The numbers are arbitrary because its just a rough example and yes there are variables that are basically impossible to determine without reference to actual game states.

If you are lazy/dont have the time to do testing then you can simply work it out this way:

The nature of upgrades is that they are either relevant or they are not. You break it down to a binary equation.

For example:

ACD is only relevant if the Phantom shoots first, assuming that the player who paid for the ACD is using it for its defensive properties. If you shoot before the phantom the value of the ACD is now 0. Similarly the points paid for Whisper's innate ability and probably V.I as well would be negated. Therefore by shooting first you are basically stripping your opponent of 3 advantages and if you paid less than the cumulative points of those upgrades to shoot first then you have a huge advantage that will force your opponent to react to it or just straight up lose unless they are extremely lucky.

Every ship bar the Imperial Shuttle could potentially out bid Whisper for initiative either through straight up upgrades or through indirect initiative bidding. This makes a strategy dependent on ACD potentially hazardous and 'low value'. Which is why I am avoiding Phantoms as a list to take.

Bad example, bad math, or both. Regardless if a phantom shoots 1st AcD happens when it shoots and effects all choices after. Also, as it seems the development team has noticed, both in recent costing and in recent design, PS has variable return on investment. PS 3 is probably more important than 4 in today's meta but that was not the case 9 months ago. 4 mattered and 5-6 was "big"; now 3 is important, 4-6 irrelevant, and 7-9 key, and 10-11 is the new 6.

I don't understand your "numbers" and disagree with most of your premise, and I'm not a huge math guy. The game is built at 100pts. The farther you get from that, the less value any number has.

ACD is only relevant if the Phantom shoots first, assuming that the player who paid for the ACD is using it for its defensive properties.

But this is a really bad assumption to make. Even when ACD doesn't give you extra defense dice it still gives you another decloak move next turn, which is probably the more important part of ACD. Shooting first negates some of the ACD's value, but not even close to all of it.

Every ship bar the Imperial Shuttle could potentially out bid Whisper for initiative either through straight up upgrades or through indirect initiative bidding. This makes a strategy dependent on ACD potentially hazardous and 'low value'. Which is why I am avoiding Phantoms as a list to take.

But you're assuming here that every ship can make a viable PS bid. For example, taking Ten Numb with VI is almost certainly a bad decision, so b-wings are limited to PS 9 (Farlander + VI) and even that's not always an amazing choice. When you narrow the pool of ships to the pilots and upgrades that are viable choices in general you find that the ACD investment becomes a lot more consistent as only a small number of threats will "negate" it.

See this is the problem. You are all thinking about this in only 2 dimensions. Shooting and Defending. On the board theres a 3rd dimension which is whether or not the ship is in position to be relevant.

For example lets say you are up against Dual Phantoms and the player opts to go for a cautious flanking gambit. If you anticipate his move (which you can from how they deploy + turn 1) you could chase down 1 of the phantoms and even if you dont get it in your firing arcs you are only dealing with 37-40+ points of his list until such a time as he can re position and recover. If you manage to get the phantom in your sights its even better because then its how many points of your guns vs his green dice. If that phantom dies then you now have however many of your points surviving vs his minus that phantom.

This is the key principle surrounding high level play. You need to be able to see the board and work out in advance what is and isn't relevant and work out when they will be relevant. Your key advantage isn't so much what your ships are. Any monkey with an internet connection can download a reference card and/or memorize dials. Your key informational advantage is that you know where your ships are going to go. At best your opponent can guess, and how well he can guess hinges on how experienced he is with your list and vice versa.

Another key advantage you SHOULD have is that you should know what your win and lose states are and maneuver accordingly. For example if you use Y-wings with turrets your win state should be something like having your ships within rb2 of the juiciest targets and play accordingly. Similarly you would actively try to avoid the lose state by trying to minimize the number of guns actually pointing at said ships.

And these are just basic considerations.

Re: ACD - That was an example I used, I am not giving a 'how to' lecture on dealing with phantoms. I am well aware that it gives a free cloak action so admittedly the card still gives some value. How other players have tackled this is by giving stress to said phantom and completely negating ACD as a problem through stuff like rebel captive, stress droid, etc. This is something every player will have to do on their own time and figure out what works for them.

Re: Successful PS bidding - Why is Ten Numb a non viable PS bid?

Because he's super expensive for a not-that-amazing ability.

