That's a lot of nice math, but it leaves out the most important question: what is the role of the TIE advanced supposed to be? Until you figure out why the ship should exist at all you're never going to get an appropriate solution for it.

Reread scenario 4 and 8.

But your explanation for those scenarios doesn't really answer my question. You've established that the FCS solution fixes the jousting math, but I don't really see a purpose for the ship. Maybe you've got a one-shot cluster missile gimmick, but is that really enough to build a whole ship around? And beyond that I don't really see any role that would make me want to take the TIE advanced over any other ship with the same jousting value.

I'm not sure how many points you're spending in scenario 5. Is is the cost of Accuracy Corrector + 2, so a Tempest would be 27 points, or Accuracy Corrector - 1, so a Tempest is 23 points?

Sorry for the Ambiguity. the System Upgrade slot is free, and Accuracy Corrector would then be auto-include and cost 2 more points. The absolute values listed are correct: 23 for the PS2, I just didn't explain it well enough. Those responsible have been sacked; the heading has been updated.

In that case, wouldn't it be 3 more points?

Shoot! You're right! I'll update my numbers. Although to make it "balanced" I would make the System Upgrade slot -1 cost, to put Vader (and the others) at the same power level.

Haha. This sounds like an commercial for "MajorJuggler House Rules".

But good work anyway @ Juggler

I'm still into 'Free System Upgrade Slot providing -2 Squad Points for System Upgrades'

and a second attack power 2 using the Missile Upgrade Slot.

I need to test Maarek with a cannon slot.......

Or you could y'know, give em pocket rockets. Sounds crazy I know but **** did it bring the sucker back in our meta. Or be super weird and give Vader PTL, Engine Up, and Prockets. Works really well. Kinda too well for as bad as the stupid thing really is on paper. Still leaves room for decent mini-swarm or new Decimator even. I mean other wise you'd have to rework a bit on the X-wings too cause yeaaaaaahhh, they aint all that anymore.

Generic X-wings might not be amazing nowadays but the unique X-wings (of which there are eight!) are still heavyweights.

Or you could y'know, give em pocket rockets. Sounds crazy I know but **** did it bring the sucker back in our meta. Or be super weird and give Vader PTL, Engine Up, and Prockets. Works really well. Kinda too well for as bad as the stupid thing really is on paper. Still leaves room for decent mini-swarm or new Decimator even. I mean other wise you'd have to rework a bit on the X-wings too cause yeaaaaaahhh, they aint all that anymore.

Pocket Rockets?

So, I have been thinking about this more. I think what would be really effective is to see a variety of different kinds of titles available, each tailoring the ship for a unique purpose.

All of the ones listed on the first page are fundamentally damage based changes. I would do one damage title (preference for FCS) and then 2 more titles. Maybe one could be a squad leader buffing type change, and the other could be a general utility buff.

FFG is far more creative than I am, so if they go this route I am sure it would be something interesting.

No system slot. Accuracy Corrector would be autoinclude, and autoinclude is the worst thing you can do for a game where you can choose upgrades.

No system slot. Accuracy Corrector would be autoinclude, and autoinclude is the worst thing you can do for a game where you can choose upgrades.

I disagree. Sure, FCS and Sensor Jammer won't be used, but Advanced Sensors is still a viable option.Accuracy Correct is there for offense, sure. But Advanced Sensors adds some fun maneuvering options, just like the B-wing. Collisions, not a problem. Action before K-turn, sure. Barrel Roll before your movement, always fun. I think Advanced Sensors on B-wings are good evidence that the Accuracy Corrector is not an auto-include.

No system slot. Accuracy Corrector would be autoinclude, and autoinclude is the worst thing you can do for a game where you can choose upgrades.

I disagree. Sure, FCS and Sensor Jammer won't be used, but Advanced Sensors is still a viable option.Accuracy Correct is there for offense, sure. But Advanced Sensors adds some fun maneuvering options, just like the B-wing. Collisions, not a problem. Action before K-turn, sure. Barrel Roll before your movement, always fun. I think Advanced Sensors on B-wings are good evidence that the Accuracy Corrector is not an auto-include.

There's a couple of reasons that you aren't seeing a lot of Accuracy Correctors on B-Wings. Accuracy Corrector is still unreleased and B-Wings aren't two attack ships. On an Advanced, accuracy corrector is as good as your roll can get (crits aside). Accuracy Corrector would be the most popular system slot upgrade for the Advanced but I'm not certain that it would be an auto-include.

B-Wings do not have an offence problem.

This has already been addressed.

I disagree. Sure, FCS and Sensor Jammer won't be used, but Advanced Sensors is still a viable option.Accuracy Correct is there for offense, sure. But Advanced Sensors adds some fun maneuvering options, just like the B-wing. Collisions, not a problem. Action before K-turn, sure. Barrel Roll before your movement, always fun.

Advanced Sensors is not a viable option. I updated the first post to include this section.

What would it look like if you priced all the Systems the same as FCS, that is, the cost of the System - 4?

What would it look like if you priced all the Systems the same as FCS, that is, the cost of the System - 4?

