I speculate that it will cost 15$.

Was just as FLGS. Can confirm. Starvipers, however, are 19.95.

I am guessing 16 points as that is the next point bracket from the 12 point Tie Fighter Headhunter cheap ships is the Tie Bomber at 16 points. Now I am saying this because it does fit the roll for an upgrade dependent ship and by the looks of it the MA-3 is designed to be upgrade heavy.

Now trying to judge the point cost for this ship is a little tricky because while looking at the basic pilot card it looks underwhelming and you wouldn't want to waste 10 points on that ship. However if you look at the title and just start to think of ways to place that ship you will come to the conclusion that no one will field a naked MA-3. You will see stuff like shield upgrades and HLC just as you would see missiles and bombs on a Tie Bomber.

It is not just the stats and dial but what is it role and how it fills it in the squadron. A Tie Interceptor costs more than an A-wing which has less health and less green maneuvers and does not have a way to bring that down.

So saying that it will be only 15 points because that is what a missile-less A-wing with the upgrade card would cost doesn't make a whole argument in my view point.

With my formula (and a X-Wing dial), the PS2 Would be 13, the PS5 would be 16 and Laetin A'shera 18 and Serissu 20.

But that formula also predicts that the Z-95 should be what, 9 points?

Well, if you ONLY focus on the most incorrect ship pilot of my formula, then yes, thats makes my formula terrible. But focusing on the worst result of a group of data is not the best way of qualifying that group of data, is it?

And why do you disregard my guess that bluntly? People here are GUESSING. 100% guess. At least im using some information Ive worked with.

With my formula (and a X-Wing dial), the PS2 Would be 13, the PS5 would be 16 and Laetin A'shera 18 and Serissu 20.

But that formula also predicts that the Z-95 should be what, 9 points?

Well, if you ONLY focus on the most incorrect ship pilot of my formula, then yes, thats makes my formula terrible. But focusing on the worst result of a group of data is not the best way of qualifying that group of data, is it?

And why do you disregard my guess that bluntly? People here are GUESSING. 100% guess. At least im using some information Ive worked with.

You might want to do a bit more reading of these forums before questioning the Major's calculations, he invented mathwing!!!!!

I was not questioning his calculations... we actually said the same number.

With my formula (and a X-Wing dial), the PS2 Would be 13, the PS5 would be 16 and Laetin A'shera 18 and Serissu 20.

But that formula also predicts that the Z-95 should be what, 9 points?

Well, if you ONLY focus on the most incorrect ship pilot of my formula, then yes, thats makes my formula terrible. But focusing on the worst result of a group of data is not the best way of qualifying that group of data, is it?

And why do you disregard my guess that bluntly? People here are GUESSING. 100% guess. At least im using some information Ive worked with.

Actually yes. When looking at predictive models you do have to look at the worst result(s) of a group of data.

And why do you disregard my guess that bluntly? People here are GUESSING. 100% guess. At least im using some information Ive worked with.

I used logic when I posted my guess on the first pages. But some ppl don't appreciate thinking and let themselves be driven by emotions. 14pts for the scyk seems to be too low for some, but recap what this ship does: No damage. Without the dial we can't tell anything about its role, but the stats say Tie Fighter. The title allows weapon-upgrades, but it costs another 2 pts. If the Base is too expansive you have to Pay a lot to get a ship with a gun, but still being squishy.

14pts Base + 2pts upgrade + 7pts HLC makes a 23pts PS 2 weapon with 3 life. When do you think this thing can shoot anyone?

Actually yes. When looking at predictive models you do have to look at the worst result(s) of a group of data.

So... If I guessed 99 numbers but I was wrong in the last 1 number by a large stretch, It would be the worst predictive model?

I think thats why there are means, models and medians...

You have to look at the worst result of something, but you dont have to define it or disregard it for that result. The mean of my formula is 1 point off, that includes the HWKs and the Z-95 which are my worse calculations.

As MajorJuggler said in another thread the main flaw of my formula is that it is empiric and it just "fits" there is no reasoning behind it, its done just by rising the value of one thing and lowering the value of another. But that doesnt make it less precise or helpful. Particularly when we are talking about numbers that are NOT calculated by a formula, they are calculated by subjetive playtesting. And even then, you have official ships that are overcosted and undercosted.

