It seems obvious, but missing from the comments, btl-a4 ion allows for repeated ion, and the primary attack, which means, before, the b-wing that required 8 ion hits to destroy, requires far fewer hits, because you can land the additional damage.

It also means, you're effectively adding an additional ship for the cost of the turret. Just pretend that ship is overlapping the y-wing exactly. 2 z95-s cost 24, for two two attack ships, a single y wing with blaster cannon and btl a4 is 22 points. Gives us enough room for an astromech, or bomb. We already know 3 dice give expected damage similar to 2+ focus. It's giving up the action on the first shot that seems not as great, but often our bandits spent that focus on defense, which the extra hull/shield of the y wing sorta gives us a defensive boost anyway., so the offensive profile is about the same.

What I find interesting is the number of people talking about full squads of these. I think it's the one or two mixed in a squad that's going to be very good. Super friends will love this... Dutch + r2d6 + predator and a blaster cannon + a4 + Garven/Kyle ought to do well.

Alternately you could use a Dutch BTLA4 with R2-D6, Opportunist, and Blaster Turret. At range 1 you could do 7 points of damage ( excluding crits) but with the risk of missing more. Maybe give this on stree support instead of focus.

Ether way I call this build the "Siberian Express". What ever he hits he destroys, or causes serious drain bamage.

Fat Han: lalala no one can hurt me err who the HELL ARE YOU!?

Siberian Express: I must break you...

Fat Han: Whatever chump I will fig AHHHH! HONK!

Siberian Express: If he dies he dies.

Fat Han: ............... honk?

I would still very much like to get into range 1 with primary and a blaster turret. A BTLA4 with a blaster turret should be called "Clubber Lang." A4 Dutch with R5-K6 and a blaster turret while being fed focus firing at a target at range 1 puts the image in my head of Clubber Lang bashing Rockys face in over and over agian.

Range 1 will make the primary 3, but the blaster will still only be 3 (secondary weapon).

So like Corran at Range 2-3.

Except for the points you pay for the average Corran you can also fit in Garven Dreis, have even more hull 3 more red dice, and give out that focus for that turret, letting Dutch T/L for his action and giving Garven a TL as well. And you dont have to worry about not shooting next turn like you do with Corran. Hell, im starting to not even like Corran all that much now, and I love me some doubletapping Corran.

Corran can barrel roll into position and use systems, Also higher evade.

If Corran barrel roles he doesnt have a focus, and he'll just have a TL for his second shot IF you took FCS. And if you took PtL you didnt take VI which means you aren't Phantom hunting with him, which means Dutch/Garven will still give you more firepower and more health than Corran. Im not saying Corran is worthless, but A4 on Rebel Y's will be VERY sexy. Just look at combining with Jan. BOOM. All of a sudden Dutch is spitting out 3/4 Primary with 4 Secondary, Focused AND TLed.

Strike that last.

...A4 on Rebel Y's will be VERY sexy. Just look at combining with Jan. BOOM. All of a sudden Dutch is spitting out 3/4 Primary with 4 Secondary, Focused AND TLed.

Jan works on (at most) one attack per round.

I would still very much like to get into range 1 with primary and a blaster turret. A BTLA4 with a blaster turret should be called "Clubber Lang." A4 Dutch with R5-K6 and a blaster turret while being fed focus firing at a target at range 1 puts the image in my head of Clubber Lang bashing Rockys face in over and over agian.

Range 1 will make the primary 3, but the blaster will still only be 3 (secondary weapon).

Yup, I hope we can get some more turrets someday, one based on the alternate A4 turret we see in ANH and I think ROTJ. It looks like a long barrel medium anti tank weapon mounted on a hummer.

I would still very much like to get into range 1 with primary and a blaster turret. A BTLA4 with a blaster turret should be called "Clubber Lang." A4 Dutch with R5-K6 and a blaster turret while being fed focus firing at a target at range 1 puts the image in my head of Clubber Lang bashing Rockys face in over and over agian.

Range 1 will make the primary 3, but the blaster will still only be 3 (secondary weapon).

So like Corran at Range 2-3.

