Yeah that looks like what I have at the top of post #122.

The processing time is why I calculate HitCritPDF() just once and then index into it later. The iteration of calculating rounds to kill is actually the slowest part for me, but that also has to do with dynamically reallocating memory (lazy programming).

Edit: I just noticed the other half of your post. I'll try and elaborate later.

Well done MajorJuggler. I appreciate all of your hard work on this. I did my own house rules version that I called Fun Wing and though I did not have your mathematical expertise my own adjustments were vey much in line with your house rules. It was great to have your modeling to check my more intuitive/reasoning/experimental work.

I look forward to you ordnance and future astromech fixes. My thought for ordinance was to treat most of them as weapons to be fired without being discarded, but most would need point adjustments.

I am a fan of both the X-Wing and the A-Wing (well the whole game and every ship actually).

For the X-Wing I wondered what you thought an astromech that allows a barrel roll action to be added to he action bar should cost. I was not sure how to use your calculus with the house rule x-wing. 2 points?

Also what a should a boost astro mech cost, 3 points? or still 4?

I think the astromech slot could be a great help to the X, Y, and E wing if most of them where not so useless and poorly pointed. I did like your fix to R5 D8.

For the Red Squadron and Grey Squadron Y-Wing would adding an EPT to both close up the .5 pt problem? Also it seems thematically appropriate considering most other ships have unnamed pilots with EPT. It also seems to me Dagger Squadron pilots should get an EPT as well. They where all elite units. Rogue Squadron should get an additional EPT like the A-Wing test pilots in my mind.

For the A-Wing I never liked the 2 primary attack. 2 attack is fine for a swarm ship but that was never what the A-Wing was, it was the Rebel glass cannon. Would it be at all possible to run the numbers for what a 3 primary attack A-Wing point costs should be? I think it would cost 2 more than the PS1 17 so 19 for a 3 primary attack A wing. I am sure it takes a bit of time to run the numbers but I think it would be a interesting house rule fix and a nice alternative to the soft touch intercepter we now have. (I run Green Squadron Pilots but they never have felt right to me).

Thanks again, I find your fixes well reasoned and I look forward to your future posts.

Well if you take numbers straight from MJ's tables and equations,

P _jousting = {Expected Damage Output} * {Expected Durability}

P _total = P _jousting * {Non-jousting coefficient}

jousting value = 12*( P _jousting ^{(1 / 1.85)} + (1/150)*(P _jousting ^{(1 / 0.8)} - 1) )

total value = 12*( P _total ^{(1 / 1.85)} + (1/150)*( P _total ^{(1 / 0.8)} - 1) )

We need to know a 3-attack a-wing's expected damage output, durability, and its non-jousting coefficient

Tablewise the "standard meta" numbers are:

expected damage output:

3-dice: 1.7058

expected durability:

A-wing: 1.336

non-jousting coefficient:

Adding an EPT to PS4 X-wing and B-wing would help them for sure, although the B-wing probably doesn't need it. There are many ways to do House Rules to try and fix ships. My personal take is to keep things functionally as close to the original design intent as possible, and just get things to hit the right price point. I'm not a big fan of allowing boost on an astromech, as this would let Y-wings barrel roll, which just doesn't make much sense to me regardless of the cost. But for Fun Wing, a 1 or 2 point cost would be the right cost.

Thanks Zero9300 something about the formulas haven't clicked for me yet, I am not sure what I am substituting where in the formulas. Its not a way they have been laid out problem but more or less a me needing to take the time and brush off long unused mathematical brain cells problem. I would probably need to print things out so I could see all the tables side by side and run some numbers. But now that I have your numbers I can go back and try to run them myself and see where I was making a mistake. Though with 3 attack die the A-WIng would not need (nor probably should be allowed) to take the refit. Especially if some better ordnance costs come along.

Major Juggler: That is a good point about the astromech and the Y-Wings. And I agree with you about trying to stay as close to design intent as possible, I suppose I just chafe more about when the game design varies from my experiences/interpretations with E-U and film material.