In 93 pilot cards we have so far, only 8 of them are off by more than 2 points. 4 of them are the HWKs.

I get the feeling some people think 14 is too cheap because for 2 points you add a lot of options and then they get overpowered. Calculating the title in the base cost of the model which is wrong. If 2 points is too cheap for the upgrade, the upgrade should cost 3 or 4, not raise the cost of the ship beyond 15 max and 15 would be too much if you ask me.

You can calculate the slots it's printed with, which is none actually. Slightly better tie fighter, that's how I'd call it.

I am guessing 16 points as that is the next point bracket from the 12 point Tie Fighter Headhunter cheap ships is the Tie Bomber at 16 points. Now I am saying this because it does fit the roll for an upgrade dependent ship and by the looks of it the MA-3 is designed to be upgrade heavy.

16 points for a 2/3/2/1 stat line, when you can get a 2/2/2/2 Headhunter for (probably) 12 points? That would be a worse mistake than the TIE Advanced--far worse, since we know a lot more about the game now than they did when Wave 1 costs were determined.

Or, to put it another way: part of the reason a Scimitar Squadron Pilot costs 4 points more than an Academy Pilot is that the Bomber is more durable. But a Scyk isn't particularly more durable than a Headhunter, and it has the same Attack value, which means you're left struggling to use the barrel roll action and the Scyk's dial to explain a 4-point difference.

Now trying to judge the point cost for this ship is a little tricky because while looking at the basic pilot card it looks underwhelming and you wouldn't want to waste 10 points on that ship.

If the base Scyk were 10 points I would buy 10 of them and so would everyone else.

I probably wouldn't pay 15 points for it, and it seems unlikely to be 12, but 13-14 seems reasonable.

However if you look at the title and just start to think of ways to place that ship you will come to the conclusion that no one will field a naked MA-3. You will see stuff like shield upgrades and HLC just as you would see missiles and bombs on a Tie Bomber.

That really depends on the dial, I think. At least judging by the GenCon interview, the designers seem to think the naked, swarmy Scyk will be a viable choice.

It is not just the stats and dial but what is it role and how it fills it in the squadron. A Tie Interceptor costs more than an A-wing which has less health and less green maneuvers and does not have a way to bring that down.

If only there were something about the stat line that could tell us why a PS1 TIE Interceptor is worth more than a PS1 A-wing...

Actually yes. When looking at predictive models you do have to look at the worst result(s) of a group of data.

So... If I guessed 99 numbers but I was wrong in the last 1 number by a large stretch, It would be the worst predictive model?

I think thats why there are means, models and medians...

You have to look at the worst result of something, but you dont have to define it or disregard it for that result. The mean of my formula is 1 point off, that includes the HWKs and the Z-95 which are my worse calculations.

As MajorJuggler said in another thread the main flaw of my formula is that it is empiric and it just "fits" there is no reasoning behind it, its done just by rising the value of one thing and lowering the value of another. But that doesnt make it less precise or helpful. Particularly when we are talking about numbers that are NOT calculated by a formula, they are calculated by subjetive playtesting. And even then, you have official ships that are overcosted and undercosted.

An empirical regression has two major problems:

(1) Given a census of objects and their properties, you can achieve an arbitrarily close overall model fit. But doing so can lead to a technical problem called overfitting: essentially, you start modeling error in addition to modeling fundamental differences in the properties of objects, and overfitted models tend to have poor predictive performance even if they have excellent fit to observed data.

(2) Without an underlying rationale for linking an object's property to the model, the model will lack explanatory power even if it achieves a very close fit. Your formula adds 5*(Attack-1.2) = (5*Attack)-6 to the total cost of the ship, but why is it modeled that way? What do those parameters represent in the game? Why is Attack centered at 1.2?

I can see 13 pts, because of Target Lock. But the stats don't really justify a major change to cost when compared to a Z-95 or TIE Fighter. With as little HP it has, shield vs hull is almost meaningless. I don't see being able to run 4 of these with a HLC and some other potential modification as being overpowered. 4 Phantoms aren't exactly burning up the tables.

