Yes, I see your point, and do recall since I was collecting the data. I should re-phrase my statement. Interceptors during wave 3 Regionals accounted for around 11% of points spent, with generics comprising slightly more than half of it, and they generally pulled their weight well, showing up in the top of a few tournaments. But it was a one-off in the entire history of the meta so far, and the common factor in all of those builds was either squad leader, or stealth device and very particular formation flying. I don't think any of them relied very much on the boost action. Now that we have some very powerful turreted ships in wave 4, let alone wave 5, it is very easy for the Alphas to get picked off.

The real metric is determining how much more efficient you think the ship can be by getting a boost action and getting green 2's. The magic number for the Alpha Squadron Pilot is 122%. You need to hit that target in order to pay back the 2 points you paid over its jousting value.

I found a minor error in my calculations related to ships with blaster turret and a 2nd focus action (Recon Specialist or Palob). I calculated the expected damage output as simply having 3 base attack dice. However this results in having +1 attack dice at range 1, and +1 defense dice at range 3. For blaster turret damage numbers, I am now completely ignoring range: all shots are assumed to be range 2 (or range 1 with no extra dice due to it being a secondary weapon). This resulted in the damage being lowered by roughly 4% - 5% for all blaster turret calculations, which corresponds to a 2% - 2.5% reduction in predicted cost and jousting efficiency. Note that the Blaster Turret + Recon Specialist assumptions are optimistic, because it assumes that you always have 1 focus to spend on activating the blaster turret, and then uses the standard action economy for modifying the attack roll. In reality, you are completely unable to fire the blaster turret if you lose your action.

I have added my analysis for the TIE Advanced with the new fixes announced by FFG to the first post. I have copy / pasted the excerpt here.

-------------------------------------- TIE Advanced ------------------------------------
Commentary

The stock TIE Advanced is clearly overcosted by a wide margin. Vader is easily the best pilot of the group, as he has one of the best abilities in the game.

Analyzing the TIE Advanced Fix requires several different approaches to get a complete picture, since there are several different options.

Analysis #1: Free FCS

The first approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Fire-Control System. Without an overall point cost reduction, it is still not an effective ship, particularly for the generics.

Analysis #2: Free Accuracy Corrector

The second approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Accuracy Corrector. This dramatically increases the ship's damage output, while simultaneously allowing its action economy to be used for defense. To simulate the added durability, ships with the "HiD" flag have their durability calculated as if they have focus available to spend on defense 2/3 the time instead of 1/2 the time. This increases the TIE Advanced's durability by about 10%. With a free Accuracy Corrector, the generics have a jousting efficiency right around 100%. Maarek Steele's ability here is valued at zero points because he never gets critical hits. Vader is still obviously the best overall value, simply by valuing his ability at 3 points.

Analysis #3: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 50% proc rate

A third approach is to give all the ships the Advanced Targeting Computer (ATC) for +1 point. Because the Target Lock is not spent during use, this makes it difficult to exactly calculate, since its effectiveness will largely depend on the tactical situation. The first analysis of ATC will assume that the ship has a 50% chance of having a Target Lock on the target, in addition to its normal 67% chance of having a focus available for attack. I may refine this approach later, but for now it should provide a reasonable estimation of how these ships should perform. With this upgrade, I have increased Maarek Steele's pilot ability to be valued at 2 points, contrasted with being valued at 0.5 points stock, because he will very frequently be getting a critical hit through his opponent. I have excluded Vader from this analysis, because I assume that he will always have a Target Lock on his target, since he is PS9 and gets 2 actions.

Analysis #4: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 100% proc rate

The final approach is to give each ship ATC for one point, and assume that it kicks in for every shot. This is in addition to the 67% chance for having focus on offense, and so represents how effective a ship is after it gets the Target Lock queued up from a previous round, such as when firing on a high hit point ship. Vader is analyzed here assuming that he will always have target lock and focus available to use on attack. This is slightly different than the "stock" version of Vader, where I analyze his ability by giving him a free TL and then keeping the same focus action economy. However, the ATC TL is not spent during the attack, so Vader will not always need to spend his 2 actions on both TL and focus. Instead, he will sometimes be able to spend his 2nd action on evade instead. To simulate the potential for his added durability, I calculated his value twice: once with standard durability and once with "HiD" durability. Vader's resulting PS1 jousting value is between 24.5 - 25.8 points, which is an exceptional value for a 30 point PS9 pilot with an EPT slot, and corresponds to a PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency of 112% - 118%.