Except for the points you pay for the average Corran you can also fit in Garven Dreis, have even more hull, 3 more red dice, and give out that focus for that turret, letting Dutch T/L for his action and giving Garven a TL as well. And you dont have to worry about not shooting next turn like you do with Corran. Hell, im starting to not even like Corran all that much now, and I love me some doubletapping Corran.

Yup and in theory you should be able to get a target lock for the primary and turret weapon. CLUBBER LANG!

I dont have the card near me but now that I think about it I think Dutch can only share things at range 1.

Don't be confused with the fact that some Ys in RotJ are S3s. (Gray Squadron)

The attacker and defender potentially loosing their respective focus tokens on the first attack essentially cancel each other out, so the net damage of the 2nd Ion Cannon shot is essentially the same as a normal attack. These are meta-game wide averages.

How did you reach this conclusion? I understand your assumption of having focus 2/3 of the time for the attacker and 1/2 of the time for the defender (I don't necessarily agree with them because I don't know if they actually have a statistical source), but how does this apply to the second attack? Do you use the same stats?

See notes #4 and #5 in post #165 above. It is a brute force calculation. Edit: longer answer to clarify...

(snip)

Thanks for the clarification. Overall your analysis seems to point towards the Y-Wing being a decent jouster (or at least substantially better than before). An upgrade which affects both attacks should drastically improve those stats, right? I'm still stuck on the Predator idea for the BTL-A4. Assuming you only do one reroll, the chances of keeping your focus after the first attack would be something like

(3/4)^n [ (2/3)^n + (1 - (2/3)^n) * 3/4 ], where n is the number of dice to shoot (if you shoot all hits then you don't need to reroll, if you reroll you mustn't roll a focus). This is basically derived from

P (not using focus) = P(non-focus n times) * ( P(n hits / non-focus n times) + P(not n hits / non-focus n times) * 3/4)

This comes out as 31/64, so a little over 50% for 2 dice.

Does this seem right to you? This is what I had been missing in my calculations, the probability of not using focus in a 2 dice roll with 1 reroll. I'll input this in my scripts when I have some time.

You outline 4 cases for focus (attacker yes, defender no, attacker yes defender yes etc.). The attacker and defender focus presence are independent, right? So I could just as well factor in the probabilities of presence of focus before subtracting the green dice from the red dice. Do you agree? ( P(2 evades) = P(2 evades/ have a focus) * P(have a focus) + P(2 evades/ no focus) * P(no focus) ) This would mean doing fewer calculations and cleaner code, although it doesn't really matter for these small calculations.

YESSSS! The A4 is getting the rep that I felt it needed. A4 were used alot for dogfighting and actully did well agianst TIE/LN they had way better flight capabilities than the S3.

That being said I wouldnt call it a Warthog, A-10 are not dog fighters. If the upgrade was more like the lore based on the A4 I would say it should be called the Tomcat or Turkey. As it is though I propose it be called the "Y cepter" if its not called a "Y-Wing" "Y-Wing A4" "BLT-A4 or " A Y-Wing." It operates alot like a classic Interceptor. It goes out to a point of Interception, engages target at firing range AND hopes it kills the intruder or makes it bug off because it cant turn for ****.

The rules are very simular to what I made up for a Gold Squadron BLT-A4 upgrade. Since theres ARE just as fast as X-Wings and nearly as manuverable, Gold 2 was just as manuverable as a T-65 A from Red, I would have also thrown in a boost to turning capabilities and speed.

Oh well this is good for now, they could do a squadron upgrade thing later.

No, the S3 had better combat capabilities, the S3 was designed to replace the A4, and for the most part, did.

Well thats debateable. The A4 has the advantage of being faster, more manuverable, it carries two heavy duty LASER cannons while the S3 has two blaster cannons, and the A4 has more armor. Its turret is locked BUT the targeting computer has more control control in this configuration.

The S3 has more shielding and a gunner. Both can be heavily modded to do diffrent jobs.

Even though the S3 pilots proclaim the A4 is junk and gives all Y-Wings a bad name, the A4 is still the only version used by Gold Squadron and ironically its the only version of Y-Wing I see Rogue squadron use. Both are a elite ACE squadrons, Gold being a Pure Y-Wing BLT A4 squadron.

