That exists across the game.

No it doesn't, not to this degree. Very few choices are as black and white as "take AC on a 2-dice ship".

Besides those that are more imaginative might find a combination that others don't see.

They really won't. The gap in power between AC and any other choice is so huge that no plausible amount of creativity is going to overcome it. Taking anything but an AC would be about as smart (and about as common) as taking a hull upgrade on Whisper/Echo instead of ACD.

So the better question is why bother restricting it?

Because you want more control and the ability to fine-tune the ship instead of leaving it wide open for whatever future upgrades FFG decides to release.

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.

I only need to focus to use the rockets, and if a barrel roll or a boost before my move and attack will help me arc dodge or get around an obstacle... Sounds like a bit more maneuverability than an auto 2 hits..

Look, we are gonna disagree on this, you have your thoughts on it and I have mine.. your opinion doesn't make you right, just as mine doesn't either, just means we have different ways of looking at things..

Here's an idea:

The Tie Advanced are experimental correct. So who flies experimental ships, only the best and brightest pilots of the Imperial Navy.

Title: Tie Advanced Only (Not Vader)

Cost 0: (Will assume an Elite Pilot Skill costs 4 points, since we everyone agrees Advanced are over costed by 4 points.)

Experienced Pilot:

You ship gains an additional Elite Pilot Skill Upgrade. You cannot equip 2 Elite Pilot Skill of the same type.(Like the Awing Card)

This means you can really mold the ship to your team.

It's a simple fix and makes sense with the Theme!

(Will assume an Elite Pilot Skill costs 4 points, since we everyone agrees Advanced are over costed by 4 points.)

This is a bad assumption. An EPT slot is worth 0-1 point (FFG isn't completely consistent) based on the cost of other ships, not 4 points. And merely adding more upgrade slots doesn't really fix the problem since you have to spend even more points (on a ship where a major problem is that it's too expensive) to use them. It works on the a-wing because the other fixes, refit and proton rockets, made the base ship a viable option and provided a solid foundation for EPT customization. But that's not the case here.

And there's also the issue of duplicating something FFG already did with the a-wing. I expect a little more creativity than that.

Accuracy Corrector on the advanced would be hilariously broken/balanced (action-independent perfect dice letting you tank up with dodge or shimmy away with barrel-roll), and also render the TL and Focus actions basically worthless

Honestly, not sure what they could do with the advance other than a points cut (sorely needed) or a primary weapon boost (to make Malek not a joke) short of some kind of bottom-less ordinance mod so they could prot-rocket to infinity (and beyond)

A built-in action-free Expose function could also do it. Yes, they'd be basically strictly better x-wings, but they have a far more limited access to upgrades/pilots than Xs do.

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.

Also, Vader's ability is also worth more than 3 points. PtL is three points and it causes a stress while Vader can take 2 actions without causing a stress.

I appreciate the time spent on this but I simply do not value "jousting" as a measure of efficiency.

The TIE/ad needs a role and a 3/2/3/2 TIE fighter is where it should have been.

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.

The TIE/ad needs a role and a 3/2/3/2 TIE fighter is where it should have been.

oops

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.

Ships with the highest jousting value normalized to PS1 equivalent cost:

• Named Phantom + VI + ACD: ~108.5% (assuming Whisper & Echo's ability valued at 2 points)
• Lambda: 108.1%
• Z-95: 104.2%
• TIE Fighter: 100%
• B-wing: 92.7%
• TIE Bomber: 92.4%

Worlds 2014 Top 32:

(absolute / weighted / effectiveness)

TIE Bomber: 92.4%

This does raise an interesting question: if the TIE bomber has the 5th best jousting numbers (setting aside the shuttle as it is a poor fit for this analysis), and is approximately equal to the 4th-best ship, then why is it so poorly represented? There's no meaningful gap between generic b-wings and generic bombers, so why does the b-wing get a decent chunk of the points while the bomber doesn't appear in the top 32 at all?

TIE Bomber: 92.4%

This does raise an interesting question: if the TIE bomber has the 5th best jousting numbers (setting aside the shuttle as it is a poor fit for this analysis), and is approximately equal to the 4th-best ship, then why is it so poorly represented? There's no meaningful gap between generic b-wings and generic bombers, so why does the b-wing get a decent chunk of the points while the bomber doesn't appear in the top 32 at all?

Unless you are bringing ordnance, TIE Bombers are inferior to TIE Fighters. Obviously any fix to the TIE Advanced should also attempt to avoid this trap.

Unless you are bringing ordnance, TIE Bombers are inferior to TIE Fighters. Obviously any fix to the TIE Advanced should also attempt to avoid this trap.