Re: Successful PS bidding - Why is Ten Numb a non viable PS bid?

Because he's a poor pilot no matter what PS he is.

It depends what you think you are paying for. If you think that you are paying for an ability that is not always relevant then yeah, you are probably getting gypped. But if the concern is PS bidding then you are only paying 2 points over Keyan for a clear and insurmountable advantage (unless your opponent is also doing a PS bid, but the meta currently stops at 9). You must also consider that if you are PS bidding with Keyan then in order to consistently win you will have to short change yourself at LEAST 2 points.

Admittedly that Keyan's ability is far more amazing than Ten's but you should also consider that if you are PS bidding with Keyan then you are giving up your ability to consistently generate stress so the actual 'cost' of PS bidding with Keyan is far higher than PS bidding with Ten.

It depends what you think you are paying for. If you think that you are paying for an ability that is not always relevant then yeah, you are probably getting gypped. But if the concern is PS bidding then you are only paying 2 points over Keyan for a clear and insurmountable advantage (unless your opponent is also doing a PS bid, but the meta currently stops at 9). You must also consider that if you are PS bidding with Keyan then in order to consistently win you will have to short change yourself at LEAST 2 points.

Then, as both options for PS9/10 B-wings are bad, we're not using a B-wing. Which I think was the original point.

It depends what you think you are paying for. If you think that you are paying for an ability that is not always relevant then yeah, you are probably getting gypped. But if the concern is PS bidding then you are only paying 2 points over Keyan for a clear and insurmountable advantage (unless your opponent is also doing a PS bid, but the meta currently stops at 9). You must also consider that if you are PS bidding with Keyan then in order to consistently win you will have to short change yourself at LEAST 2 points.

Then, as both options for PS9/10 B-wings are bad, we're not using a B-wing. Which I think was the original point.

Then that's your call. Experience has shown me that Ten is not the auto discount that people make him out to be as far as PS bidding is concerned. But then again I am thinking about a very specific build for Ten and not Ten taken in a vacuum vs the alternatives.

Your assumption that PS beats all assumes that every point of PS matters more than the last vs. all match ups. PS only matters if you have an ability to change the position of your ship SIGNIFICANTLY vs. all those who went before you. Boost moves you closer: benefit = unless you can kill them first. BR can get you out of range, but that usually puts you out of range to for no benefit. TL is most beneficial! But many ships don't have TL and those that do often Focus or Position instead.

The ships that brutalize you for having higher PS most are the named phantoms, Turr, Jake, Fet. Phantoms have more going on than cloak otherwise they wouldn't survive. Turr and Fet aren't exactly tearing up the meta game right now. Jake has potential, but that remains to be seen and he's pretty low on the list for things people are excited about from Aces.

Every good interceptor pilot knows that your PS only matters if you can do something about it. If your ships can end up where you want them in relation to your opponents, then your opponent isn't up to your level anyway. This game is won way more on the success of your reaction than the success of your origninal action plan.

I completely agree with what Rakky Pistol says. PS is only the most tangible means to allow you to the information of your opponent's final position and action choices, and if you already have these information available through other means (ie. in-game intuition, intel agent etc), PS becomes a moot point.

If we want to compare between Awing, TIEint and TIEphantom, the more important factor would be their ability to reposition themselves. As we have seen, Awing only has boost and 2atk, TIEint has boost + roll and 3atk, TIEphantom has decloak + roll and 4atk, so even if we ignored attack values and assigned them all the same attack value (say 3atk), we can still easily see tha the phantom's ability to decloak every single turn puts it above the TIEint, which is above the Awing

Because he's super expensive for a not-that-amazing ability.

Tell that to Han with VI or Predator. In one case you are almost entirely taking Han for his PS bid, and in the other you are using a card that replicates/overlaps his pilot ability while maintaining a decent PS. If you feel the need to boost his PS, or replicate his ability then Han's ability is clearly not that good. It has it's uses for sure, but if PS didn't matter you would see a lot more of Chewie and Lando. For the most part they are currently extinct (even in double falcon builds most use Han as one of the pair now).

Ten Numb isn't great because of the tendency to pump points into him. At 30 points with PS10 and an ability that actually works "well" when it triggers versus Phantoms and Falcons I don't see why he is a bad choice. Sure he is overcosted, but for a single point you can make him a viable option (if your purpose is to prevent Phantoms running riot). As an anti phantom B-Wing, Ten Numb is better than Keyan. VI is not synergistic for Keyan. Ten doesn't really care about the synergy.