In the end I would just chalk it up to being pilot prefrence AND bad hotdogs or pilots not flying a fighter alt gen that reguires more flight time to make it shine.

YESSSS! The A4 is getting the rep that I felt it needed. A4 were used alot for dogfighting and actully did well agianst TIE/LN they had way better flight capabilities than the S3.

That being said I wouldnt call it a Warthog, A-10 are not dog fighters. If the upgrade was more like the lore based on the A4 I would say it should be called the Tomcat or Turkey. As it is though I propose it be called the "Y cepter" if its not called a "Y-Wing" "Y-Wing A4" " BLT -A4 or " A Y-Wing." It operates alot like a classic Interceptor. It goes out to a point of Interception, engages target at firing range AND hopes it kills the intruder or makes it bug off because it cant turn for ****.

The rules are very simular to what I made up for a Gold Squadron BLT -A4 upgrade. Since theres ARE just as fast as X-Wings and nearly as manuverable, Gold 2 was just as manuverable as a T-65 A from Red, I would have also thrown in a boost to turning capabilities and speed.

Oh well this is good for now, they could do a squadron upgrade thing later.

Your BLTs are making me hungry

GOBLE GOBLE GOBLE!

I don't know where you're getting your source for HLCs but the Wookiee states both have the same laser cannons:

Armament ◾Taim & Bak IX4 or KX5 laser cannons (2)

◾ArMek turreted SW-4 ion cannon (1)

◾Aratech Flex Tube proton torpedo launchers (2) ◾10 torpedoes

◾20 proton bombs

That is the entry for both except with the difference the A4 has an extra Ion Cannon. As for maneuverability, it was only increased marginally.

Thanks for the clarification. Overall your analysis seems to point towards the Y-Wing being a decent jouster (or at least substantially better than before). An upgrade which affects both attacks should drastically improve those stats, right? I'm still stuck on the Predator idea for the BTL-A4. Assuming you only do one reroll, the chances of keeping your focus after the first attack would be something like

(3/4)^n [ (2/3)^n + (1 - (2/3)^n) * 3/4 ], where n is the number of dice to shoot (if you shoot all hits then you don't need to reroll, if you reroll you mustn't roll a focus). This is basically derived from

P (not using focus) = P(non-focus n times) * ( P(n hits / non-focus n times) + P(not n hits / non-focus n times) * 3/4)

This comes out as 31/64, so a little over 50% for 2 dice.

Does this seem right to you? This is what I had been missing in my calculations, the probability of not using focus in a 2 dice roll with 1 reroll. I'll input this in my scripts when I have some time.

You outline 4 cases for focus (attacker yes, defender no, attacker yes defender yes etc.). The attacker and defender focus presence are independent, right? So I could just as well factor in the probabilities of presence of focus before subtracting the green dice from the red dice. Do you agree? ( P(2 evades) = P(2 evades/ have a focus) * P(have a focus) + P(2 evades/ no focus) * P(no focus) ) This would mean doing fewer calculations and cleaner code, although it doesn't really matter for these small calculations.

The chance of still having focus on offense is pretty straightforward. I don't consider rerolls on offense, so that simplifies things. The chance of rolling zero focus with N dice is simple (3/4)^N, so there's your answer. From there it will depend on how often 3 dice were rolled vs 2 dice, and that depends on the range bins as I had defined them. If you consider Predator (or whatever other way to reroll dice), then yeah it gets a little more complicated.

If you had a full TL+F then the chance of not rolling focus for each die would no longer be 3/4, but instead (1/2) + (1/4)*(3/4) = 11/16

So for N dice: (11/16)^N

If you can only reroll 1 then it gets even more complicated. Not going to sit down and figure that one out now off the top of my head, although its an interesting exercise.

The attacker and defender having focus after the first attack actually are NOT completely independent, but I treated them as if they were independent. The average damage numbers should not significantly change, and it was easier to "approximate" it this way.