Right now the under gunned A-Wing and the falling behind x-Wing are my only sore spots. I know that I will just have to live with the A-Wing and I am trying to come to peace with it by running a green squadron PTL ship. But I have hopes that FF will make a X-Wing patch card (along with E-Wing and TIE Defender patch cards) to get them into the tournaments again. The Y-Wing patch looks hopeful as does the TIE Advanced's.

In the old E-U, as I am everyone reading the post here is familiar with, the X-Wing was supposed to be such a strong design that it could keep up, with updates, with newer ships. As the game has grown, even with your hull fix, its maneuverability seems a bit lacking, especially with the fixed TIE Advanced coming soon to a table near you. The TIE advanced was supposed to and designed to be able to go toe to toe with the X-Wing but now the X-Wing seems like it has fallen behind with its cost issue and limited movement options.

All in all it is nice to create, experiment, and play. In our local shop we almost exclusively play for tournament prep, with is fine. It is nice to have some options for those rare times when other like minded friends who grew up with all the EU stuff want to experiment a bit.

I am looking to play good game, were the points are all balanced and people can play to their style and with the ships that have the model design they loved, not I win with my super ships. Math wing absolutely helps makes the fine tuning of "Fun Wing" easier and tournament list building more informed. Thanks again for your time gentlemen!

Yeah that looks like what I have at the top of post #122.

The processing time is why I calculate HitCritPDF() just once and then index into it later. The iteration of calculating rounds to kill is actually the slowest part for me, but that also has to do with dynamically reallocating memory (lazy programming).

Edit: I just noticed the other half of your post. I'll try and elaborate later.

I revisited my scripts to do some debugging for insight. I looked at the runtime for the HitCritPDF calculations and learned what was in front of my face the whole time: the longest calculations seem to be the zero-hits and zero-crits cases, the next longest are zero-hits non-zero crits cases, and the non-zero hits case being the quickest. Before I realized this, I was getting alarmed stepping over the HitCritPDF() function while calculating the entire array; the slowest calculations are all being done first.

In the zero hit and zero crit case, for each possible evade result, the function was summing the probability of all hit and crit possibilities beneath the number of evades (the permutations of which become more numerous with a higher evade result). If I had been more clever and farsighted, I would have made a cumulative function for attackdice that was desensitized to difference between hits and crits. It would certainly cut down the the number of operations in the calculation. Non-zero crits and zero hits might not be so simple to resolve, but has fewer permutations I'd wish to lump together. Regardless, it is indexed for use in other calculations anyways.

So the slightly more interesting insight is that calculating JV of a ship at different levels of healthiness shows what we had already touched upon briefly before; the first few points of hull/shield damage done are a small portion of a ship's worth.

These are numbers for MeanRTD() of a tie fighter converted to its JV (maybe an approximation, as I am not adjusting crits on hull still). When the tie fighter loses its first hull, it is at 66% of its full health, 72.8% of its full durability, and 84% of its full joust value, which shamefully reminds me of this Neil Patrick Harris quote . Even at 1 hull, 33% of its full health, 50.3% of full durability, it has 68% of its full joust value.

These numbers are cute and all, but does the math agree with intuition? I'd say so. These exercises are not considering playing for points-destroyed in a timed-tournament environment, but if my tie fighter has even 1 hull, it has considerable value firing at full strength and drawing at minimum of a single shot to destroy. When selecting targets from the other side of the table, I am going to make shots that are likely to remove the most value from the field--the ships closest to death that I am likely to kill.

Behold the power of focus fire! :-)

Thanks for the work! I figured, I'd help out your backlog and convert your data (with commentary) into a spreadsheet. You can download it here . There may be some data missing (superscripts didn't translate well), but the bulk of it should be all in the file.

I finally sat down and did the math for what I originally set out to do: a function that finds the mean JV removed by a single volley (of proton torpedoes, for example). I made one specifically for proton torpedos and one specifically for primary weapons, with hit/crit PDFs calculated and indexed inside (when I revise this method, I will make a general one that will simply be passed the already-calculated PDF).