Ten Numb is 31 points basic, adding VI puts him at 32 points, for an ability that rarely triggers unless you build specifically to make it happen (eg. EatingABoat, Marksmanship etc). Basically, you are taking the basic 22pt Blue Bwing, and adding 10points just to pump it to PS10

And yes its true. If you can put your ships where you need them to be while putting your opponents ship out of play then you are better than your opponent. But that's the point isnt it? If you want to win you need to BE better than your opponent no matter what his list is. If you are expecting your list to auto-play you to the finals at worlds then you should probably be playing that other Attack Wing game.

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Phantom.

Do you need to keep your guns on the phantom every turn?

Can you disengage / re-engage?

What p.s. Is the x wing, and how many are there?

I agree, you'll have a tough time with 1 x wing on one phantom, but It's feasible to keep an xwing's guns on a phantom, while flying a pair of them.

And yes its true. If you can put your ships where you need them to be while putting your opponents ship out of play then you are better than your opponent. But that's the point isnt it? If you want to win you need to BE better than your opponent no matter what his list is. If you are expecting your list to auto-play you to the finals at worlds then you should probably be playing that other Attack Wing game.

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Phantom.

In (rough) chronological order.

"No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Phantom.

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Millennium Falcon

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Boba Fett

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Soontir Fel

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Turr Phennir

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Tycho

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Darth Vader"

This problem isn't new. It just has a new player.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People look at phantoms and think they are OP because they are assuming that it has a vast number of phase states compared to its predecessors that have to be considered. The reality is that the number of those phase states WILL be limited by the conditions of the board and the fact that not all the phase states matter. The phantom is still a directional ship. It still needs to be pointing in the direction of a target to matter.

The player who puts the Phantom on the table is declaring that he is the better pilot because his ENTIRE strategy hinges on the premise that he can out guess you WHILE his 4+ attack dice works as a clock.

He literally has no margin for error because if said phantom gets shot at by ANYTHING there a possibility that it could be crippled/blown up. Even if its the primary gun of a HWK at range 3.

Interestingly, Phantoms are poor in asteroid fields as it limits their de-cloack options. How much does asteroid placement come in to people's plans? I rarely read anything about it on these forums.

When do you try and create the engagement? Do you have a plan or is it just "when they're close enough"? Is it worth flying down one side and turn in centre, limiting the phantom's approach to 3 sides? Could you engage from the corner, limiting the approach to 2 sides?

Ignoring lists for a moment, what advice could you (as in, anyone) give people on how to fly, what formations to use, when to engage, when to break, angles to cover, asteroid placement, etc that will help people "Fly better".

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

I don't think anyone is really questioning that a better pilot can generally beat a poorer pilot.

We all know that this is a multivariate situation. Simply put, we have three rough variables (and I know you're talking about different variables, but let's keep this simple):

• flying skill, (S)
• build match-up, and (B)
• probability/dice. (P)

You can write it like so:

X = βS + βB + βP

where X = the outcome, and each of the βs refers to the coefficient of S, B, and P in determining the outcome.

You're arguing that β_S is greater than β_B, and that's perfectly fine. But it also sounds like you're saying that β_B= 0, and that's absurd. Builds matter. They matter especially if the difference in skill between two players approaches zero.

Also, I would say that knowing how to build very competitive builds is also a skill that's learned. That is one of the main reasons for threads like this - to help us learn the skill involved in building; the knowledge of the factors at play, or - the meta - in the broad sense of the term.

I would further add that the current meta has made β_B greater than it was before. It seems to me that that is the bone of contention.

(By the way, mathwingers, if I need to learn my mathgreek a bit better, please let me know.)

The primary advice I give people is manage the information you receive and give away. I have won many games based on my opponent's deployment and I have lost many games through my own sloppy deployment. Be aware of what sort of information you yourself are giving away based on your deployment and through your opening moves.

Beyond that there's too many variables to give any definite advice. You will have to practice with your list and with your opponents lists to get a true feel of what is the most appropriate response. Seek out the strongest opponents you can find and keep playing. And don't feel bad if you get tabled. Every experience is a learning experience, always look at what you could have done better. Losing is just winning deferred for education.

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

I don't think anyone is really questioning that a better pilot can generally beat a poorer pilot.