The Y-wing still isn't a very good jouster. It's worse than the X-wing which is already mediocre and rarely gets used. But with the ability to drop an Ion token on its target, it can make up that deficit. With a jousting efficiency of 87.4%, it has to do (1/0.874)^2 = 1.31 times the damage that it would normally get from just its stat line. So the Ion needs to be worth an effective 30% boost in durability and/or attack power. If you can get behind someone and keep them Ion'ed every round, then it is entirely possible to come out ahead.

Thanks for the clarification. Overall your analysis seems to point towards the Y-Wing being a decent jouster (or at least substantially better than before). An upgrade which affects both attacks should drastically improve those stats, right? I'm still stuck on the Predator idea for the BTL-A4. Assuming you only do one reroll, the chances of keeping your focus after the first attack would be something like

(3/4)^n [ (2/3)^n + (1 - (2/3)^n) * 3/4 ], where n is the number of dice to shoot (if you shoot all hits then you don't need to reroll, if you reroll you mustn't roll a focus). This is basically derived from

P (not using focus) = P(non-focus n times) * ( P(n hits / non-focus n times) + P(not n hits / non-focus n times) * 3/4)

This comes out as 31/64, so a little over 50% for 2 dice.

Does this seem right to you? This is what I had been missing in my calculations, the probability of not using focus in a 2 dice roll with 1 reroll. I'll input this in my scripts when I have some time.

You outline 4 cases for focus (attacker yes, defender no, attacker yes defender yes etc.). The attacker and defender focus presence are independent, right? So I could just as well factor in the probabilities of presence of focus before subtracting the green dice from the red dice. Do you agree? ( P(2 evades) = P(2 evades/ have a focus) * P(have a focus) + P(2 evades/ no focus) * P(no focus) ) This would mean doing fewer calculations and cleaner code, although it doesn't really matter for these small calculations.

The chance of still having focus on offense is pretty straightforward. I don't consider rerolls on offense, so that simplifies things. The chance of rolling zero focus with N dice is simple (3/4)^N, so there's your answer. From there it will depend on how often 3 dice were rolled vs 2 dice, and that depends on the range bins as I had defined them. If you consider Predator (or whatever other way to reroll dice), then yeah it gets a little more complicated.

If you had a full TL+F then the chance of not rolling focus for each die would no longer be 3/4, but instead (1/2) + (1/4)*(3/4) = 11/16

So for N dice: (11/16)^N

If you can only reroll 1 then it gets even more complicated. Not going to sit down and figure that one out now off the top of my head, although its an interesting exercise.

The attacker and defender having focus after the first attack actually are NOT completely independent, but I treated them as if they were independent. The average damage numbers should not significantly change, and it was easier to "approximate" it this way.

The Y-wing still isn't a very good jouster. It's worse than the X-wing which is already mediocre and rarely gets used. But with the ability to drop an Ion token on its target, it can make up that deficit. With a jousting efficiency of 87.4%, it has to do (1/0.874)^2 = 1.31 times the damage that it would normally get from just its stat line. So the Ion needs to be worth an effective 30% boost in durability and/or attack power. If you can get behind someone and keep them Ion'ed every round, then it is entirely possible to come out ahead.

Yeah, calculating the odds of not using the focus in the TL+F is easier since you can do it on a per-dice basis. For only one reroll, I attempted a calculation in post #181.

Can you elaborate on why using focus on the first attack is not independent on using focus on the first defense? I don't understand how they could possibly depend on one another since you can always evade with N evade dice and no focus, independent of any attack dice configuration. Sure, focus increases the "score" of your roll, but never surpasses a "score" that you could've have obtained with a good roll.

Can you elaborate on why using focus on the first attack is not independent on using focus on the first defense? I don't understand how they could possibly depend on one another since you can always evade with N evade dice and no focus, independent of any attack dice configuration. Sure, focus increases the "score" of your roll, but never surpasses a "score" that you could've have obtained with a good roll.

I would have to run some numbers to get the exact probabilities, but it stems from having a different hit distribution if you use a focus token vs not using a focus token. The more hits that the defender needs to cancel, the more likely he will be to have to use a focus token to change an eyeball result if possible. Generally I would expect that the hit PDF on offense when using a focus token on offense is higher than when not using a focus token, so the defender is facing statistically different incoming hits in these 2 cases.