The function is target-dependent, so I have parameters for the target's hull, shield, agility, and expected damage output. Representative examples of ships likely to be in meta could be used to judge the average worth as well as corner cases for munition value.

The calculation of the mean JV removed involves multiplying the change in JV from a damage outcome by the probability of that outcome. This calculation is iterated for each health value from maximum hull/shield to 1 hull with weight on each, signifying the probability that the target will have any possible JV value at the time the volley starts. *This is still an approximation as my durability calculations are not currently adjusting the mean rounds to destroy*

The equations put simply find:

mean JV removed += (initialJV - damagedJV) * Prob(initialJV) * Prob(damage dealt) for each possible initial JV; for each possible damage outcome

Criticals that are double damage are explicitly calculated and included in damage outcomes

Assumptions made in calculating for the Proton Torpedoes and the Primary weapon were:

• Defender has focus 50% of the time.
• Defender health at the time of the volley is equally weighted from maximum health down to 1 hull.

The defender focus assumption is simply to be consistent with other calculations done. Because we do not know what time or what health the defender may actually be at when the volley takes place in any game, it is easy to assume any possibility to be equally likely. The reality of those possibilities may have a modal nature or are weighted greater closer to maximum health (especially for torpedoes, which probably will be used at the first opportunity), but it is harder to pin down what those probabilities actually are without a more complicated model of what damage the rest of the squadron/previous rounds may have resulted in.

Assumptions in the function for specifically calculating Proton Torpedoes:

• The attacker has a target lock available (this attack is assumed to happen)
• Only the single focus -> crit modification is available
• Range is irrelevant (this attack is assumed to happen)

I want to just look at simple action economies for the moment, for simplicity's sake. The target lock is spent performing the attack in this case, so I want to compare it to the primary weapon having the same action economy. If I were to include having focus available for modification of the torpedoes, I would compare it against a primary attack with focus + target lock.

For primary weapons, Attack, focus, # of rerolls, and range are parameters of the function.

Assumptions made in this comparison of Primary attacks to secondary:

• The attacker has 3 base attack
• The attacker has a focus available
• The attacker has no rerolls
• First, the primary volley is substitute for a range 3 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is compared to that of the torpedo)
• Second, the primary volley is substitute for a range 2 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is compared to that of the torpedo)
• Third, the attack has a 50/50 chance of replacing a range 2 or range 3 torpedo attack (mean JV removed is just the average of these two cases)

The value of a munition to a ship is going to depend on how much better that attack is than the primary of the ship itself. Currently, torpedoes are mountable on ships with 2-atk or 3-atk, but all 2-atk ships with torpedo slots currently available (y-wings and scyks [Lol] ) can use their titles and secondary weapon upgrades to achieve damage outputs near or above 3-atk ships. If I assumed that the primary weapon shots of equal action economy would be taken with target lock instead of focus, the numbers would shift in favor of primary attacks due to increased chance of crits, but the focus is a more likely substitute action most of the time.

I ran the numbers for a few representative examples of ships. Here are the meanJVremoved from a proton torpedo volley:

The same ships with primary at range 3:

Primaries at range 2:

And this last table just displays the difference in JV removed between a torpedo shot and a primary shot at range 2, range 3, and then the average (assuming 50/50 chance of range 2 or range 3)

Precursory Conclusions I draw from these first numbers:

The expected difference a Proton Torpedo will make is going to be 1-2 extra JV removed from the enemy. The higher agility the target, the bigger difference it seems to make (the proton torpedoes are less likely to get completely swamped on a roll). Note that the assumptions related to the primary having a focus as the substitute action as well as the weights assigned to defender initial health being a uniform distribution are assumptions in favor of the proton torpedoes . I need to do a bit more analysis and make my tables less sloppy sometime this week. I am scared to look at the deviation, which is probably very high for low-hp ships.

I think my initial guess that proton torpedoes should be worth 1-2 points instead of 4 feels a little bit vindicated, but it is difficult to say what something *should* be priced compared to just these numbers. Knowing that FFG is probably hiding the cost of the torpedo slot in the cost of the ships that bear them, I'd almost feel comfortable to say that they would be fine at 1 point each (if it had to be an integer) for the upgrade itself, though such a change would be fairly radical and difficult to convincingly justify. (and possibly make the b-wing a little too happy)

Excellent work! This is very similar to the kind of analysis that I have been meaning to do with ordnance, although I would intentionally assign the "value" as a simple ratio of (cost/health)*damage.