As soon as you allow for Accuracy Corrector to get taken, you immediately rule out all other System Upgrade slots, because Accuracy Corrector is auto-include. At that point you are back to scenario #5. The developers would have to explicitly ban the combination of Accuracy Corrector with the TIE Advanced (or any 2 attack ship).

Yes, Accuracy Corrector would be auto-include on Vader, because he doesn't work with Advanced Sensors. But nothing you are saying is saying anything about the potential of Advanced Sensors on maneuverability. You have already said that your math is having issues with the white K-turn, which is something that Advanced Sensors essentially allows. And I'm guessing the ability to either take your action when it appears you will collide, or be able to Barrel Roll before you maneuver also isn't easily calculated by your method. Accuracy Corrector is an offensive upgrade, whereas Advanced Sensors is a maneuverability upgrade. Sure, it will be less popular, but in no way do I see it as an auto-include. Though, toss PTL on Vader or Maarek, especially with an Engine upgrade, and fun really begins to happen.

But nothing you are saying is saying anything about the potential of Advanced Sensors on maneuverability.

Yes, I did, you can work it backwards.

Or you could y'know, give em pocket rockets. Sounds crazy I know but **** did it bring the sucker back in our meta. Or be super weird and give Vader PTL, Engine Up, and Prockets. Works really well. Kinda too well for as bad as the stupid thing really is on paper. Still leaves room for decent mini-swarm or new Decimator even. I mean other wise you'd have to rework a bit on the X-wings too cause yeaaaaaahhh, they aint all that anymore.

Pocket Rockets?

FFG is far more creative than I am, so if they go this route I am sure it would be something interesting.

Yeah our meta nicknamed Proton rockets as Pocket Rockets and space shotguns. Pockets or shoties for even shorter. Pockets got their name because the joke was at three points the five dice attack could be put in the pilots pocket. And it's funny.

Perhaps you could give a Modification slot upgrade that refunded you some points but gave two modification slots back and was only equipable by pilots of skill 8 or higher. And make the Inquisitor an 8 or some such.

I don't agree the accuracy corrector would be auto take. I don't need damage guaranteed when AdvSen gives me a way of having more tools to not get shot so I can just get there over time. While not risking counter fire to boot. Honestly I don't think Corrector is all that great at all for three points in a otherwise high value slot. Maybe that will change if I see it in action and can attribute it's change to higher damage. At the end of the day all it get's you is a bad target lock every attack.

At the end of the day all it get's you is a bad target lock every attack.

You're missing something huge here: on a 2-dice ship accuracy corrector automatically gives you maximum damage. You just declare a range 2-3 shot and tell your opponent to roll defense dice against two hits. So not only do you eliminate the chance of failure with your attack dice you also eliminate the need to use actions on offense, leaving all of your actions free for defense or maneuvering. MajorJuggler is right about this part at least, AC on a two-dice ship is an auto-include.

BTW, the reason you don't hear anyone complaining about AC right now is that the only ships that can take it already have 3-dice guns. So in that case AC only gives you 66% of your maximum damage, which is much less powerful.

It's actually not that bad. There is a quantifiable bound on how much additional damage you will get out of your ship just due to the K-turn, and this mathematically relates back to the jousting efficiency and its corollary, the absolute required efficiency.

This is only really true if you only consider the extra action you gain from a white k-turn instead of the vastly improved maneuvering options next turn (including another k-turn). And IMO that's the biggest advantage you get, not the weaker "advanced sensors" effect that is the only quantifiable part.

So, now we discussed enough along the Tie Advanced.

FFG! Give us a spoiler!

It's actually not that bad. There is a quantifiable bound on how much additional damage you will get out of your ship just due to the K-turn, and this mathematically relates back to the jousting efficiency and its corollary, the absolute required efficiency.

This is only really true if you only consider the extra action you gain from a white k-turn instead of the vastly improved maneuvering options next turn (including another k-turn). And IMO that's the biggest advantage you get, not the weaker "advanced sensors" effect that is the only quantifiable part.

I actually had arc dodging in mind when I was referring to quantifying K-turns, not the action economy. For example, if you can increase your relative firing duty cycle over your opponent by arc-dodging 20% of the time (while still getting shots), then your damage goes as:

combat coefficient = 1/(1-(1/5)) = 1.25

The only trouble is defining how well the K-turn actually increases your duty cycle by. Getting an exact number would require some significant research, but you can still get a pretty reasonable range on it, which narrows down the expected combat coefficient.

The saving grace is that cost needs to go as the square root of total combat power, so it takes a significant change to really move the needle.

Excellent post. A point reduction and access to the system upgrade slot would be enough for me. That removes the debate over accuracy corrector vs fire control systems - the player simply gets to choose.

I think accuracy corrector would be very potent on a tie advanced.

That removes the debate over accuracy corrector vs fire control systems - the player simply gets to choose.

Having a choice between "the obviously powerful option that everyone takes" and "the obviously weaker option that you only take if you suck at analyzing the game" isn't really a choice. The vast majority of the time "give it a system slot" simply means "give it an accuracy corrector", and we shouldn't pretend that the other options are going to see a meaningful amount of use.