OMG I have stated this several times but I will state it again since no one ever listens to me: The PS8 pilot is 20 points. Assuming this ship follows standard protocol, subtract 6 points to get the PS2 generic. That makes it 14 points cheapest. The only variables are A. The pilot may pay for his ability (unlikely) and B. It's a trump ship like the Defender where 1 PS doesn't equal 1 point(again unlikely). I just don't understand why so much speculation goes into this when it is almost a given that it will be 14 points.

+1 Apparently I reached my like quota.

+1 again!

With my formula (and a X-Wing dial), the PS2 Would be 13, the PS5 would be 16 and Laetin A'shera 18 and Serissu 20.

But that formula also predicts that the Z-95 should be what, 9 points?

Well, if you ONLY focus on the most incorrect ship pilot of my formula, then yes, thats makes my formula terrible. But focusing on the worst result of a group of data is not the best way of qualifying that group of data, is it?

And why do you disregard my guess that bluntly? People here are GUESSING. 100% guess. At least im using some information Ive worked with.

You might want to do a bit more reading of these forums before questioning the Major's calculations, he invented mathwing!!!!!

Pfffft... well saying I invented it is almost certainly taking it a bit far!

Re: regression formulas: what Vorpal Sword said.

It is important to note that even when using numerical models and you think you do know the underlying mechanics, you still have to be careful. For example, I recently retooled my durability calculations to consider the average number of shots required to kill it, rather than its hit points divided by its average damage intake, the result was that larger HP ships ended up looking less durable.

In the case of a 3 hit point ship, however, this is a non-issue. I would be very surprised if the PS2 was not 13 or 14 points. You don't really need extensive MathWing to come to this conclusion, although it does help quantify the efficiency. Figuring out the actual combat "value" of a 3 hit point HLC glass cannon is more difficult, so MathWing does help more there.

I would be very surprised if the PS2 was not 13 or 14 points. You don't really need extensive MathWing to come to this conclusion, although it does help quantify the efficiency. Figuring out the actual combat "value" of a 3 hit point HLC glass cannon is more difficult, so MathWing does help more there.

I strongly suspect that we'll see occasional HLC Scyks in the metagame, because if you're looking for a hard-hitting flanker the ability to mount an HLC on a relatively inexpensive ship will outweigh the comparative lack of efficiency. Even the cheapest generic Scyk--let's say 24 points with the HLC, although I'm sure it'll be lower--forces your opponent to consider whether to engage it or eat several shots at 4 Attack while it slow-rolls along the edge of the combat, and that's a nice thing to have in your strategic toolkit even if you pay a premium to get it.

What I think we'll see a lot more of, though, is the Scyk carrying an Ion Cannon or Mango Cannon (with some reasonable assumptions about what the latter does), as well as naked Scyks for those who want an agile knife-fighter enough to pay a little more than they would for the pure jousting efficiency of the Headhunter.

I strongly suspect that we'll see occasional HLC Scyks in the metagame, because if you're looking for a hard-hitting flanker the ability to mount an HLC on a relatively inexpensive ship will outweigh the comparative lack of efficiency. Even the cheapest generic Scyk--let's say 24 points with the HLC, although I'm sure it'll be lower--forces your opponent to consider whether to engage it or eat several shots at 4 Attack while it slow-rolls along the edge of the combat, and that's a nice thing to have in your strategic toolkit even if you pay a premium to get it.

What I think we'll see a lot more of, though, is the Scyk carrying an Ion Cannon or Mango Cannon (with some reasonable assumptions about what the latter does), as well as naked Scyks for those who want an agile knife-fighter enough to pay a little more than they would for the pure jousting efficiency of the Headhunter.

Yeah, glass cannons are amazing value if they are not getting shot at, so a single low 20-point flanking ship could be a common tactic. If you turn to fight the lone flanker then you open yourself up to inferior positioning against the main fleet. It's kind of like flying Backstabber off to the side, but more extreme.