TIE Advanced Fix Summary

Generic Pilots

The generic pilots will be viable with a free Accuracy Corrector, which is almost the identical analysis as performed in this thread . Generic pilots can also work with the Advanced Targeting Computer, but if they can't get the Target Lock queue going they will be better off taking Accuracy Corrector.

Named Pilots (not Vader)

The named pilots will generally be better off with ATC. I believe the best way to evaluate Alozen and Steele with ATC is to use the 50% proc assumption, although if you can manage to get ATC to proc 100% of the time while still having focus available to spend on offense, then you will be doing significantly more damage. Predator is a reasonable upgrade in conjunction with ATC, but since you are only rolling 2 dice most of the time, it is not auto-include.

The Dark Lord Rises

Vader is still by far the best TIE Advanced pilot. Regardless of what fix FFG chose, this was nearly a mathematical certainty unless they simultaneously implemented a universal or generic-specific cost reduction. Vader is extremely good with a free Accuracy Corrector, but Advanced Targeting Computer is so good on him that it is nearly auto-include. Vader + ATC now has one of the highest PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency in the game. Conversly, his required efficiency is only somewhere between 131% - 144%, which should be attainable simply by shooting last at PS9. Almost any other pilot with an efficiency this high has a significant weakness that can be exploited, such as ACD Phantoms that are vulnerable to stress and higher pilot skill. Vader's only weakness is getting blocked during the activation phase to lose his two actions, which is not something that you can simply counter by list building. With this fix, Vader will undoubtedly become a prominent piece in many Imperial lists, and should see consistent and competitive high level tournament play. If anything, this fix could potentially make Vader too powerful, as many Imperial players will now be looking at ways to always incorporate Vader into their list.

----------------------------------- Stock TIE Advanced ---------------------------------

Yeah, FCS vs Accuracy Corrector at the same cost does not really make FCS a good choice.

Yeah, FCS vs Accuracy Corrector at the same cost does not really make FCS a good choice.

Unless you have multiple missiles.

Yeah, FCS vs Accuracy Corrector at the same cost does not really make FCS a good choice.

Unless you have multiple missiles.

FCS + Cluster Missiles is a whole other interesting discussion that I haven't touched yet. It is way in the backlog for when I eventually look at all the ordnance comprehensively.

Even then, Accuracy Corrector seems like a better deal, especially if you only have a Target Lock. Because the first attack will be unmodified, though the second will have the Target Lock.

Even then, Accuracy Corrector seems like a better deal, especially if you only have a Target Lock. Because the first attack will be unmodified, though the second will have the Target Lock.

Quick and dirty math: 2+2 > 1.5+2.25

More accurate math: If the opponent has >2 expected damage mitigation per shot, than FCS has a better chance of getting some damage through.

More more accurate math: Of course, if you roll 3 damage, there's no reason to proc Accuracy Corrector, meaning that you've actually got slightly-more-than 2 as your expected damage, as the 3 damage result is no-longer countered by the 0 damage result.

And I REALLY want to think about both of them on the Maarek Steele + Marksmanship + ExI build I've seen thrown about

Yeah, FCS vs Accuracy Corrector at the same cost does not really make FCS a good choice.

Unless you have multiple missiles.

FCS + Cluster Missiles is a whole other interesting discussion that I haven't touched yet. It is way in the backlog for when I eventually look at all the ordnance comprehensively.

I was actually referring to the magical world of "If Bombers had Sensors", but yeah, this too

I have added my analysis for the TIE Advanced with the new fixes announced by FFG to the first post. I have copy / pasted the excerpt here.

-------------------------------------- TIE Advanced ------------------------------------

Commentary

The stock TIE Advanced is clearly overcosted by a wide margin. Vader is easily the best pilot of the group, as he has one of the best abilities in the game.

Analyzing the TIE Advanced Fix requires several different approaches to get a complete picture, since there are several different options.

Analysis #1: Free FCS

The first approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Fire-Control System. Without an overall point cost reduction, it is still not an effective ship, particularly for the generics.