One good conclusion from this is that you should always kill the glass cannons first.

I would also re-run the numbers assuming the base ship has 2 attack, not 3 attack. TIE Bombers and Y-wings are really the ideal ordnance carriers, (or anything with only 2 attack, really) because they see the greatest increase in damage from 2 base dice to a missile/torpedo. So you actually have to balance ordnance around the 2 attack ships. If you balance their cost around the 3 attack ships, then it becomes overpowered on 2 attack ships. (Difficulty of acquiring the Target Lock notwithstanding, which is a separate issue entirely.)

Excellent work! This is very similar to the kind of analysis that I have been meaning to do with ordnance, although I would intentionally assign the "value" as a simple ratio of (cost/health)*damage.

One good conclusion from this is that you should always kill the glass cannons first.

I would also re-run the numbers assuming the base ship has 2 attack, not 3 attack. TIE Bombers and Y-wings are really the ideal ordnance carriers, (or anything with only 2 attack, really) because they see the greatest increase in damage from 2 base dice to a missile/torpedo. So you actually have to balance ordnance around the 2 attack ships. If you balance their cost around the 3 attack ships, then it becomes overpowered on 2 attack ships. (Difficulty of acquiring the Target Lock notwithstanding, which is a separate issue entirely.)

Indeed it does seem to say glass cannons should always be killed first, but that number is also the difference in JV removed of torpedoes vs primaries. The difference protons make grows as agility increases, grows as target damage output is increased, and decreases with target total health.

By pricing off the target's JV curve, it is likely that it will come very close to (cost/health)*damage as the shots calculated near full health will be lower than (cost/health) while killing blow damage will be [much] higher than (cost/health). I specifically wanted to make sure that if ordnance will significantly give a better chance of a killing blow, earlier than primaries alone, that it would have significant worth.

I forgot about the TIE bomber, as likely most people have. I don't like only pricing the torpedoes, specifically, based on just 2-atk ships because the ships that mount them have low efficiency on their own. The lowest PS y-wing generics are 84% efficient, the bombers are 92%, and I don't want to think about the M3-A's 90% after adding another 2 points onto it. If for 1-2 rounds of shooting you have 100% efficiency by pricing torps by the 2-atk ships, you are then back to just primaries with low efficiency, people probably still wouldn't use them. I like to think that the reasons for why these ships are less efficient shooting their primaries is because FFG priced them with the torpedo slot being worth some number of points and not just naively thinking that they would be competitive with them as wholly *optional*. That for those 2 torpedo volleys, they would be above 100% efficiency for their statline, then drop to below 100%, making the torpedoes a kind of disposable efficiency for the 2-atk ships. By pricing by the 3-atk ships, one can ensure that the 2-atk ships get disposable efficiency while the 3-atk ships get something more equivalent to a filler option with the same upgrade(is that something desirable in this game? I don't know yet). Pricing to be efficient only for 2-atk ships will make 3-atk ships practically NEVER take torps (which they currently don't), and almost NEVER will 2-atk ships see use as torp delivery services (which they currently don't).

Missiles may be another story, as many of the specific 2-atk ships that may mount have good efficiency without them, and so would be alright to price by...I'd have to put more thought into them. Each wave FFG seems to be refining how they price ships and who gets what upgrades, so its hard to use a single upgrade to bridge gaps between ships that all can carry them.

Either way, here are some numbers for 2-atk ships:

edit: note that before I had range 2 and range 3 rows mixed up, I will correct my mistakes when I get some more illuminating data.

At this point, I am not 100% convinced of anything by the numbers by either 3-atk or 2-atk.