That's the general problem I find with Maj. Juggler's lists, he just assigns an arbitrary estimate number to how often a ship will fire and then adds it to the list of numbers derived from said estimates. It looks impressive and I'm sure there is a lot of effort done going into it, but inherently flawed as a gauge of what works in X-Wing and what doesn't.

That's the general problem I find with Maj. Juggler's lists, he just assigns an arbitrary estimate number to how often a ship will fire

I'm not sure what you mean by that, for the raw jousting numbers I assume a 100% firing duty cycle across the board.

If you meant how often the attacker and defender have focus, then yes, that's estimated without yet having data mined it.

Bear in mind how much of a change that really makes. If I increase the attacker's chance of focus from 67% to 100%, then it only increases the normalized damage of 3 dice from 1.7058 to 1.7150, a change of a half percent. The jousting value is proportional to the square root of that value, so the net change in value for 3-attack ships would be to increase their efficiency by 0.27%. It's trivial.

Focus on defense has slightly more of an impact. Increasing defense chance of having focus from 50% to 67% increases the normalized damage of 3 dice from 1.7058 to 1.7343, a 1.67% increase, with a corresponding increase in jousting efficiency for 3 attack ships of 0.83%. Again, this is fairly trivial. The largest factor by far is what ships are present in the meta game.

Can you elaborate on why using focus on the first attack is not independent on using focus on the first defense? I don't understand how they could possibly depend on one another since you can always evade with N evade dice and no focus, independent of any attack dice configuration. Sure, focus increases the "score" of your roll, but never surpasses a "score" that you could've have obtained with a good roll.

I would have to run some numbers to get the exact probabilities, but it stems from having a different hit distribution if you use a focus token vs not using a focus token. The more hits that the defender needs to cancel, the more likely he will be to have to use a focus token to change an eyeball result if possible. Generally I would expect that the hit PDF on offense when using a focus token on offense is higher than when not using a focus token, so the defender is facing statistically different incoming hits in these 2 cases.

Ok, I understand now. Up until now I forgot that you may not need to focus on defense, for instance when defending against 0 hits. First of all, you would eliminate the dependence between defender focus and attacker focus if you just account for focus on red dice having focus or not before anything else. This attack PDF would merge the two attack PDFs of focus vs. no-focus using the probability of having focus, assuming that you always use focus on attack if possible.

Then on defense, if you want to solve this correctly, you have to switch to a trinomial distribution (blank, focus, hit). Then, each time you account for a an attack,defense pair, you see if you need focus and if you do, you add it to a "focus probability".

While you appear to be interested in the big picture, i.e. what happens when a large number of ships joust, I would like to look at some interesting thought exercises such as "what rule of thumb should I use for spending focus when attacking twice?". Things like that pop all the time in X-wing!

While you appear to be interested in the big picture, i.e. what happens when a large number of ships joust, I would like to look at some interesting thought exercises such as "what rule of thumb should I use for spending focus when attacking twice?". Things like that pop all the time in X-wing!

Yeah, well, I have to keep something for myself to have an advantage on the table, right?

Actually, I almost always follow a simple rule: always use focus if it immediately helps you.

I don't know where you're getting your source for HLCs but the Wookiee states both have the same laser cannons:

Armament ◾Taim & Bak IX4 or KX5 laser cannons (2)

◾ArMek turreted SW-4 ion cannon (1)

◾Aratech Flex Tube proton torpedo launchers (2) ◾10 torpedoes

◾20 proton bombs

That is the entry for both except with the difference the A4 has an extra Ion Cannon. As for maneuverability, it was only increased marginally.

In the Star Wars Complete vehicles it says that the A4 have Heavy Duty LASER cannons. Some BTL-Bs may have had the main guns the A4 carried BUT as standard BTL-S3 and BTL-B carried two IX4 blaster cannons.

In SW TEGT Warefare page 156 paragraph 8 it makes it a point to say that S3 and B versions as standard carry the IX4 blaster. There is no mention in any of these books of a BTL-A4 using IX4 Blaster Cannons.

