I just made some updates.

I tweaked how I was calculating the PS1 equivalent cost: I now subtract the named pilot value (-1 for Steele, -3 for Vader) after I adjust the ship PS1. The previous method made named pilot abilities worth proportionately less when applies to a higher PS pilot. This change essentially gives Vader a boost of a couple percentage points across the board.

The math is beyond me to figure out but as an answer to my curiosity could you please enlighten me as to the numbers if we gave the advanced a 5point heavylaser cannon (eg some form of negative point upgrade that allowed cannons)

I am aware that this fix is unlikely but I would very much like to see the comparison to the initial scenarios.

Erm, I could, but not really motivated to, since it's not a reasonable fix. Sorry!

According to Juggler that would be way too little to make it competitive, but then again he talks mainly about jousting values. And i dont really believe jousting is the only thing that matters!

In this case it is. The problem with the TIE advanced is that right now it doesn't have anything other than jousting math. It doesn't have exceptional maneuverability or other fancy tricks (advanced sensors, turrets, etc). All it does is roll red and green dice until it is destroyed. So if it doesn't have decent math for its red and green dice then why would you ever use it?

I ran the "House Rules" numbers again, with an additional optimistic assumption that the FCS will deliver a free Target Lock every single round. If you are chasing around Fat Han, then this would be applicable after the first combat round. Notice that the efficiency is over 100%, making them actually better than a TIE fighter in this role. This still does not consider how Proton Rockets and Cluster Missiles would be given huge boosts from the FCS.

So this option does provide a unique role, at least for a straight-up damage title card. And the FCS Cluster Missiles would be glorious against VT-49's.

The TIE-Advanced doesn't need more than two attack dice, it just needs them to be more reliable than they are.

Something like this would go a long way to deal some reliable damage:

TIE-Adv Title; When attacking, you may change one {blank} to a {crit}.

Maarek would love it.

Giving the TIE-Advanced a free FCS is not a good solution. It won't get the benefit of the FCS until the next time it shoots and that's only if it's able to keep the same target in arc. The TIE-Advanced doesn't have the best dial to be able to consistently chase a target-locked ship around the board.

The TIE-Advanced needs help during the attack that it's making, not for the attack that it might make in the future.

Why is it not a reasonable fix Major? Because you said so? I thought you were backing your arguments with Math.

I am unaware of anything that completely rules out such a fix. I am aware it is unlikely, but since none of us are FFG employees (are we?), I don't think we can positively rule it out.

Given that you posted several options which were clearly not up to speed (your scenarios 3, 5betc) I thought that you were exploring options and that the math was the point of this exercise.

So thanks for your reply it was.....

Well I could finish the sentence but I'm not really motivated to!

Since no one mentioned it yet, here is Theorist's idea for a fix:

A title card, TIE Advanced only - 0 points. When attacking, the TIE advanced gives a stress to the defender.

I LOVE this idea. It gives the Imperials an actual control ship AND gives the advanced an actual role. Maarek still won't be worth it, but I would gladly pay 21 points for a Tempest. A hard to kill ship that can stress other ships at range 3? Yes please.

The problem with your "jousting" metric is wave 4 essentially made it worthless. See, the most feared ship in the game, the Phantom, is designed to not allow your opponent joust because of its extreme maneuverability.

Assuming that the jousting numbers are completly irrelevant for the Phantom, how does having a metric not applying to one of sixteen ships make the metric "worthless"

It's not that the metric doesn't apply to just one ship, it's that the one ship makes the metric useless for the rest of the ships. See, no one jousts with Phantoms.

I do. Four PS3 Phantoms. They can be devastating.

OK, I'll bite and toss a cannon option on there. I don't think it fits with the fluff at all, but I'll throw some numbers at it.

I can do the free blank to hit/crit as well.

If the advanced and avenger are to be taken as separate ships. I think if you want the fluff to match the stats a straight 3-4 point drop is the only fix.

the Avenger is the ship that would reasonably have a systems slot, The Avenger would reasonably have better cannons. The regular advanced is basically stated correctly, the points are just off.

Given I'm not versed in the E.U stuff, the only special features I saw on the Advanced (other than Vader) is maybe the targeting computer?

