drastically better holistic understanding of the situation.

Are you going to tell an architect that you know better how to build a bridge?

Or perhaps you think because you have an opinion it entitles you to be listened to? Will you tell me how music works on a functional and acoustical level when I have spent the last ten years of my life studying and working with the subject?

The US constitution does not give you "free speech". Not "freedom to speak whatever you want". It serves as a protection against your rights being infringed upon by the federal government only and to some extent the state government.

Simply because you have an opinion does not mean it's valid or equal or worth listening to.

"Volatile"
If the ship is destroyed, its carried munitions detonate and effect all ships within range 1 in a radius around itself. This cannot be used if its munitions have been fired already. 3 Points.

TL;DR: Everyone talking about sample size so far in this thread needs to take a step back from the brink and consider his or her terminology.

***

I'm not replying to anyone in particular because I don't feel like sorting through that particular mess, but if you're arguing that the sample size in this case is either sufficient or insufficient, then you're wrong. Or, rather, you're not even wrong.

Two points are relevant:

(1) Our only measurement tool is tournament results, which have a large amount of noise. (How much noise do they have? I wouldn't know how to begin to quantify it--or rather I do know how, and it's entirely infeasible.) Accordingly, if we were sampling in the technical sense, we'd need a very big sample--but it's infeasible to determine how big.

(2) There is a sample taken here, sort of, but MJ isn't the one doing it--people enter the sampling frame if and only if they decide to attend a particular tournament. But in a technical sense, then, MJ isn't sampling at all, but rather taking a census of a self-selected population; that means that questioning the overall sample size is meaningless. He's already getting all the data there is to get, so you can't effectively criticize him for not getting more.

The only way to argue that the sample size is insufficient is to combine those points and say that the number of people who self-select into tournaments while using a particular ship--say, the HWK--is so small that its effectiveness (or lack thereof) can't be distinguished from the error that characterizes our measurements.

But "sample size" is a misleading way to talk about that problem. A sample size problem usually means insufficient statistical power to test an effect of a particular size at a particular level of significance; here, the only valid use of "sample size" would instead mean that MJ's census contains too few representatives of a particular group to support an assumption of randomly distributed error. But again, there's no way to know how many ships/lists we would need to support that assumption without knowing a great deal more about the error process than we do.

I don't think the TIE bomber is broken. It is a very FUN ship, and there are a few tweaks that could be made, but IMO toughness is really NOT an issue.

First off, it benefits from EACH new missile, Torpedo, and Bomb that are released. Even the proton rocket can do max damage from a bomber with stealth device.

Second, it is cheap and has a ton of hull.

Third, it is the only Imperial fighter (small base) with a 1 forward, allowing it a unique level of approach control with the empire.

And lastly, the 2 named pilots that come with bombers are awesome. Jonus is used a TON, and Rhymer is especially useful for modifying all those special new ordinance range limitations... like being able to fire a proton rocket from the edge of range 2.

I WOULD love to see some extra options for the bomber in the future, but it is a little lower on my priority list. I'd love to see:

• A way to carry multiple bombs.
• A way to drop a bomb using a different template besides the 1. Perhaps a curved template?
• A NEW type of bomb. (Maybe a Sentry Turret with 1 hull and zero agility).
• A Pilot Skill 9 bomber pilot, for those perfectly placed proton bombs.
• And a way to fire all your ordinance in one powerful, risky, and expensive blazing salvo of glory.

TL;DR: Everyone talking about sample size so far in this thread needs to take a step back from the brink and consider his or her terminology.

But "sample size" is a misleading way to talk about that problem. A sample size problem usually means insufficient statistical power to test an effect of a particular size at a particular level of significance; here, the only valid use of "sample size" would instead mean that MJ's census contains too few representatives of a particular group to support an assumption of randomly distributed error. But again, there's no way to know how many ships/lists we would need to support that assumption without knowing a great deal more about the error process than we do.

Your critique of the terminology is certainly fair. The data that the Major collects is certainly not a simple random sample of builds being played of the X-Wing game. As such, there are a TON of caveats that anyone should make trying to draw inferences about that population.

However, I would suggest that the data does represent a significant number of observations of X-Wing being played at the highest skill levels. Also, because it's the one known dataset that people watch, it influences how a wider audience plays. It's both descriptive and prescriptive in that regard.

Given that, I do think it's fair to take some very significant cues from that data, and to toss it off based on an insufficient number is, well... I think the word was 'obtuse'.

Regarding the comment on complexity, I think what we're looking at is how prevalent the bomber's use in lists is. That's not a particularly complex question. It's merely having a reasonable guess at a frequency.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Blail Blerg's OP finding that the Bomber being out of style means that it's an inadequate ship that needs to be fixed. I love the bomber. I've got four and they see frequent use. I'll probably be bringing some to my next tournament.

That said, I do trust MJ when he says that ordnance seems overcosted, even though he offers the caution that he hasn't mathwinged it out. That's not going to stop me from using ordnance. I'm loading ordnance because I think it'll be a great way to take down that **** Phantom should I cross paths with it. That, and I love the smell of ion pulse in the morning.

All that said, I do think that the bomber ain't a bomber if it's not being loaded up with bombs (ordnance). It really should have a benefit to loading ordnance other than the number it can carry, because carrying an extraordinary amount is ... obtuse. So, would I like a title card that gives me a 1 point off coupon per missile? Hell, yeah!

The only issue I've ever had with the bomber (my favorite and most flown imperial ship) is that of all the ordinance it carries, it only has a single bomb... Two would have been pro and been fairly cost effective as seismics are cheap.

At least for me, the best way to improuve Bomber is make a mod. specific for second weapons, like:

"Bomber only, you dont need to spend TL in order to attack with missile and torpedos."

or" after you attack with secondary weapon, add a TL to that ship"

Anyway, it should be some mod/upgrade related with the main spec of this ship: bombs!