The listing you have is ok but its missing alot. In the Farlander Papers, Stele chronicals, and SW TEGTW talk about all the diffrent missiles, rockets, torpedos, and bombs it can carry. The S3 can carry the SW-4 Ion Cannon, SW-5 Ion Cannon (BTL-S3T) ref Star Wars Blueprints Rebel edition page 13, or twin blasters BTL-S3B ref SW TEGTW page 156.

Also in all the time SW has existed the majority, including writers for tech books and novels and comics, have missed in ANH and possibly ROTJ that the BTL-A4 can also carry a huge single barrel turret that may be a LASER cannon. No lore has been written but you can see the Y-Wing A4 models that have this turret in the behind the scenes gallery in the complete SW blu-ray set.

I think the A4 are more than marginally more manuverable, unless Gold squadron exclusivly enhance there manuvering systems. Gold 2 stats are rated the same as a X-Wing.

More importantly in SWTFU1 it shows A4s being manuverable enough to give TIE/LN at the TIE manufacturing station a run for there money. In Rogue Squadron (game) Rebel Strike 2 it is shown the A4 is manuverable enough to not be fodder agianst TIE Interceptors. In Rogue they capture a elite Pilot from the 128th without Rogue Squadrons help. In Rebel strike 2 you Rookie 1 and two ther A4s take on like 6-9 TIE Interceptors but only lose one A4. I think they were Gold Squadron.

However you look at stories with the S3 TIE Interceptors pawn them very easily in the Rogue Squadron comics. It says right in the SW TEGTW the S3 tactic for dealing with enemies that are more manuverable than them is to pick a target thats a cap ship and head at it as fast as they can while the gunner picks them off. This may work with TIE/LNs but TIE Interceptors it seems to be very suicidal. Agressor squadron, part of Grey Group at Endor, were blown to bits by Interceptors. And although the got Baron Fel it was a two one one dog fight between Wedge & Salm vs Baron Fel. If Wedge had not been there in his enhanced T-65 all of Agressor Squadron would be dead.

...A4 on Rebel Y's will be VERY sexy. Just look at combining with Jan. BOOM. All of a sudden Dutch is spitting out 3/4 Primary with 4 Secondary, Focused AND TLed.

Jan works on (at most) one attack per round.

Derp. Not sure why i thought that.

I don't know where you're getting your source for HLCs but the Wookiee states both have the same laser cannons:

Armament ◾Taim & Bak IX4 or KX5 laser cannons (2)

◾ArMek turreted SW-4 ion cannon (1)

◾Aratech Flex Tube proton torpedo launchers (2) ◾10 torpedoes

◾20 proton bombs

That is the entry for both except with the difference the A4 has an extra Ion Cannon. As for maneuverability, it was only increased marginally.

In the Star Wars Complete vehicles it says that the A4 have Heavy Duty LASER cannons. Some BTL-Bs may have had the main guns the A4 carried BUT as standard BTL-S3 and BTL-B carried two IX4 blaster cannons.

In SW TEGT Warefare page 156 paragraph 8 it makes it a point to say that S3 and B versions as standard carry the IX4 blaster. There is no mention in any of these books of a BTL-A4 using IX4 Blaster Cannons.

The listing you have is ok but its missing alot. In the Farlander Papers, Stele chronicals, and SW TEGTW talk about all the diffrent missiles, rockets, torpedos, and bombs it can carry. The S3 can carry the SW-4 Ion Cannon, SW-5 Ion Cannon (BTL-S3T) ref Star Wars Blueprints Rebel edition page 13, or twin blasters BTL-S3B ref SW TEGTW page 156.

Also in all the time SW has existed the majority, including writers for tech books and novels and comics, have missed in ANH and possibly ROTJ that the BTL-A4 can also carry a huge single barrel turret that may be a LASER cannon. No lore has been written but you can see the Y-Wing A4 models that have this turret in the behind the scenes gallery in the complete SW blu-ray set.