Analysis #2: Free Accuracy Corrector

The second approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Accuracy Corrector. This dramatically increases the ship's damage output, while simultaneously allowing its action economy to be used for defense. To simulate the added durability, ships with the "HiD" flag have their durability calculated as if they have focus available to spend on defense 2/3 the time instead of 1/2 the time. This increases the TIE Advanced's durability by about 10%. With a free Accuracy Corrector, the generics have a jousting efficiency right around 100%. Maarek Steele's ability here is valued at zero points because he never gets critical hits. Vader is still obviously the best overall value, simply by valuing his ability at 3 points.

Note: the analysis below for ACT is simplified and treats the extra die result from ATC as a hit , not a crit . When attacking unshielded ships, it will perform even better than the numbers below indicate.

Analysis #3: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 50% proc rate

A third approach is to give all the ships the Advanced Targeting Computer (ATC) for +1 point. Because the Target Lock is not spent during use, this makes it difficult to exactly calculate, since its effectiveness will largely depend on the tactical situation. The first analysis of ATC will assume that the ship has a 50% chance of having a Target Lock on the target, in addition to its normal 67% chance of having a focus available for attack. I may refine this approach later, but for now it should provide a reasonable estimation of how these ships should perform. With this upgrade, I have increased Maarek Steele's pilot ability to be valued at 2 points, contrasted with being valued at 0.5 points stock, because he will very frequently be getting a critical hit through his opponent. I have excluded Vader from this analysis, because I assume that he will always have a Target Lock on his target, since he is PS9 and gets 2 actions.

Analysis #4: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 100% proc rate

The final approach is to give each ship ATC for one point, and assume that it kicks in for every shot. This is in addition to the 67% chance for having focus on offense, and so represents how effective a ship is after it gets the Target Lock queued up from a previous round, such as when firing on a high hit point ship. Vader is analyzed here assuming that he will always have target lock and focus available to use on attack. This is slightly different than the "stock" version of Vader, where I analyze his ability by giving him a free TL and then keeping the same focus action economy. However, the ATC TL is not spent during the attack, so Vader will not always need to spend his 2 actions on both TL and focus. Instead, he will sometimes be able to spend his 2nd action on evade instead. To simulate the potential for his added durability, I calculated his value twice: once with standard durability and once with "HiD" durability. Vader's resulting PS1 jousting value is between 24.5 - 25.8 points, which is an exceptional value for a 30 point PS9 pilot with an EPT slot, and corresponds to a PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency of 112% - 118%.

TIE Advanced Fix Summary

Generic Pilots

The generic pilots will be viable with a free Accuracy Corrector, which is almost the identical analysis as performed in this thread . Generic pilots can also work with the Advanced Targeting Computer, but if they can't get the Target Lock queue going they will be better off taking Accuracy Corrector.

Named Pilots (not Vader)

The named pilots will generally be better off with ACT. I believe the best way to evaluate Alozen and Steele with ACT is to use the 50% proc assumption, although if you can manage to get ACT to proc 100% of the time while still having focus available to spend on offense, then you will be doing significantly more damage. Predator is a reasonable upgrade in conjunction with ACT, but since you are only rolling 2 dice most of the time, it is not auto-include.

The Dark Lord Rises

Vader is still by far the best TIE Advanced pilot. Regardless of what fix FFG chose, this was nearly a mathematical certainty unless they simultaneously implemented a universal or generic-specific cost reduction. Vader is extremely good with a free Accuracy Corrector, but Advanced Targeting Computer is so good on him that it is nearly auto-include. Vader + ATC now has one of the highest PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency in the game. Conversly, his required efficiency is only somewhere between 131% - 144%, which should be attainable simply by shooting last at PS9. Almost any other pilot with an efficiency this high has a significant weakness that can be exploited, such as ACD Phantoms that are vulnerable to stress and higher pilot skill. Vader's only weakness is getting blocked during the activation phase to lose his two actions, which is not something that you can simply counter by list building. With this fix, Vader will undoubtedly become a prominent piece in many Imperial lists, and should see consistent and competitive high level tournament play. If anything, this fix could potentially make Vader too powerful, as many Imperial players will now be looking at ways to always incorporate Vader into their list.