I have no idea if it's just a standard issue TL capable device or more advanced (get it?) because Vader was picking off fools with it (or maybe he was channeling the force like Luke did when he cheated the protons into the Deathstar)

As of now, I feel that there's a gap in imperial lists along the 20s to low 30s point range that are really only competitively filled by interceptors (yay thrusters ) and shuttles or a pair of character Ties. Having another viable ship that isn't an incredibly extreme case (i.e glass bullets versus the lurching space cows) to balance out the options would be ideal. The Tie Advance was supposed to provide, but it's obviously lacking.

So, the question is what could we do to slip it in between the Interceptor and Shuttle? Given the difference between 3 and 2 attack dice, it's going to have to be a significant addition.

Given I'm not versed in the E.U stuff, the only special features I saw on the Advanced (other than Vader) is maybe the targeting computer?

I have no idea if it's just a standard issue TL capable device or more advanced (get it?) because Vader was picking off fools with it (or maybe he was channeling the force like Luke did when he cheated the protons into the Deathstar)

As of now, I feel that there's a gap in imperial lists along the 20s to low 30s point range that are really only competitively filled by interceptors (yay thrusters ) and shuttles or a pair of character Ties. Having another viable ship that isn't an incredibly extreme case (i.e glass bullets versus the lurching space cows) to balance out the options would be ideal. The Tie Advance was supposed to provide, but it's obviously lacking.

So, the question is what could we do to slip it in between the Interceptor and Shuttle? Given the difference between 3 and 2 attack dice, it's going to have to be a significant addition.

Maybe invent a Hyperdrive mechanic?

...But then we'd have to give it to most rebel ships too....

Thank you!

According to Juggler that would be way too little to make it competitive, but then again he talks mainly about jousting values. And i dont really believe jousting is the only thing that matters!

In this case it is. The problem with the TIE advanced is that right now it doesn't have anything other than jousting math. It doesn't have exceptional maneuverability or other fancy tricks (advanced sensors, turrets, etc). All it does is roll red and green dice until it is destroyed. So if it doesn't have decent math for its red and green dice then why would you ever use it?

(Hmm i wonder if that's also why math nerds can't explain how women work...)

That being said i still think it's a very noble cause to explain the game with maths. Sadly it just works to a certain extend.

The absolute only thing that can actually show what is over- and underpowered, over- and undercosted would be playtesting, and i don't mean just a specific, streamlined, simplified situation. Whole games with and against different opponents, tactics and squads and in different scenarios and game modes if possible. Testing and experience is everything, common sense is important too and this has probably told us in the first place that something is wrong with cost/performance of the Advanced. But i can't say how far off it is from delivering, and with all due respect, sirs, so can't you! Only the collective experience of many players having tested the ship over and over could estimate it!

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

And i really wish they had made the Refit also for the Advanced, because right now we dont even have a 2 points reduction, we have nothing at all but some half baked house rules that make more or less sense!

Let's hope FFG will adress the problem at all because to me it seems like they have certainly not yet found a practicable solution, or they would probably already have introduced it, like with the A-Wing!

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

Because he is using the PS 1 TIE Fighter as the baseline for everything, the costing of the TIE Advanced would stay the same in relation every other ship even if the Academy was undercosted.

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

Because he is using the PS 1 TIE Fighter as the baseline for everything, the costing of the TIE Advanced would stay the same in relation every other ship even if the Academy was undercosted.

Also i must say he really tries hard to give a precise picture of the ship and its capabilities. The total efficiency should come indeed pretty close to tabletop reality. Still there stay some variables that can only insufficiently be captured like the worth/efficiency of a dial for example, or that just are not implemented in the calculations.

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

Because he is using the PS 1 TIE Fighter as the baseline for everything, the costing of the TIE Advanced would stay the same in relation every other ship even if the Academy was undercosted.

Okay but wouldn't that only work if he had the ship creation formula deciphered 100% correctly?

Not quite right. He's essentially trying to reverse-engineer a cost formula by setting the TIE/LN as a baseline. The basic TIE has X stats, and costs Y; thus stats X should cost Y. If a ship has stats >X, it should have cost >Y. You don't need to have the entire formula figured out to assert stat line efficiencies if you actually have all the numbers, which we do. Running two Academy Pilots against a lone Tempest Squadron Pilot with a Hull Upgrade costs the same for both sides, but MJ and his jousting equations can give you a basic idea of how those two sides interact, and at what efficiency for the points spent. This isn't the total picture, but it helps you get an idea of what you're buying for your squad.

And, if you assert that the basic TIE is undercosted, then setting it up as the baseline will merely show every other ship in the game as overcosted vs the TIE/LN, not against each other. So the efficiency values of the TIE/AD vs the B-Wing are a fair comparison, even if both are deemed too expensive.