But it seems like a similar situation should exist between generic b-wings and generic z-95s, unless you're willing to spend a few points on upgrades for the b-wing there's no reason to take it. And if you are willing to spend a few points on a b-wing then why were none of the top 32 players willing to bring a bomber with seismic charges or whatever? I see two possible answers: either the math is somehow wrong and the b-wing should have much better numbers than the bomber, or jousting values are nowhere near a complete model.

Unless you are bringing ordnance, TIE Bombers are inferior to TIE Fighters. Obviously any fix to the TIE Advanced should also attempt to avoid this trap.

But it seems like a similar situation should exist between generic b-wings and generic z-95s, unless you're willing to spend a few points on upgrades for the b-wing there's no reason to take it. And if you are willing to spend a few points on a b-wing then why were none of the top 32 players willing to bring a bomber with seismic charges or whatever? I see two possible answers: either the math is somehow wrong and the b-wing should have much better numbers than the bomber, or jousting values are nowhere near a complete model.

A few thoughts on fundamental game theory:

1. The ship efficiency to ship usage relationship is not a binary operation. There is a distribution, so even if the Z-95 is generally better than the B-wing as a filler / swarm ship, it should still see some occasional use.
2. Total ship efficiency also matters. The B-wing has capabilities that the Z-95 does not have: the System Upgrade slot and the E2 mod. If you look through the Top 32 squads, there was only one that brought naked Blues (4 Blue / 1 bandit).
3. The jousting value can and will change depending on what the specific matchup is.
4. Jousting doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of bombs. You will have to ask Sable Gryphon about that one.

The ship efficiency to ship usage relationship is not a binary operation. There is a distribution, so even if the Z-95 is generally better than the B-wing as a filler / swarm ship, it should still see some occasional use.

But if this is the case then a similar argument should be true of the TIE bomber and TIE fighter. Even though the TIE fighter is generally better we should still see some occasional bombers. But they don't exist at all in the top 32.

Total ship efficiency also matters. The B-wing has capabilities that the Z-95 does not have: the System Upgrade slot and the E2 mod. If you look through the Top 32 squads, there was only one that brought naked Blues (4 Blue / 1 bandit).

And this is the point I was trying to make back on the first page: instead of just looking at the jousting math you need to consider all aspects of a ship. For example, the b-wing's control ability with an ion cannon and tactician is something that doesn't show up at all in the math. So instead of just asking "how can we make the jousting math for the TIE advanced better" we need to first ask what the role of the ship is supposed to be and what capabilities it is supposed to offer beyond having adequate jousting math.

The ship efficiency to ship usage relationship is not a binary operation. There is a distribution, so even if the Z-95 is generally better than the B-wing as a filler / swarm ship, it should still see some occasional use.

But if this is the case then a similar argument should be true of the TIE bomber and TIE fighter. Even though the TIE fighter is generally better we should still see some occasional bombers. But they don't exist at all in the top 32.

Naked TIE Bombers have seen very occasional successful use in Regionals and Nationals, but obviously nothing at Worlds Top 32. Citing this one point out of context of the rest of the reasons that I gave is a reductionist counter-argument.

Yes, agreed. It is a difficult balancing act, because you can't make the jousting value so good that it replaces the TIE Fighter, but it still needs to be good enough that it is worth taking. Then you need to give it a unique capability. Some ships can simply get away with being in a different attack/defense quadrant, but the TIE Fighter and TIE Advanced both share 2/3/x/x. Hence why the FCS option opens up the most options relative to any of the other fixes that I analyzed, for reasons already mentioned earlier.

Bear in mind that the FCS title would, ideally, be only one of three different options that you could take. The other two (friendly buff and utility) I'll leave to someone with more creativity (like FFG) to think of.

We need to think outside the box more. Give the tie advanced a system upgrade slot, another elite pilot talent, and a cannon slot. This will add a ton of versatility to the tie advanced and make it the cheapest platform for a heavy laser cannon in the game with the best dial. I don't think it will be overpowered for Vader. He will just be a big point sink and the highest priority target on the board, like Keyan is. Once you add a cannon slot, the base attack becomes a lot less important.

What about this idea as a take on the OP's #4 suggestion, toned down just a little bit (seriously, joust efficiency really IS NOT everything), and adjusted to make the fighter more...thematically sound?

Experimental Testbed

TIE Advanced Only. Title .

Your upgrade bar gains the [system upgrade] icon, and all system upgrades cost 2 less points (minimum: 0). Place 3 energy tokens on this card. The system upgrade can be used as normal, only by spending one energy token. When spending the last token, receive 1 stress token and 1 face-up damage card.