The only trouble is defining how well the K-turn actually increases your duty cycle by. Getting an exact number would require some significant research, but you can still get a pretty reasonable range on it, which narrows down the expected combat coefficient.

But I don't think you can do that narrowing down, because you're talking about a sequence of maneuvers over two or more turns with a lot of other stuff happening, and no way of knowing how well a red k-turn would have worked in that situation. For example, a white k-turn allows a 90* turn next turn instead of a bank/straight, which puts me in a position to block an enemy ship instead of k-turning and jousting in open space. Forget quantifying the value of that, how do you even look at game results and determine that it was the white k-turn that mattered and not my ability to out-guess my opponent or placing an asteroid in the right location?

Now, can you, as an experienced player, make a guess about what you think the value is? Of course, and your might even be correct that FFG over-valued the ability. But you're still dealing with subjective opinion, not indisputable math like other aspects of jousting values.

I think Advanced Sensors on B-wings are good evidence that the Accuracy Corrector is not an auto-include.

This has already been addressed.

Scenario #5: -1 cost System Upgrade + Accuracy Corrector for net total of +2 points

As explained in Mathwing: Accuracy Corrector , any 2 attack ship with a System Upgrade slot and any sort of durability will make Accuracy Corrector auto-include.

I disagree. Sure, FCS and Sensor Jammer won't be used, but Advanced Sensors is still a viable option.Accuracy Correct is there for offense, sure. But Advanced Sensors adds some fun maneuvering options, just like the B-wing. Collisions, not a problem. Action before K-turn, sure. Barrel Roll before your movement, always fun.

Advanced Sensors is not a viable option. I updated the first post to include this section.

Scenario #5(b): -1 cost System Upgrade + Advanced Sensors for net total of +2 points

I originally didn't even bother to list this, because there is absolutely no way that it is cost effective. However, this potential "fix" keeps coming up, so I will run the numbers to quantify exactly why it would not help the TIE Advanced.

Cost | | Jousting Efficiency |

Ship name absolute | PS1 | ttl eff | std | range | req eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 23 | 22.1 | 70.2% | 70.5% | 70.3% - 70.8% | 203%

PS4 TIE Advanced 25 | 22.2 | 69.8% | 70.1% | 69.9% - 70.3% | 235.8%

Maarek Steele ¹ 29 | 21.7 | 71.5% | 71.8% | 71.7% - 72.1% | 308.3%

Darth Vader ³ 31 | 20.4 | 76.1% | 76.5% | 76.3% - 76.7% | 347.6%

The numbers highlighted in red indicate the required efficiency that you would need to get out of the different pilots to make back their money. The Tempest Squadron Pilot at 23 points with Advanced Sensors needs to do twice the damage that its statline predicts to break even. Here is another way to think about it: the jousting efficiency is only marginally higher than a named YT-1300. For about the same cost effectiveness, which would you rather have: the TIE Advanced dial, action bar, and Advanced Sensors, or a 360 degree firing arc?

Grade: F-

This fix would make the TIE Advanced even worse than the stock version.

I have a list that I am running that I include adrenaline rush on Vader as I can K turn and drop my PRocs on someone at range 1.. I'd I had advanced sensors.. I would use that more to be able to use the red moves more.

This is why I dislike the math aspect. You give these assumptions based on your numbers, but you cant take into account the randomness of everything involved..

I do like some of the ideas that you have proposed here, I think some are even possible fixes that FFG might even use. I normally stay away from the math posts, but this one dealt with one of my favorite ships so I jumped in, and have been lurking.

I just disagreed with your statement obout "auto include" so much, because it isn't for everyone. That said, should I run Vader with out a missle upgrade, it would be a possible choice, but I still like the maneuverability and the options AS gives any ship..

Just my 2 credits

That removes the debate over accuracy corrector vs fire control systems - the player simply gets to choose.

Having a choice between "the obviously powerful option that everyone takes" and "the obviously weaker option that you only take if you suck at analyzing the game" isn't really a choice. The vast majority of the time "give it a system slot" simply means "give it an accuracy corrector", and we shouldn't pretend that the other options are going to see a meaningful amount of use.

That exists across the game. Besides those that are more imaginative might find a combination that others don't see. Plus, none of us know is what else could be released in the future under that slot.

So the better question is why bother restricting it?

If I had advanced sensors.. I would use that more to be able to use the red moves more.

Only if you don't mind giving up Vader's double actions. You only get two actions during your "perform action" step, not at any time you perform an action. AS takes away your "perform action" step and gives you a single free action before you reveal your dial. And since Vader's double action ability is so powerful what this really means is that you're paying 3 points and giving up the incredibly powerful AC option for an upgrade that you will only use as an absolute last resort.

I just disagreed with your statement obout "auto include" so much, because it isn't for everyone. That said, should I run Vader with out a missle upgrade, it would be a possible choice, but I still like the maneuverability and the options AS gives any ship..

See previous posts about how huge a gap there is between AS and AC on a 2-dice ship. And then it gets even worse, because AC allows you to spend one of your actions on a barrel roll without reducing offense (since you're always doing maximum damage). So in most cases the AC version will give you more overall maneuverability.