----------------------------------- Stock TIE Advanced ---------------------------------

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 16.1 | 20.2 | 15.6 | 77.2% | 77% - 77.5% | 172.1%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 17.4 | 20.4 | 15.6 | 76.2% | 76% - 76.4% | 203%

Commander Alozen 25 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 17.3 | 83.6% | 82.8% - 84.4% | 194.9%

Maarek Steele ^0.5 27 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 15.6 | 75.9% | 75.7% - 76.2% | 271%

Darth Vader ³ 29 | 24.3 | 18.9 | 15.6 | 82.4% | 82.1% - 82.6% | 308.3%

Darth Vader* 29 | 26 | 21.1 | 19 | 90.1% | 89.2% - 91% | 214.7%

* Vader modeled here as free TL on every attack

------------------------ TIE Advanced + Title + Fire Control System --------------------

50% chance of having a target lock when attacking

Note: Expected damage output is 21% higher than stock. (Alozen 9%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 18 | 20.2 | 17.4 | 86.1% | 85.5% - 86.7% | 141.4%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 19.4 | 20.4 | 17.4 | 84.9% | 84.3% - 85.5% | 166.6%

Commander Alozen 25 | 21.9 | 20.7 | 18.2 | 87.8% | 86.9% - 88.7% | 178.3%

Maarek Steele ^0.5 27 | 22.8 | 20.5 | 17.4 | 84.6% | 84% - 85.2% | 222.6%

Darth Vader ³ 29 | 26.8 | 18.9 | 17.4 | 91.8% | 91.1% - 92.5% | 252.9%

------------------------ TIE Advanced + Title + Accuracy Corrector ---------------------

damage directly calculated; durability now assumes 2/3 chance of defensive focus vs 1/2

Note: Expected damage output is 43% higher than stock. ( Alozen 32%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 21 | 20.2 | 20.3 | 100.5% | 99.5% - 101.6% | 106.8%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 22.7 | 20.4 | 20.3 | 99.1% | 98.1% - 100.2% | 125.9%

Commander Alozen 25 | 25.6 | 20.7 | 21.3 | 103% | 101.5% - 104.6% | 133.5%

Maarek Steele ⁰ 27 | 26.1 | 20.9 | 20.3 | 96.9% | 96% - 98% | 168.1%

Darth Vader ³ 29 | 30.7 | 18.9 | 20.3 | 107.2% | 106.1% - 108.3% | 191.2%

---- TIE Advanced + Title + Advanced Targeting Computer (50% duty cycle assumption) ----

Advanced Targeting Computer modeled as 1 free hit (not crit) 50% of the time

This is in ADDITION to a 2/3 chance of focus on offense.

Vader: assumes always has TL+F; his numbers are in the next section

Alozen: always gets TL @ range 1. Otherwise 50% chance of free extra hit.

Note: Expected damage output is 52% higher than stock. ( Alozen 40%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 22 | 20.3 | 21.1 | 19.6 | 92.9% | 91.4% - 94.3% | 123%

PS4 TIE Advanced 24 | 22 | 21.3 | 19.6 | 92% | 90.5% - 93.4% | 144.1%

Commander Alozen 26 | 25.1 | 21.5 | 20.9 | 97% | 95% - 98.8% | 148.8%

Alozen + Predator 29 | 27.3 | 24.9 | 23.5 | 94.4% | 92% - 96.6% | 146.4%

Maarek Steele ² 28 | 27.2 | 20.1 | 19.6 | 97.5% | 95.9% - 99% | 190.2%

Steele + Predator ² 31 | 29.7 | 23.2 | 22.3 | 96% | 93.9% - 97.9% | 181.5%

---- TIE Advanced + Title + Advanced Targeting Computer (100% duty cycle assumption) ---

Advanced Targeting Computer modeled as 1 free hit (not crit) 100% of the time

This is in ADDITION to a 2/3 chance of focus on offense.

Vader: assumes always has TL+F on offense.

Vader durability calculated 2 ways: 1) standard, and 2) "HiD": 2/3 chance of defensive focus vs 1/2

(approximation for increased action economy and occasional evade tokens instead)

Note: Expected damage output is 104% higher than stock.