I am guessing 16 points as that is the next point bracket from the 12 point Tie Fighter Headhunter cheap ships is the Tie Bomber at 16 points. Now I am saying this because it does fit the roll for an upgrade dependent ship and by the looks of it the MA-3 is designed to be upgrade heavy.

16 points for a 2/3/2/1 stat line, when you can get a 2/2/2/2 Headhunter for (probably) 12 points? That would be a worse mistake than the TIE Advanced--far worse, since we know a lot more about the game now than they did when Wave 1 costs were determined.Or, to put it another way: part of the reason a Scimitar Squadron Pilot costs 4 points more than an Academy Pilot is that the Bomber is more durable. But a Scyk isn't particularly more durable than a Headhunter, and it has the same Attack value, which means you're left struggling to use the barrel roll action and the Scyk's dial to explain a 4-point difference.

Now trying to judge the point cost for this ship is a little tricky because while looking at the basic pilot card it looks underwhelming and you wouldn't want to waste 10 points on that ship.

If the base Scyk were 10 points I would buy 10 of them and so would everyone else.I probably wouldn't pay 15 points for it, and it seems unlikely to be 12, but 13-14 seems reasonable.

However if you look at the title and just start to think of ways to place that ship you will come to the conclusion that no one will field a naked MA-3. You will see stuff like shield upgrades and HLC just as you would see missiles and bombs on a Tie Bomber.

That really depends on the dial, I think. At least judging by the GenCon interview, the designers seem to think the naked, swarmy Scyk will be a viable choice.

It is not just the stats and dial but what is it role and how it fills it in the squadron. A Tie Interceptor costs more than an A-wing which has less health and less green maneuvers and does not have a way to bring that down.

If only there were something about the stat line that could tell us why a PS1 TIE Interceptor is worth more than a PS1 A-wing...

Still the whole 15 points is what a refit A-wing cost doesn't sell me that the MA-3 will be 15 points because obviously the MA-3 is not an A-wing. I don't think it will be 12 because they already have a ship for the cheap swarm roll. Again it is the question about what roll will the ship play. Using the number system to calculate the value would again put Tie Fighters at 9 points. It is obviously not 9 points as you said before because if it were people would just buy 10 and have the largest swarm. So using empirical formulas doesn't always equal balanced.

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

And in this forum yes we do talk about the X-wing miniatures game. I am just as capable of sarcasm as your clever little emote.

I'm betting on interceptor to awing dial and 13-14pts will depend on the new cannons.

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

2 attack + target lock + focus is more likely to get 2 hits than 3 attack plus focus. Yeah the Tie Interceptor has more potential for damage in getting up to 4 hits but the A-wing natural Target lock makes it more consistent. You could argue that Interceptors can get targeting computer modification but that becomes a lot of points tied to only 3 hull.

And in this forum yes we do talk about the X-wing miniatures game. I am just as capable of sarcasm as your clever little emote.

My math might be wrong but 3 attack dice with focus average 2.25 so that's .25 over the maximum of a 2 attack dice with TL+Focus. How can it be better, even excluding the fact that Interceptor can go up to 3 hits?

http://www.xwingdice.com/

(not my web app, I have my own scripts)

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

2 attack + target lock + focus is more likely to get 2 hits than 3 attack plus focus. Yeah the Tie Interceptor has more potential for damage in getting up to 4 hits but the A-wing natural Target lock makes it more consistent.

This is a simplification, but it gives us our expected average success rate:

A-Wing (2 Attack, Focus, TL)

(.75 + .1875) * 2 = 1.875 expected hits

TIE Int (3 Attack, Focus)

(.5 + .25) * 3 = 2.25 expected hits

Given those conditions, A-Wings can expect to make almost .5 hits less on every attack roll.

Don't spout off nonsense.

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

2 attack + target lock + focus is more likely to get 2 hits than 3 attack plus focus. Yeah the Tie Interceptor has more potential for damage in getting up to 4 hits but the A-wing natural Target lock makes it more consistent.

Credibility gone. Don't make claims like this without at least checking them out first.