By pricing by the 3-atk ships, one can ensure that the 2-atk ships get disposable efficiency while the 3-atk ships get something more equivalent to a filler option with the same upgrade(is that something desirable in this game? I don't know yet). Pricing to be efficient only for 2-atk ships will make 3-atk ships practically NEVER take torps (which they currently don't), and almost NEVER will 2-atk ships see use as torp delivery services (which they currently don't).

Yes, all else being equal, you can either make the attack 2 ships overpowered, or you can make the attack 3 ships underpowered, or some combination of both. 2 attack ships will always be more cost effective carriers because their marginal damage increase is greater. To really "fix" this you need some external change, like all ordnance costs -1 on TIE bombers and Y-wings, and/or an easier way for them to get a Target Lock.

Yes, all else being equal, you can either make the attack 2 ships overpowered, or you can make the attack 3 ships underpowered, or some combination of both. 2 attack ships will always be more cost effective carriers because their marginal damage increase is greater. To really "fix" this you need some external change, like all ordnance costs -1 on TIE bombers and Y-wings, and/or an easier way for them to get a Target Lock.

Well, considering the PS2 y-wing an illustrative example and some hand-waving, you have a ship that is 'overcosted' by ~3 points without any upgrades at a total cost of 18. If we price the torps at 3 (or whatever number of points the torps make a difference by), put one on a y-wing, it is still overcosted by 3 points, but has added 3 points to its total cost at the predicted value rate (thus, these are 3, "100% efficient" points added). This does increase efficiency, but it will continue to be <100%. Target lock difficulty aside, still, people will not use a non-positional ship that is not very close to 100% efficiency in jousting (or they will not succeed if they do). If indeed the torpedoes are a 3 point value to the y-wing, but costed at 2 points (if that is indeed the point-filler value for 3-atk ships), putting one on a y-wing will make it cost 2 points more but give it 3 points value. Thus it is now only undercosted by 2 points. A second torpedo may make it overcosted by 1 point, being worth ~21 points while costing 22. This puts it in line with b-wings by predicted value, though behavior on the field is going to be flavor-fully different.

Now that same torpedo on a 3-atk ship (or on a warthog y-wing) is increasing cost at the predicted value rate, making the torpedoes a fair filler option. I think that is close to making sure the upgrade is not a terrible choice on either kind of ship.

I am not sure of the specific numbers on 1 or 2 point torpedoes or what their predicted points values actually are yet, and is a topic worth more study.

This is why for my House Rules I have a Y-wing only Turret Refit at -2 cost. It basically becomes the Rebel mirror of the TIE Bomber at 16 points.

For ordnance that doesn't modify dice in a peculiar way, like proton rockets, the primary function I made can be used to find the same thing.

I still am just playing around with numbers with a plastic pail and shovel, so I apologize for the poor presentation, but I thought this was pretty funny.

I noticed people using proton rockets with a-wings. It isn't super common, but people try to make it work.

Against a cloaked phantom, a focus+TL proton rocket shot is adding 9.31JV of damage over a focus+TL primary weapon shot. Now that is swinging a big hammer. And it makes sense, 5 focused and target locked dice have a lot of capability to headshot a phantom, especially if it has even just 1 point of damage.

What's the numbers on Tarn + R7?

What's the numbers on Tarn + R7?

I haven't run specific numbers for him (with R7), so as a placeholder I called his ability worth 2 points.

What's the numbers on Tarn + R7?

I haven't run specific numbers for him (with R7), so as a placeholder I called his ability worth 2 points.

The single attacker you choose has their damage halved, prior to manipulating the dice themselves.

If he's being attacked by 3 dice, that becomes:

With no Attack Modifiers:

Expected Incoming Damage is .75, down from 1.5

With an enemy Target Lock

Initial whiffs are halved, but new ones aren't. Expected Incoming Damage is 1.5, down from 2.25

With an enemy Focus Token

All Whiffs are halved, so Expected Incoming Damage is 1.875, down from 2.25

With an enemy Target Lock and Focus Token,

Initial whiffs are halved, then all whiffs are halved. Therefore, 2.25, down from 2.625

Of course, the issue here is that it isn't a blanket. Tarn with R7 lets you CHOOSE which attack to block.

