I feel like this accomplishes the same thing as 8 z95's, except with more maneuverability at the cost of one ship. You can't really stay in formation when you have to chase someone's fat turret through asteroids every game, so Howl is kind of a ball and chain. First turn you get near something big, plop 7 TL's on it lol.

Thoughts? I'm a bit worried that you'll be too vulnerable to getting one shot. Z95's, while easier to damage, can't be one shot as easily as a tie can. And with the kurazee!!! action economy of late, stuff like the rear admiral and predator gets 3/3 or 4/4 hits a little too often for my liking. Last few games I've played I've lost a ton of ties to one shots.

yeah if you're huntin' wabbits big ships this is probably hilarious. How many imperial aces boxes does that require?

The counter-argument; if you've got an action, focus increases your average damage by the same amount as having a target lock (granted you get fractionally more criticals with a target lock, but it's a fairly subtle thing).

Yes, the target lock is more reliable, but in return, you can spend the focus token defensively as well - and as PS1 pilots, you're going to be shot first, so that's (in my mind, anyway) a bigger deal.

I agree on Howl being a problem, but at the same time, in order to bring your numbers to bear, you need to be exchanging fire with most of your squad in the opening pass, so you're going to be flying in fairly close order anyway.

The counter-argument; if you've got an action, focus increases your average damage by the same amount as having a target lock (granted you get fractionally more criticals with a target lock, but it's a fairly subtle thing).

Yes, the target lock is more reliable, but in return, you can spend the focus token defensively as well - and as PS1 pilots, you're going to be shot first, so that's (in my mind, anyway) a bigger deal.

I agree on Howl being a problem, but at the same time, in order to bring your numbers to bear, you need to be exchanging fire with most of your squad in the opening pass, so you're going to be flying in fairly close order anyway.

TL gives you the option of combining it with focus if it's not used. It also opens up the ability to modify dice on k turns, or to TL when you don't have a shot on anything for later.

yeah if you're huntin' wabbits big ships this is probably hilarious. How many imperial aces boxes does that require?

I have 2 boxes, so I have 4 Targeting Computers to start off with. Since the only ship you'd run the TC on is an Interceptor and everyone who runs Interceptors already has Imperial Aces, TC's are cheap to get in singles off eBay.

You're spending 14 points to have all your ships take an action that is strictly worse then taking a focus action.

Umm, Target locks are not strictly worse than Focus actions. "Strictly Worse" has a specific meaning in tabletop games- that something will never be better than something else** (For instance, an a-wing without a missile is strictly worse than the same a-wing with Chardaan refit, because having two points free will never not be a good thing).Target locks can be saved if they're not needed, and are slightly better offensively than focus*. I'm not saying it might not be a better idea to spend the points elsewhere, but taking a target lock action wouldn't be qualified as strictly worse than a focus action.

*Both actions, used offensively, mean any individual dice has only a 25% chance of missing instead of a 50% chance. However, because target locks re-roll, the chance of a crit is higher. For comparison;

Attack Dice rolled without any modifiers 50% Miss - 37.5% Hit - 12.5% Crit

Attack Dice rolled with focus token 25% Miss - 67.5% Hit - 12.5% Crit

Attack Dice rolled with Target Lock 25% Miss - 56.25% Hit - 18.75% Crit

Target Locks are strictly worse than focus on a ship that has 3 agility and 2 attack dice.

Your definition of strictly worse renders the term useless. If strictly worse just meant that something was worse than something else in every conceivable scenario, then the term would be meaningless because you will always be able to find some corner case scenario where something is better than something else no matter how crappy they are.

Strictly worse means that in the vast majority of situations, the benefits of one component over a similar component with a similar cost are greatly outweighed by the downsides.

Target Locks can't be used on defense. Target Locks have to be declared before you even know if a higher PS ship will even be in your firing arc that turn, Target Locks are useless if the ship you target lock dies before you get to shoot at it, Target Locks can't be used against higher PS that haven't moved into range 3 yet.

Focus is very useful on defense with 3 defense dice, don't require you to designate an enemy ship as a target before the combat phase, can be used when attacking any of the opponent's ships, and can be taken even if the opponent's higher PS ships haven't moved into range yet.

Is all of that downside worth an extra 12.5% 6.25% chance at a crit per attack AND 14 points?

I would be inclined to take 5 Blacks with Predator instead and a named 15 point Tie. 6 Ships. You lose one ship, but gain PS 4, a passive Howlrunner, and still keep your focus, evade or barrel roll action.

Target Locks are strictly worse than focus on a ship that has 3 agility and 2 attack dice.

Your definition of strictly worse renders the term useless. If strictly worse just meant that something was worse than something else in every conceivable scenario, then the term would be meaningless because you will always be able to find some corner case scenario where something is better than something else no matter how crappy they are.

Generally, strictly worse ignores really oddball cases (For instance, that 17 point A-wing might end up being better due to victory points oddities). But yes, it is a very specific term.

The original example, to my knowledge, is from Magic: The Gathering. Lightning Bolt is strictly better than Shock and Lightning Strike. It is not, however, strictly better than, say, Burst Lightning, because Burst Lightning has scenarios where the ability to pay extra resources to deal more damage is beneficial. That doesn't mean Lightning Bolt is not a much better card (It's considered the burn card), but Lightning Bolt is not strictly better than Burst Lightning. Target Lock is similar. Most of the time, a focus action would be better, but there will be times when you know you won't get shot at, and thus can take a target lock. Target locks also stick around if you don't use them. Let's say you roll 2 hits- That focus token will do nothing, but the target lock will stick around.

I think the most important thing is that when a TIE doesn't have a shot, it can TL and save it for later. 7 z's and a refit A wing dominates the current two ship meta. 7 TC TIEs shouldn't be that far behind.

You have to remember that when you fly 7 ships, not all of them are going to get shot at so not all of them need focus in case of defense. Might as well drop 7 TL's on something.

What on earth are you people talking about? This use of the word "strictly" seems almost colloquial to me, I don't see how you can argue about it as though it's the dictionary usage.

My thoughts on the squad - certainly target lock has some advantages, but in my view not nearly enough to warrant the cost you're paying, given focus's own advantages.

I'd think I'd rather have an eighth TIE Fighter than 7 Targeting Computers.

I'd think I'd rather have an eighth TIE Fighter than 7 Targeting Computers.

And end up have unused focus tokens?