We all know that this is a multivariate situation. Simply put, we have three rough variables (and I know you're talking about different variables, but let's keep this simple):

• flying skill, (S)
• build match-up, and (B)
• probability/dice. (P)

You can write it like so:

X = βS + βB + βP

where X = the outcome, and each of the βs refers to the coefficient of S, B, and P in determining the outcome.

You're arguing that β_S is greater than β_B, and that's perfectly fine. But it also sounds like you're saying that β_B= 0, and that's absurd. Builds matter. They matter especially if the difference in skill between two players approaches zero.

Also, I would say that knowing how to build very competitive builds is also a skill that's learned. That is one of the main reasons for threads like this - to help us learn the skill involved in building; the knowledge of the factors at play, or - the meta - in the broad sense of the term.

I would further add that the current meta has made β_B greater than it was before. It seems to me that that is the bone of contention.

(By the way, mathwingers, if I need to learn my mathgreek a bit better, please let me know.)

I am actually arguing that the formula for X is more like (βB)^βS/βP where βB = βSh+βU

And Sh + U = Ships + upgrades and S is always 0 until the number of points spent on additional bodies exceeds your opponent's spend on baseline bodies, because all ships are more or less equal due to the costing effect. There are some minor aberrations but the nett effect is more or less balance among the ship types. Therefore βB is really just a round about expression for βU.

To express in another way, in the case of the phantom the baseline phantom is not the problem if it were then 4 sigmas would be the dominating list, the problem is the combination of the upgrades options that creates the problem. Therefore if you can develop a strategy that neutralizes/mitigates the effects of these upgrades you solve the problem.

With some minor differences most ships on both sides have access to the same toolbox of options that are commonly used to deal with the phantom menace. Therefore all ships are potentially viable vs phantoms with any disparity potentially covered by βS and βP.

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Boba Fett

...

This problem isn't new. It just has a new player.

See, this is what they call a "spit-take". Seriously??

This is getting old. I'll point back a few pages to the "Everyone thought Proton Bombs were OP too!" post. It's another good example of a ludicrous argument that bears no relation to reality, and managed to destroy a poster's credibility in one quick stroke.

No. Just... no. Nobody has ever, EVER thought Boba Fett was impossible to keep targeted, or OP. And even if they did, I'll guarantee nobody has ever thought so after actually flying him.

Really - if you're going to try and point to how everyone thought something was untouchable, just please... PLEASE... don't use Fett! You're dancing around a point (and a fair one at that) people have made with far more elegance, and that's fine, but then you go and pull out... Fett???? The common argument with Fett is not how impossible he is to hit, it's whether he's completely useless, or just mostly useless.

The rest of your list is almost as bad. Everyone expects to be able to hit Falcons, the issue is killing them fast enough. Turr and Fel certainly fit the mobile category, but the only of of those that saw major use for a long time was Fel, and it wasn't because of his mobility. A-wings have never had the more important movement option (barrel roll) and the consensus on Vader has been that he just barely makes the TIE Advanced worth flying - BARELY - and that's been since about two months after the game released. There MIGHT have been some of those concerns back before they cleaned up Expert Handling, when people thought Vader would be able to pull a double barrel roll, but since then... No.

You're basically making things up at this point because they sound good.

<chuckle> Boba Fett... hehe.

okay. thred not goin so gud know

No amount of practice is going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a well-flown Boba Fett

...

This problem isn't new. It just has a new player.

See, this is what they call a "spit-take". Seriously??

This is getting old. I'll point back a few pages to the "Everyone thought Proton Bombs were OP too!" post. It's another good example of a ludicrous argument that bears no relation to reality, and managed to destroy a poster's credibility in one quick stroke.

No. Just... no. Nobody has ever, EVER thought Boba Fett was impossible to keep targeted, or OP. And even if they did, I'll guarantee nobody has ever thought so after actually flying him.

Really - if you're going to try and point to how everyone thought something was untouchable, just please... PLEASE... don't use Fett! You're dancing around a point (and a fair one at that) people have made with far more elegance, and that's fine, but then you go and pull out... Fett???? The common argument with Fett is not how impossible he is to hit, it's whether he's completely useless, or just mostly useless.