I think the A4 are more than marginally more manuverable, unless Gold squadron exclusivly enhance there manuvering systems. Gold 2 stats are rated the same as a X-Wing.

More importantly in SWTFU1 it shows A4s being manuverable enough to give TIE/LN at the TIE manufacturing station a run for there money. In Rogue Squadron (game) Rebel Strike 2 it is shown the A4 is manuverable enough to not be fodder agianst TIE Interceptors. In Rogue they capture a elite Pilot from the 128th without Rogue Squadrons help. In Rebel strike 2 you Rookie 1 and two ther A4s take on like 6-9 TIE Interceptors but only lose one A4. I think they were Gold Squadron.

However you look at stories with the S3 TIE Interceptors pawn them very easily in the Rogue Squadron comics. It says right in the SW TEGTW the S3 tactic for dealing with enemies that are more manuverable than them is to pick a target thats a cap ship and head at it as fast as they can while the gunner picks them off. This may work with TIE/LNs but TIE Interceptors it seems to be very suicidal. Agressor squadron, part of Grey Group at Endor, were blown to bits by Interceptors. And although the got Baron Fel it was a two one one dog fight between Wedge & Salm vs Baron Fel. If Wedge had not been there in his enhanced T-65 all of Agressor Squadron would be dead.

I was listing the standard configuration for the fighters, and you forget only 1 A4 survived Yavin while a lot of S3s survived Endor .

While you appear to be interested in the big picture, i.e. what happens when a large number of ships joust, I would like to look at some interesting thought exercises such as "what rule of thumb should I use for spending focus when attacking twice?". Things like that pop all the time in X-wing!

Yeah, well, I have to keep something for myself to have an advantage on the table, right?

Actually, I almost always follow a simple rule: always use focus if it immediately helps you.

I'm shocked!

I was listing the standard configuration for the fighters, and you forget only 1 A4 survived Yavin while a lot of S3s survived Endor .

Well alot of things survived Endor, except Death Stars, not many Death Stars survived Endor At Yavin it didnt help that Vader and his top 9 Black Squadron pilots were on the field. The funny thing is Black Squadron was dramatically out numbered but they killed enough of Red Gold Blue and Green squadrons that they ended up with the highest KD ratio. Unfortunate that only two survived.

I just checked but I was wrong about things concerning one game I mentioned. Its Rebel Assault 2 not Strike, the three A4s dont have a squadron name, all three pilots survive, and they fought 12 Interceptors.

Its been a long time since I played that game...

However you look at stories with the S3 TIE Interceptors pawn them very easily in the Rogue Squadron comics. It says right in the SW TEGTW the S3 tactic for dealing with enemies that are more manuverable than them is to pick a target thats a cap ship and head at it as fast as they can while the gunner picks them off. This may work with TIE/LNs but TIE Interceptors it seems to be very suicidal. Agressor squadron, part of Grey Group at Endor, were blown to bits by Interceptors . And although the got Baron Fel it was a two one one dog fight between Wedge & Salm vs Baron Fel. If Wedge had not been there in his enhanced T-65 all of Agressor Squadron would be dead.

What's your source for that?

However you look at stories with the S3 TIE Interceptors pawn them very easily in the Rogue Squadron comics. It says right in the SW TEGTW the S3 tactic for dealing with enemies that are more manuverable than them is to pick a target thats a cap ship and head at it as fast as they can while the gunner picks them off. This may work with TIE/LNs but TIE Interceptors it seems to be very suicidal. Agressor squadron, part of Grey Group at Endor, were blown to bits by Interceptors . And although the got Baron Fel it was a two one one dog fight between Wedge & Salm vs Baron Fel. If Wedge had not been there in his enhanced T-65 all of Agressor Squadron would be dead.

What's your source for that?

The Necronomicon, apparently.

The post before yours was 9 months ago.

...How did you get here?

When you removed the book from the cradle, did you speak the words?

I remember this....... That was almost a year ago.....

When you removed the book from the cradle, did you speak the words?

Klatu Barada Nidjfgalkhgakjdghaklg

When you removed the book from the cradle, did you speak the words?

Klatu Barada Nidjfgalkhgakjdghaklg

Necktie