( Alozen 69%, Vader 58% relative to a free TL stock)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 22 | 23.9 | 21.1 | 23.1 | 109.3% | 106.8% - 111.6% | 91.6%

PS4 TIE Advanced 24 | 25.9 | 21.3 | 23.1 | 108.2% | 105.8% - 110.5% | 107.3%

Commander Alozen 26 | 27.8 | 21.5 | 23.1 | 107.3% | 104.9% - 109.6% | 123.9%

Alozen + Predator 29 | 29.9 | 24.9 | 25.8 | 103.6% | 100.7% - 106.3% | 123.9%

Maarek Steele ² 28 | 31.7 | 20.1 | 23.1 | 114.7% | 112.1% - 117.1% | 141.7%

Steele + Predator ² 31 | 34.1 | 23.2 | 25.8 | 111% | 107.9% - 113.9% | 139.6%

Vader 30 | 33.5 | 21.8 | 24.5 | 112.1% | 109.2% - 114.7% | 144.5%

Vader + Predator 33 | 35.8 | 24.8 | 27 | 109% | 105.7% - 112% | 143.7%

Vader (HiD) 30 | 35.3 | 21.8 | 25.8 | 118.3% | 114.9% - 121.6% | 131.2%

Vader + Predator (HiD) 33 | 37.8 | 24.8 | 28.5 | 115.1% | 111.2% - 118.8% | 130.3%

Mathwing prediction for heavy relevance of Darth Vader. =D

I'm gonna wait and see if Vader's ability is that powerful that he is truly far and beyond as a premier tier 1 choice. or even as the obvious choice for tie advanceds.

Hoping really hoping to see some generics hit the table too.

Maarek stele is going to be really happy.

I dont think Vader will be overpowered. He will rival Interceptors and Phantoms for the flanker role, but the Imperials already had two very good choices there (Fel and Whisper/Echo). In fact i find him pretty similar to Fel.

Fel will be more agile with his superior dial and can equip auto thrusters against turrets. Plus 3 actions never hurts.

Vader will be more sturdy against other threats (those 2 shields help), he'll be able to dish out guaranteed crits which is great against big ships and he'll be a little bit more expensive when decked out. With 3/2/3 he won't become a tank all of the sudden.

Heck, right now i'd be inclined to run both of these guys in a list.

Sensor Jammer?

Are all the ACT in the new advanced math supposed to be ATC or did I miss something?

Mathwing prediction for heavy relevance of Darth Vader. =D

I'm gonna wait and see if Vader's ability is that powerful that he is truly far and beyond as a premier tier 1 choice. or even as the obvious choice for tie advanceds.

Hoping really hoping to see some generics hit the table too.

Maarek stele is going to be really happy.

Maarek with ATC is probably going to play out even better than the numbers here, because I only modeled it as a free hit, not crit. I got around this by valuing his ability at 2 poitns with ATC, but against unshielded craft, especially low agility ones like VT-49s that you will always be landing crits on, his ability will; be absolutely terrifying.

I dont think Vader will be overpowered. He will rival Interceptors and Phantoms for the flanker role, but the Imperials already had two very good choices there (Fel and Whisper/Echo). In fact i find him pretty similar to Fel.

Fel will be more agile with his superior dial and can equip auto thrusters against turrets. Plus 3 actions never hurts.

Vader will be more sturdy against other threats (those 2 shields help), he'll be able to dish out guaranteed crits which is great against big ships and he'll be a little bit more expensive when decked out. With 3/2/3 he won't become a tank all of the sudden.

Heck, right now i'd be inclined to run both of these guys in a list.

Vader, Fel, and Whisper/Echo all fill different roles. However note that Vader has, by far, the least weakness of the three of them. Why stop at just 2. We now have a new 9's build:

99 points

Vader + ATC

Whisper + VI + ACD

Fel + PtL + Thrusters

Zach at Team Covenant has got to be licking his chops at this one!

Sensor Jammer?

Sensor Jammer would have to increase the durability of the ship by at least as much as what the Advanced Targeting Computer or Accuracy Corrector proportionally increases the damage. I have not run the Sensor Jammer numbers, but suspect they will be far lower than AC and ATC. I updated the 3rd post, Calculating Expected Damage with the new changes, and copied them below.

(Incidentally I found a coding error that was undervaluing Wedge's increased damage by 1/3, that has been fixed).

Here is the key factor:

If Vader can get a TL + F every time he attacks with Advanced Targeting Computer, he will be doing about as much damage as a TIE Phantom. (Slightly less without Predator, and slightly more with.) Because he gets 2 actions at PS9, and the TL doesn't go away, this should not be difficult to achieve.