(For the record, I was under the impression both the Academy Pilot and Rookie Pilot were both overcosted by a point to prevent naked squads of 9 and 5 ships respectively, but I could be mistaken)

Not quite right. He's essentially trying to reverse-engineer a cost formula by setting the TIE/LN as a baseline. The basic TIE has X stats, and costs Y; thus stats X should cost Y. If a ship has stats >X, it should have cost >Y. You don't need to have the entire formula figured out to assert stat line efficiencies if you actually have all the numbers, which we do. Running two Academy Pilots against a lone Tempest Squadron Pilot with a Hull Upgrade costs the same for both sides, but MJ and his jousting equations can give you a basic idea of how those two sides interact, and at what efficiency for the points spent. This isn't the total picture, but it helps you get an idea of what you're buying for your squad.

And, if you assert that the basic TIE is undercosted, then setting it up as the baseline will merely show every other ship in the game as overcosted vs the TIE/LN, not against each other. So the efficiency values of the TIE/AD vs the B-Wing are a fair comparison, even if both are deemed too expensive.

(For the record, I was under the impression both the Academy Pilot and Rookie Pilot were both overcosted by a point to prevent naked squads of 9 and 5 ships respectively, but I could be mistaken)

Btw. I wonder how you did come to that record? To me the Tie Fighter and especially The AP was in wave 1 most cost effective ship there was, and Howlrunner of course boosted that a lot on top of it.

The Rookie was the same to the rebels but somewhat less efficient than the Tie.

And i believe that is not my lasting impression alone. Academys and Rookies were a pillar of the meta for a really long time! How could they be overcosted?

Btw. I wonder how you did come to that record? To me the Tie Fighter and especially The AP was in wave 1 most cost effective ship there was, and Howlrunner of course boosted that a lot on top of it.

The Rookie was the same to the rebels but somewhat less efficient than the Tie.

And i believe that is not my lasting impression alone. Academys and Rookies were a pillar of the meta for a really long time! How could they be overcosted?

And, yes, the TIE/LN is still one of the most efficient ways to add bodies to a list, but the X-Wing is generally accepted as too expensive. I usually just point to the Blue Squadron B-Wing; very similar roles, greater capability from the B-Wing due to Cannons and Sensors, and the B-Wing is much hardier, for only a single point more. Unless you can't afford the extra point, you should always take a Blue over a Rookie because it's going to perform as well or better in every squad. The exceptions are few, and usually revolve around using an Astromech (even the R2 Astro doesn't quite make a Rookie as good as a Blue).

But, as far as the TIE Fighter, I think it's reasonable to say it's 0.5-1 point too expensive. Just one of them has a hard time doing damage, and they're very susceptible to crits and one-shot KOs. Compare the Headhunter: lose Evade and Barrel Roll, lose a Hull point, lose an Agility, gain Target Lock, a PS point, and two Shields, same cost. I'd argue the Headhunter is just slightly more efficient because of what the shileds can do for longevity, and having Target Lock available for helping the attack is more valuable offensively to me than Evade. Barrel Roll is the real saving grace of the TIE/LN though, it performs better as a blocker with that, but the same cost Headhunter also gets to shoot first in a joust.

It's a touchy subject to some (or was, anyway), and I feel both the Z95 and TIE/LN are great at what they do.

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

Because he is using the PS 1 TIE Fighter as the baseline for everything, the costing of the TIE Advanced would stay the same in relation every other ship even if the Academy was undercosted.

TIE Fighters are still a pillar of the meta, and will be forever unless we see significant power creep. The generic X-wings were used heavily because they were the best option for the Rebels. However, with wave 3 (B-wing) and especially wave 4 (Z-95), we see the generic X-wing usage really fall close to zero. This is exactly what the MathWing has been predicting all along.

I give you one more thing to think about: what if the Tie Fighter you compare the Advanced to set up your statistics was in fact undercosted? How could you then say by how much the advanced is overpriced?

Because he is using the PS 1 TIE Fighter as the baseline for everything, the costing of the TIE Advanced would stay the same in relation every other ship even if the Academy was undercosted.

Okay but wouldn't that only work if he had the ship creation formula deciphered 100% correctly?

Not quite right. He's essentially trying to reverse-engineer a cost formula by setting the TIE/LN as a baseline.

Not exactly. I don't know, and don't care, if FFG even has a cost formula. The value and utility of the ship and its usage in tournaments are the only things that matter, not the value that is printed on the card.