This is a simplification, but it gives us our expected average success rate:

A-Wing (2 Attack, Focus, TL)

(.75 + .1875) * 2 = 1.875 expected hits

TIE Int (3 Attack, Focus)

(.5 + .25) * 3 = 2.25 expected hits

Given those conditions, A-Wings can expect to make almost .5 hits less on every attack roll.

Don't spout off nonsense.

Now statistics can help in predicting results but the reality is that situations don't always follow statistics, and I have observed and experienced many dice and card results that attest to that fact. Some call it rolling under par as in rolling 6 D6 and only getting two that are 3+. Statistics don't promise results. If you have a 70% chance of success and still failed you can't say statistics lied, after all you did have a 30% of failing which you did.

Now of course TL doesn't turn blanks into hits it just allows you to reroll them. With my luck after rolling 2 blanks I would just roll another 2 blanks. In that case it wouldn't matter If I had 2 or 5 dice, quantum mechanics of probability has declared I loose.

Not sure how any of us MathWing people can argue when your grasp of statistics is that bad...

For that the obvious is the firepower value however the A-wing has target lock and with PTL it's firepower can equal or rivals the Tie Interceptor with PTL.

Are you actually really claiming that a A-Wing with PtL has the same, maybe even more, firepower than a Tie Interceptor with PtL!? Or have I missed the part where we started talking about another game.

2 attack + target lock + focus is more likely to get 2 hits than 3 attack plus focus. Yeah the Tie Interceptor has more potential for damage in getting up to 4 hits but the A-wing natural Target lock makes it more consistent.

Credibility gone. Don't make claims like this without at least checking them out first.

This is a simplification, but it gives us our expected average success rate:

A-Wing (2 Attack, Focus, TL)

(.75 + .1875) * 2 = 1.875 expected hits

TIE Int (3 Attack, Focus)

(.5 + .25) * 3 = 2.25 expected hits

Given those conditions, A-Wings can expect to make almost .5 hits less on every attack roll.

Don't spout off nonsense.

You mean like a .5 hit? Is that a half way between a focus and a hit or between a focus and a miss? Okay jokes about the nonsensical aside with a target lock you get a chance to modify blanks assuming you meet the other conditions. Without it blanks are straight up misses.

Now statistics can help in predicting results but the reality is that situations don't always follow statistics, and I have observed and experienced many dice and card results that attest to that fact. Some call it rolling under par as in rolling 6 D6 and only getting two that are 3+. Statistics don't promise results. If you have a 70% chance of success and still failed you can't say statistics lied, after all you did have a 30% of failing which you did.

Now of course TL doesn't turn blanks into hits it just allows you to reroll them. With my luck after rolling 2 blanks I would just roll another 2 blanks. In that case it wouldn't matter If I had 2 or 5 dice, quantum mechanics of probability has declared I loose.

I think you misunderstood firepower with consistency. If your goal is not to do as much damage as possible (more hits) but just to hit in the first place, you might be better served with the A-Wing, but even then not by much, so let's see with the link Major just sent (Thanks Major!)

A-Wing+Focus+TL

0 hit: 00.4%

1 hit: 11.7%

2 hit: 87.9%

Interceptor+Focus

0 hit: 01.6%

1 hit: 14.1%

2 hit: 42.2%

3 hit: 42.2%

So, you are 1.2% more likely to miss completely with the Interceptor and have 3.5% more chance to do 2 hit+ with the A-Wing. Of course, you have 42.2% chance to do more damage with the Interceptor than what the A-Wing can achieve so, in my book, that is more firepower than a A-Wing. So, if all you're looking for is consistency, you might be better serve with the A-Wing, but I'll remind you that consistency means jack on a 2 dice ship when you are firing against the Ship of the Month (Falcon with 3PO+Evade) and is easier to dodge. On the long run, you'll still be better serve with the Interceptor than with the A-Wing, because it has more firepower.

For the long run, let's say both ship fire 100 times and use those statistics above to determine damage:

A-Wing (0x0) 0 + (12x1) 12 + (88x2) 176 = 188 total damage (or 1.88 hits per shot average)

Tie Interceptor (0x2) 0 + (14x1) 14 + (42x2) 84 + (42x3) 126 = 224 total damage (or 2.24 hits per shot average)