The rest of your list is almost as bad. Everyone expects to be able to hit Falcons, the issue is killing them fast enough. Turr and Fel certainly fit the mobile category, but the only of of those that saw major use for a long time was Fel, and it wasn't because of his mobility. A-wings have never had the more important movement option (barrel roll) and the consensus on Vader has been that he just barely makes the TIE Advanced worth flying - BARELY - and that's been since about two months after the game released. There MIGHT have been some of those concerns back before they cleaned up Expert Handling, when people thought Vader would be able to pull a double barrel roll, but since then... No.

You're basically making things up at this point because they sound good.

<chuckle> Boba Fett... hehe.

There was actually a time when people thought that Fettigator was untouchable. Yes, it didn't last long but that's the point.

Knee jerk reactions lead to absurdist statements.

People have gravitated towards the whole Falcon > Phantom > Swarm , RPS meta analysis because

Falcon takes away the Phantoms positional advantage, Phantoms positional advantage is very hard to counter with low PS Swarms, and Swarms throw too many dice at the Falcon for it to mitigate effectively with its relatively low return firepower. This is a superficial analysis and one that alot of people; as a knee jerk reaction, have gone all in on because quite frankly they have experienced a small number of games that fall within those parameters. They then come to the conclusion that only these 3 ships/strategies matter.

A more adept mind will look at this and see that in this meta the base fundamentals are

a) Positional advantage matters (Phantom)

b) Depriving your opponent of positional advantage matters (Falcon)

c) Weight of (red) dice matters (Swarm)

If you go deeper you get

a) Positional advantage matters (High PS, movement tricks)

b) Depriving your opponent of positional advantage matters (Turrets, Higher PS, movement tricks)

c) Weight of (red) dice matters (Bigger + more + more reliable guns)

So how do you develop a list to encompass as many of those points as you can? That is the million dollar question.

One possible thing that people have always overlooked is upgrade synergy.

For example in the current meta:

Blue Squadron Pilot — B-Wing 22 Advanced Sensors 3

Roark Garnet — HWK-290 19 Ion Cannon Turret 5

Biggs Darklighter — X-Wing 25

Tarn Mison — X-Wing 23 R2-D6 1 Swarm Tactics 2

Has such good game vs the current meta I am actually ashamed I didn't think of it myself.

In the post Rebel Aces world:

Nera Dantels — B-Wing 26

Swarm Tactics 2

Fire-Control System 2

Heavy Laser Cannon 7

Flechette Torpedoes 2

Flechette Torpedoes 2

Munitions Failsafe 1

Roark Garnet — HWK-290 19

Ion Cannon Turret 5

Jan Ors 2

Biggs Darklighter — X-Wing 25

R2-D6 1

Swarm Tactics 2

Shield Upgrade 4

Is a highly synergistic list that is built to fight Phantoms and would have game vs Fat Han and Swarms as well.

Post Wave 5 (Worlds) Doom Decimators will be a thing too:

Captain Oicunn — VT-49 Decimator 42

Intimidation 2

Darth Vader 3

Rebel Captive 3

Gunner 5

Seismic Charges 2

Anti-Pursuit Lasers 2

Dauntless 2

Obsidian Squadron Pilot — TIE Fighter 13

Obsidian Squadron Pilot — TIE Fighter 13

Obsidian Squadron Pilot — TIE Fighter 13

Seriously bros, the skies the limit on viable builds.

Imperials don't synergize that's dirty and unclean behaviour not suitable to upstanding citizens.

I've always felt the Empires strength was not needing to rely on every pilot being alive to work well, the loss of a big gun early on can severely hamper rebels but because imperial pilots usually effect themselves they can remain effective.

Sure you take a phantom out turn three that's gonna hurt but the rest of the list can still make a fight out of it, take out eatin a boat early thats a big part of the rebel plan shot to heck.

all ships are more or less equal due to the costing effect. There are some minor aberrations but the nett effect is more or less balance among the ship types. Therefore βB is really just a round about expression for βU.

I like a lot of what you're saying, but this is a heckuva assumption resting at the core of your argument. I agree that this is true in a perfect world, where the game balance is ideal and everything is properly costed, but our evidence thus far seems to demonstrate that this is not true.

A Tempest Squadron pilot is not as equally valuable as Rookie Pilot, despite their identical costs. A Blue Squadron pilot is more than 4.7% more powerful and efficient than a Rookie Pilot. These may be minor aberrations, but they matter--especially at higher levels. If all else is equal, the build that can most take advantage of these points will have an advantage.