I'm creating my own cost formula that predicts what the ships should be worth. You can use this as an additional design tool when creating new unreleashed ships, or you can use it to analyze how existing ships do and see if that matches up with overall tournament results.

Possibly, but pure speculation and it this point it doesn't matter regardless of the original intent, or original formulas if there even ever were any.

As stated jousting is just one thing that happens in X-wing and the game is too complex to entirely theorycraft it. And that's what it would take to exactly say how much off the point cost of ship x or y is.

Except this isn't really true. Jousting isn't the entire game, but that's only a problem for ships with exceptional non-jousting abilities. Consider the x-wing: it's just an average ship, and even when it doesn't joust all it really does is (hopefully) roll red dice every turn and eventually have to roll some green dice. It can obviously attempt to out-maneuver an opponent, but it doesn't have any meaningful advantage there so we can safely say "everyone is equal" and ignore that effect. Essentially we're just multiplying all of the jousting numbers by 1, and getting the same results.

Now compare that to the TIE interceptor, which does have exceptional ability to outmaneuver lesser ships. Now the jousting math is somewhat less relevant depending on player skill, how many turrets are in the metagame, etc. We can expect that even if the raw numbers aren't quite as good the sheer maneuverability and tons of actions of a PTL interceptor can make up for it. All the jousting math can tell us is how well you have to use these advantages to bring it up to 100% (or even above 100%!). And you can say similar things about other "weird" ships. For example, a support HWK will score poorly on jousting math, but that's not why you're taking one.

So what about the TIE advanced? It's clearly in the first category, where jousting math is the primary factor in how good it is. It has an average dial, average stats, average action and upgrade options, etc. There's no area where the TIE advanced is exceptional compared to other ships and it can gain an advantage that isn't included in the jousting math. So we can safely assume that the math is an accurate assessment of its value, and the "fair" cost for the TIE advanced will be close enough to what is predicted by the math that we don't need to worry about any possible difference.

Thanks for the clarification! I suppose if you're looking at efficiency values through the lens of tournament data, you would need to be much less specific in valuing the different pieces of a ship vis a vis the cost on the card or upgrades.

Title: pimp my ship (advanced only)

You my equip 1 modification to your ship for free

Title: Retrained poilts (advanced only)

You may equip 1 EPT card to your ship for free

Or something like that both 0 cost on any point skill

Just my 2 cents

Has anyone considered making Boost a native action?

We had a quick fix in a campaign we ran:

Title:

"X1"

TIE Advanced Only

Your action bar gains the [boost] icon.

Cost: 2

Then as I was reading this I had another fun thought:

Missile:

"Actuator Overload"

TIE Advanced Only

When you attack, you may choose to roll 1 additional attack die. If you do, after the attack resolves roll 1 attack die. If you roll a [hit] result, suffer 1 damage.

Cost: 1

Add them both to the ship to get an interceptor with shields... but with a strong chance of burning down your own defenses and a slightly worse dial. But hey - Autothrusters would work! And it allows a viable Dare-Vader which is just hilarious.

Total cost is 3 for the both of them, 5 if Autothrusters are added. Maybe that's too much? But it should give some life to the ship while still keeping the feel of an experimental prototype.

I think you undercost Vader's ability. Compare it to Push The Limit which does less at the cost of a stress token for 3 points. I would also be opposed to a supportive ability for Tie Advanced because why would they be supportive?

The unique element to the Tie Advanced is that unlike other Imperial Fighters, It has some protection. I say explore that further.

I think you undercost Vader's ability.

This is entirely possible. On the other hand, a 2nd action on a 2 attack ship is generally worth less than a 2nd action on a 3 attack ship such as Soontir Fel.

The unique element to the Tie Advanced is that unlike other Imperial Fighters, It has some protection. I say explore that further.

It doesn't really have much in the way of protection for it's points. Comparing the PS1 versions of both ships, it's got slightly less health per point than a TIE fighter. Add a hull upgrade and it has the same cost and health as 2 TIE fighters. For 24 points you could have an extra action and attack while at least half of the hit points remain if you choose take the TIEs.

The survivability of the Advanced would need to be boosted by quite a bit to make it viable, even then you end up with a tough little ship that is throwing only 2 dice and brings nothing special to your list.

They could have made the Royal Guard title apply to both interceptors and Advanceds as well, in addition to making the refit apply to Advanceds and A-Wings.