I would much rather have TIE Phantom damage coming from Vader than putting Sensor Jammer on him.

Are all the ACT in the new advanced math supposed to be ATC or did I miss something?

Oops, yes, typos on my part! Fixed!

Calculating Expected Damage Output

In order to calculate the average damage that different attacks do relative to 2 dice, the following assumptions were used:

• The attacker has no action 1/3 of the time, and focus 2/3 of the time.
• The defender has focus 1/2 the time.
• The range bins probabilities are [30% 45% 20% 5%] for [R1 R2 R3 R3+obstacle].
• The defender base defense dice is meta dependent, see below.

Since we are looking to get an overall aggregate score, I'll treat each of these categories as independent, assign the weighted probability to each, and then calculate the aggregate totals. The base number of defense dice was evaluated in three different "meta" environments:

[{0 defense dice} {1 defense dice} {2 defense dice} {3 defense dice} {4 defense dice}]:

• low defense meta: [15% 35% 25% 23% 2%]
• "standard" defense meta: [ 7% 30% 30% 25% 8%]
• high defense meta: [ 2% 28% 25% 30% 15%]

These numbers are based on the current wave 4 meta and extrapolating into the anticipated wave 5 meta.

Note: you don't always need to spend your focus for attack or for defense, so adding up the probability of having focus available for both can certainly be more than 100%. Since we only care about the overall statistical averages, and not conditional probabilities in a specific scenario, we can treat these as independent variables.

This results in the following damage numbers, normalized to 2 attack dice:

defense meta

low defense normal defense high defense

Basic damage numbers

1 dice: 0.4610 0.4406 0.4242

2 dice: 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

3 dice: 1.6539 1.7058 1.7511

4 dice: 2.3741 2.5012 2.6161

5 dice ¹ : 3.1304 3.3472 3.5486

1 free reroll on attack (Howlrunner or Predator)

2 dice 1.3222 1.3384 1.3516

3 dice 2.1222 2.2166 2.2994

4 dice 2.9449 3.1363 3.3121

Same action economy as above, plus a free Target Lock

2 dice + TL: 1.4150 1.4360 1.4531

3 dice + TL: 2.3595 2.4745 2.5758

4 dice + TL: 3.3709 3.6095 3.8297

Basic Damage with Wedge ability

2 dice 1.3346 1.3927 1.4369

3 dice 2.0622 2.1959 2.3081

4 dice 2.8257 3.0509 3.2503

Accuracy Corrector with same focus action economy as above

2 dice + AC 1.4508 1.4630 1.4719

3 dice + AC 1.8766 1.9349 1.9849

4 dice + AC 2.4874 2.6177 2.7351

Advanced Targeting Computer (same focus action economy as above)

2 dice, 50% proc 1.4842 1.5215 1.5540

2 dice, 100% proc 1.9685 2.0431 2.1080

2 dice + Preda tor, 50% 1.8477 1.9135 1.9708

2 dice + Predator, 100% 2.3731 2.4885 2.5900

Advanced Targeting Computer with 100% chance of focus and TL (Vader)

2 dice 2.1719 2.2655 2.3471

2 dice + Predator 2.5699 2.7053 2.8246

Rear Admiral Chiraneau with Target Lock instead of focus as his action

3 dice Admiral: 2.0296 2.1155 2.1907

4 dice Admiral: 2.8249 3.0021 3.1642

Secondary weapons

Heavy Laser Cannon ² : 2.2657 2.3750 2.4721

Heavy Laser Cann on ² + TL: 3.2002 3.4130 3.6065

Ion Cannon Turret ³ : 0.8737 0.9247 0.9669

BTL-A4 + Ion Turret ⁴ : 0.6480 0.6950 0.7379

BTL-A4 + Ion Turret ⁵ : 0.8663 0.9295 0.9873

Notes:

1. 5 base attack dice does not exist in the game, this is purely for speculative reference.
2. This assumes that the attacker always has a HLC shot, so the only range bin that changes the number of dice is range 3 + obstacle.
3. This assumes that the attacker always has a range 1-2 unobstructed Ion Cannon shot.
4. If range 3 shot, then zero damage since ion turret is range 1-2. Otherwise, calculate the probability of the attacker and defender each still having a focus after the first attack. These are assumed to be independent to make the calculation simpler. Then calculate the average Ion Cannon Turret damage with these resulting action probabilities.
5. For reference only. Assume that the Ion Cannon Turret always has a shot even if the range bin is range 3. Do not allow for obstruction at range 3+. I.e. the calculation is the same as #3, but with the action economy in #4.