Therefore, you're looking to re-roll only if you're above the statistical margin by greater than the number of ships you expect to attack you this turn.

In other words, in the 3 attack die scenario, you hold onto your re-roll unless your opponent has 2 or more natural dice, unless its the last ship you expect to attack you.

That means that you're going to gain more benefit from the R7 than what I stated above.

Hi guys, so what is the impact of the autoblaster turret on a ywing?

Hi guys, so what is the impact of the autoblaster turret on a ywing?

With or Without BTL-A4?

It's still a range one gun on a sluggish ship, question is how often can you catch another ship at range one in a game and I dont think it'll be often enough to make it worthwhile.

A good starting point would be to calculate the expected damage output of the autoblaster turret. Assuming the turret always fires(ignores range), canceling only critical results by defense dice, and the same expected damage output assumptions (except for range) as MJ's post #3, the autoblaster turret average uncanceled dice is 1.6 times higher than a regular 2-attack dice attack.

1.6 EDO is fairly promising, and if we plug this EDO into a ps2 who only spent 2 points on this turret (no title), the y-wing sees a fantastic joust efficiency of 97.26%. Though, yes, this is a fantasy. An extreme case. Not all that often will we see range 1-only jousting occurring, and the other extreme case would be to look at joust efficiency of the y-wing using its primary weapon and a 2-points liability, having been denied range 1 shots with the autoblaster. Things get hairy at a 75.1% efficiency. Gross. Which one do we trust? The obvious answer is that it will depend on how often you get your range 1 shots in. If we use the post #3 range expectations, we can heuristically say the efficiency will be 97.26% 30% of the time and 75.1% 70% of the time. a sickening 81.74%. Play-testing would give you a better sense of how often you will actually get those range 1 shots.

For the y-wing with a title, let's take an EDO of 1+ 30% * 1.6. You then have 93.17% joust efficiency.

These fast and loose numbers are not on the dot, and are probably glossing over the real math behind the average hits, particularly BTL-S3 y-wings that are replacing only range 1 shots that may have the option of having 3 attack dice. Writing a pair of scripts that either add the autoblaster shot for range 1 (BTL-A4) or replace the range 1 attack with the autoblaster (BTL-S3). The BTL-S3 script also calculates if the average hits from the primary would yield higher damage and only adds the better result to the total. Leaving the range bins from post #3 alone.

The resulting EDOs are 1.0676 for the BTL-S3 and and 1.480 for the BTL-A4.

That gives the -S3 a 77.85% joust efficiency and the -A4 a 93.18% efficiency.

Conclusions to draw from this analysis are that the BTL-S3 with an autoblaster have a large required efficiency to overcome. It could be possible to make up with the shots able to be made outside the arc, though the range 1 limitation and small base will make it fairly difficult. BTL-A4 with the autoblaster is pretty good, but still has a small deficit in efficiency. Some magical things happen with the -A4 if you start shifting higher probabilities of shots into range 1, at another 10% inside range 1 (5% removed from range 2 and range 3) the joust efficiency goes up to 101.48%. Being able to throw an additional 2 dice that are uncancelable at range 1 is very powerful for 2 points. The more often you are at range 1, the greater your efficiency becomes. In a good control list, I could see A4s with autoblasters being a damage exploitation backbone. On the other side of the coin, keeping out of range 1 against autoblaster y-wings will mean your opponent is using one of the worst primary attackers in-game with an extra 2 points tacked on.

e: the calculation still isn't 100% accurate(not accounting for the fact that spending a focus on one attack makes it unavailable for the other, and the likely durability value decrease), but it is clear where the numbers begin to lead.

Looking forward to the expected cost of the Scyk and IG88

Looking forward to the expected cost of the Scyk and IG88

Yeah, I should update that to get the costs - Scyk is easy, but IG88 is hard. A large base ship with only a forward firing arc is a tough one to analyze and determine a <1.0 coefficient for. Scyk should be right around 13 points, I don't recall offhand for the IG88.

Edit: I'll update the durability numbers soon with the wave 7 ships.