Cost: 0

Is it possible to do an estimated dial worth? A mathematical estimate of how much the total dial is worth also considering upgrade help:

ex. lets pretend the Delta has a statline cost of approximately 25 points. That could mean that the upgrade slots and the totality of the dial (4k, bad hard turns, 1 slights) is worth 5 points.

The Falcon stats could be compared to the Decimator and the ORS with some adjustment and see how much the base ship costs. then you could get a value for the turret and the dial and the upgrades.

If there was a way to subtract "turret" we could then propose a value for the dial based on printed cost. Is it possible to estimate 'balanced cost' as a multiplication of tournament winning efficiency and total cost?

A comparison of the statline efficiency to the tie fighter (or multiplied with its winning efficiency) could give us an estimate on the point cost of the tie advanced dial, which might be negative.

--

Also, thoughts about the Falcon's dial? Is it "too good"? It doesn't make a lot of sense that it should have the best dial in the game from a fluff perspective... That might have made it easier to avoid the massive 30+% showing at our current tournaments. And the agony of scrubs everywhere in the galaxy.

I understand people's opinion and feelings about mathwing and jousting values. I too,having been a 40k playerfor years beforehand believe that there is way more to any game than maths can determine alone.

What has earned great respect from me for majorjugglers work as I don't believe he has ever tried to say the maths are an absolute but an indication of what mathematically is a likely outcome given set parameters ( ie the joust).

What the numbers have done for me ( from game experience) has shown what ships strengths and weekness are and how to accomodate them in certain lists.

All ships have certain weekness and strength and knowing the maths of what each ship has the potential to do at the start of list construction does go a long way. Does it mean anything is a given, no. But it has shown what is a likely outcome given a joust, I have seen witness to the maths through game joust outcomes and I'm sure many have had the same experience.

Now back to the advance, major what about something as simple as giving a free modification to the advance, player can chose of course and although at the moment I don't believe any of the mods directly effect damage output, there may very well be in the future

If we talk "thematically" as has been mentioned many times, then I cant remember seeing the advanced ever shoot a missile. I remember seeing it gun down some fairly helpless xwings but never a missile. It is however a testbed aircraft and I approach it as such and as such it should be open to a great many options if indeed it did spawn the interceptor and defender.

None of this really affects the game in terms of making it competitive.

Like Greedfly, I have taken Major's work as a very insightful view of the system we play in. I don't know how many times I have had an interceptor at range 3 behind an asteroid with a stealth generator and rolled nothing but blank green dice. If it all averages out then I don't think I will ever have to go through that ever again!

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.

BTW thank you for the work you have put forward Sir. You have opened my eyes to quite a few things even in just these few pages.

What they should have done is just the following:

Pick a different name for the Chardaan refit, and write "A-Wing or Tie-Advanced only" on it.

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! At least it would have been a practicable and very simple solution. I would much prefer this to not having a solution at all!

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. In fact, when a Phantom is on the table, everyone plays differently. Opponents spread out and look for getting at least a few shots. See the Evolving the Shark post on TC.

Great players learn to flank their enemy and eliminate return fire, which is the opposite of what a jousting value could measure. Also, if you've been reading up abut Wave 6, the Scum and Villainy faction discourages formation flying.

Jousting was more useful when it was TIE fighters and B-Wings. That time has past. A 3 ship Empire build won US Nationals. That was unthinkable before wave 4. Wave 5 will likely encourage 2 ship builds, which further dissuades players from straight up jousting.

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?

exactly what iperegrine said.

what magic do you want out of meee????

*rolls over a third time, puzzled why you won't give me a bone.

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. In fact, when a Phantom is on the table, everyone plays differently. Opponents spread out and look for getting at least a few shots. See the Evolving the Shark post on TC.

Great players learn to flank their enemy and eliminate return fire, which is the opposite of what a jousting value could measure. Also, if you've been reading up abut Wave 6, the Scum and Villainy faction discourages formation flying.

Jousting was more useful when it was TIE fighters and B-Wings. That time has past. A 3 ship Empire build won US Nationals. That was unthinkable before wave 4. Wave 5 will likely encourage 2 ship builds, which further dissuades players from straight up jousting.

That 3 ship list had the two best jousting value ships in it. Was that a coincidence; I have no clue.

I do think that even though jousting value isn't a perfect predictor of performance, it is the best measure of the point efficiency of ships that we have. If jousting values have been established for ships it is fairly easy to compare lists and get a feeling of how much value needs to be added by way of strong flying and good tactics.