So it's just about better than all the other stuff you tested, right?

Sensor Jammer?

Also. Sensor Jammer only changes a hit to an eyeball, so if your opponent has focus it does absolutely nothing. For my numbers I assume the attacker has a ficus 67% of the time, so that wouldn't significantly increase your durability.

Sensor Jammer?

Also. Sensor Jammer only changes a hit to an eyeball, so if your opponent has focus it does absolutely nothing. For my numbers I assume the attacker has a ficus 67% of the time, so that wouldn't significantly increase your durability.

Actually, it forces them into a scenario in which they want to spend the focus offensively vs defensively.

It is a subtle change, but absolutely an amazing upgrade.

Think of it this way: If I have Sensor Jammer and shoot second, my opponent has to choose whether to lose that one damage automatically (better than an Evade result), or choose whether to leave himself defenseless from counterattack.

Your caveat would be better phrased as "If your opponent intends to spend their focus already, it does absolutely nothing", as otherwise it's raking them across the coals.

All of this jousting business doesn't account for the fact that the TIE Advanced has a terrible dial. It is a really significant drawback to have neither a 1 straight nor a 1 turn. But you can clearly take away from this that this is a makor fix for this ship, and should return it to viability without a doubt.

Yeah, FCS vs Accuracy Corrector at the same cost does not really make FCS a good choice.

Unless you have multiple missiles.

FCS + Cluster Missiles is a whole other interesting discussion that I haven't touched yet. It is way in the backlog for when I eventually look at all the ordnance comprehensively.

In regards to ordinance, I'm very curious about how Horton Salm's JV is affected when using Torpedoes (specifically proton torpedoes, ion torpedoes, and flechette torpedoes).

His ability seems to have been created specifically for Proton Torpedoes, after all, so I think it would be excellent to know how that works out. My gut feeling (and playing him a few times) tells me his efficiency is still pretty low.

Yes. Ordnance is a one-off so you can't look at it as jousting value, which the way I have defined it here counts as many rounds of continuous damage output and damage intake.

Ordnance basically spends extra squad points in the hope of doing at least that much more additional hit points worth of damage to the opponent. It is highly situational and depends on what you are shooting at.

The best way to approach it would be to calculate the one-off, then calculate the JV after he has no torpedoes. Ditto if he has two torpedoes.

All of this jousting business doesn't account for the fact that the TIE Advanced has a terrible dial. It is a really significant drawback to have neither a 1 straight nor a 1 turn. But you can clearly take away from this that this is a makor fix for this ship, and should return it to viability without a doubt.

That is correct, but it is reflected in the final points prediction. Engine on Vader will be a popular choice, as he will become basically just as maneuverable as a PtL squint. Squints are restricted to greens. Vader isn't.

Sensor Jammer?

Also. Sensor Jammer only changes a hit to an eyeball, so if your opponent has focus it does absolutely nothing. For my numbers I assume the attacker has a ficus 67% of the time, so that wouldn't significantly increase your durability.

I think assuming any ship owner has a large hardy office plant on hand 67% of the time is a bit high. It should be no higher than 13% in my opinion.

Vader will be a terror again. Love it.

Definately picking up another advanced. Love finally having a 21-25pt imperial ship that cant be one shot.

13%? You probably misunderstood. 67% of the time, the attacker will have a focus available to spend - that is the assumption. 13% would be way too low. That would be like only getting your action 1 out of 4 times, and then spending your focus on defense before you attack half of the time.

13%? You probably misunderstood. 67% of the time, the attacker will have a focus available to spend - that is the assumption. 13% would be way too low. That would be like only getting your action 1 out of 4 times, and then spending your focus on defense before you attack half of the time.

Also keep in mind that opponents going up against sensor jammers will be taking focus actions whenever possible. 67% may even be a conservative guess.

13%? You probably misunderstood. 67% of the time, the attacker will have a focus available to spend - that is the assumption. 13% would be way too low. That would be like only getting your action 1 out of 4 times, and then spending your focus on defense before you attack half of the time.

You typed "ficus" instead of "focus", and he made a joke.