The most involved part of finding the expected value is the non-jousting coefficient. Aside from that, the damage output and durability have been calculated. Named ability values can be approximated, but may be a little tricky for the ig-88s as they share (perhaps a simple [value]/2x[value] for alone and with another ig-88), and I haven't looked at valuing B's ability in particular(playtesting and general consensus agree that it has the highest value, as most ig-88 builds start by picking him).

From the dial, action bar, and stock upgrades (not counting in the title yet), the scyk has a 1.071 non-jousting coefficient. Named abilities are valued by MJ's tables.

Using the following equations:

P _jousting = {Expected Damage Output} * {Expected Durability}
P _total = P _jousting * {Non-jousting coefficient}

Base PS value = 12*(P _total ^{(1 / 1.85)} + (1/150)*(P _total ^{(1 / 0.8)} - 1) )

PS X cost = Base PS value * (1 + ( X-1 + EPT)/24) + named ability value

We may spit out the following data on the 4 scyk pilots' values with their actual cost in parenthesis:

• Cartel Spacer(14): 13.20
• Tansarii Point(17): 15.31
• A'Shera(18): 16.31
• Serissu(20): 19.89

What conclusions do we draw from these numbers? The stock cartel spacer is overcosted by almost a point, which is practically unacceptable for how cheap the ship is, and the faction's availability of efficient headhunters as an alternative. Tansarii point veterans are hilariously overcosted by nearly 2 points; without even doing any calculation, I think a lot of people frowned immediately after seeing this pilot, and now here are the numbers that agree. A'shera is in the same basket. Serissu is the only pilot whose stock cost is around his value. Flying this ship stock is clearly not intended.

If you start putting on cannons perhaps the cost will be met. Adding ion cannon, for starters, adds 3 named value for the ion effect and changes the expected damage output to 0.9247. Total upgrade cost is 5 points. Calculated expected values:

• Cartel Spacer + Ion(19): 15.64
• Tansarii Point + Ion(22): 17.67
• A'Shera + Ion (23): 18.67
• Serissu + Ion(25): 22.18

Ion cannon does not do it. It adds 3 points of value, but also lowers your damage output overall, so it struggles to make up for lost points along the way. All pilots with this cannon are severely overcosted, and our best and brightest Serissu is nearly 2 points overcosted with this cannon. I think we need damage to make this worth it. HLC all the way:

• Cartel Spacer + HLC(23): 21.24
• Tansarii Point + HLC(26): 24.64
• A'Shera + HLC(27): 25.64
• Serissu + HLC(29): 30.19

If there ever were an explanation for why these ships need a cannon, it is this right here. Every ship is within a couple points of the calculated value or above. Tansarii point veteran and A'shera are closer to their printed costs than the spacer his time around, but all are okay value depending on how much you want to spend on your scyk. *Keep in mind, the assumption for range 1 is that the scyk will have an alternate HLC shot, which is an optimistic case as the scyk's primary gets only 3 dice at range 1--mileage may vary*

The other obvious option for damage is the mangler. The expected damage output solution does not consider discriminate hits and crits, mostly because it is difficult to model the chances of crits on shield versus hull without knowing your specific target. The solution without changing MJ's expected damage output model would be to suggest and test a named value that the manger is adding, similar to how ion effect value is incorporated into total value. Without making any assumptions of the value of a free hit to crit, the resulting values for the manger are:

• Cartel Spacer + Mangler(20): 17.04
• Tansarii Point + Mangler(23): 19.77
• A'Shera + Mangler(24): 20.77
• Serissu + Mangler(26): 24.82

Each pilot except for serissu (has value close to 3 points beneath cost. If turning a hit into a free crit is worth at least 3 points, then indeed all pilots are meeting cost fairly well. I believe that at minimum the ability is worth 1 point, but I honestly don't have the data to decide.

e: I think some wiggling of serissu's ability value could be done for when he has a cannon; the more often the enemy would want to target him because of his damage output instead of his ability, the ability has less value, but I will not bother as he is still clearly a good value.

e2: fixed non-joust coefficient for cannons values adjusting accordingly (value of each heavy scyk and my included commentary drops about a point)