MajorJuggler and I have had our differences, but the way he calculates ship durability is--if you're careful to keep in mind his assumptions, which he's explicit about--rock-solid. But people aren't thinking about some of the conclusions they can gather from it, even without the burden of looking at the rest of MJ's work.

(I'm relying heavily on, and quoting from, the "Calculating Expected Durability" section of his post here.)

Let's take a random example: why is BBBBZ so good? Well, if you add up the normalized durability of that list, you find out that it's as tough to take down as 6.7 TIE fighters. It brings four ships with 3 Attack, plus a ship with 2 Attack to lead off or clean up, while rivaling the classic Howlrunner swarm for tankiness. Okay, then.

Another example: why are so many people struggling to make dual-Aggressor lists work? Well, it does narrowly edge out the YT-2400 as the most durable ship in the game, but while it costs as much as three Headhunters, it doesn't hit that mark in durability. In fact, a pair of Aggressors looks like a tank list, but they're only about as survivable as five Headhunters or TIE fighters. So if you're spending 28 points emphasizing the ship's offense, you think you're getting a tank list and ending up with a bit of a glass cannon. Look at shoring up the ship's defense, or at adding a Headhunter or Scyk, if you want the list to perform the way most people seem to think it will.

Why have "Three Amigos" lists like Wedge-Luke-Biggs always struggled, on the Rebel side? Well, they're uncomfortably fragile, is why: you can't name any competitive list with a lower aggregate durability. Even Decimator/Phantom squeaks by, and it has a lot of nasty tricks up its sleeve for making you miss.

Can durability help us understand Dom's weird list from last year's Nationals--three Lambdas and Soontir? Well, it's nearly as durable as BBBBZ, and it brings a high-PS arc-dodger to boot. So that makes sense.

Why does the E-wing struggle? It's about 15% more durable than a B-wing, under MJ's assumptions, with the same attack, a weaker PS, and in at least one important sense a weaker dial--yet it costs 23% more. That may not sound like much of a difference, but if cost were proportional to the durability, the E-wing would cost 25 points instead of 27. (And its durability is also noticeably more variable than the B-wing's, with a standard deviation that's 30% larger.)

***

So I won't go on. I'm not trying to claim that differences in durability explain everything about the game, but I'm hoping to make the point that you can actually understand a lot about how the "under the hood" math affects the game by looking at just that one chart--and you can leverage that knowledge to build stronger lists.

Also, this is why the TIE Bomber is a lot better than some people think it is.

It's got the best Durability/Cost ratio in the game.

Yes, its attack isn't that good, but there isn't a 3 attack die ship in that price-range (other than the Alpha Interceptor, which no-one runs).

And it can take BOMBS.

Have you posted your work somewhere? I'm a bit interested in reading up on the topic and perhaps doing a few approximate calculations.

Have you posted your work somewhere? I'm a bit interested in reading up on the topic and perhaps doing a few approximate calculations.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/128417-mathwing-comprehensive-ship-jousting-values-and-more/

Also, this is why the TIE Bomber is a lot better than some people think it is.

It's got the best Durability/Cost ratio in the game.

Yes, its attack isn't that good, but there isn't a 3 attack die ship in that price-range (other than the Alpha Interceptor, which no-one runs).

And it can take BOMBS.

I use to run a 4 Scimitar & Bounty Hunter list back in wave 3, and it never lost a match (and never beat it when I flew against it), but if I dropped a bomber for an HLC/Gunner, or ordnance it would struggle to win. That list was all about durability, and just whittling down your opponent's squad.

there is something missing from the discussion, imo, and it's the "types" of durability. While juggler has done a splendid job condescending this information, it seems to me that the durability of certain ships is very dependent on what hits them.

For example, playing feedback headhunters against Aggressors seemed like a **** exercise in futility. Xizor was barely putting a point or two of damage a turn and all their two dice attacks didn't amount to ****, literally (I believe it was a maximum of around two damage from the Zs). I left those games feeling depressed and thinking those metal monsters were the coming of something terrible. Then, two days later, there comes the SC and I replaced my Xizor + mini-swarm with Stress Luke and lo, turns out an X-wing and two B-wings murder them something fierce. That one die of difference is absolutely ridiculous.

similarly, I've been playing around with a re-tooled Soontir + double Defender list (Wave 6 gives us fun new toys in the flechette and auto-thrusters ) and played another two more games against double Aggressor variants. The Defenders kicked their ass and I was all...whut ? Even after I lost soontir in the first game to me playing like an idiot, those two little bastards were able to isolate and tear down an aggressor at a time by abusing their smaller displacement against the Aggressor's large base whhhheeeeeeee

Suffice it to say, I did not expect the lower PS, -1 hull, -1 shield, restrictive dial, and 32 points versus 50 points Deltas to emerge victorious. Turns out they're much more capable than I gave them credit for

But yeah, I think we should consider these types. I know that a ship is far more than its jousting value, but in practice the different distribution of stats affects my feelings towards seemingly equally capable ships. For example, I find my Tie Fighters to be stubborn bastards unless they trip over their own green dice and go pop. Z-95s, on the other hand, have proven to be consistently sh*tty in terms of exchanges, fit only for blocking duty and not much else (these are naked Zs, mind, feedback array makes all the difference).

I beat a Dual IG squad with my Guri & Feedback Zs. I don't think IGs that frightening, they just requiring a lot of blocking and making use of the asteroids to beat.

Beefcake: Howl + Swarm Tactics + Scimitar x5 took me to nationals top 32 and regionals top 8, and Dom won the Galactic Cup with it. Great list. Suffers in the Phantom meta though.

I beat a Dual IG squad with my Guri & Feedback Zs. I don't think IGs that frightening, they just requiring a lot of blocking and making use of the asteroids to beat.

Did they not have advanced sensors? Inertial dampeners? I appreciate and have frequently exploited their weaknesses (only way I won), but it is far easier said than done.

In regards to this thread, though, it was just that none of the 2 die shots were getting through. Then I switched on over to 3, and they went down like chumps (albeit deadly chumps that kill you down to one ship, but still chumps in comparison to how invincible they felt against Zs)

Beefcake: Howl + Swarm Tactics + Scimitar x5 took me to nationals top 32 and regionals top 8, and Dom won the Galactic Cup with it. Great list. Suffers in the Phantom meta though.

Yeah, that's when I retired it. I never tried Beefcake (didn't know that was its name) because I found the differences in the TIE fighter & Bomber dials made maneuvering it a bit limited. The 1 Straight & 5 K gave me better control on approach, and kept them safely out of range after a K while stress & action-less. Target Locks can make up for not having Howl too.

This is why I only take ideas like jousting efficiency with a grain of salt, you can't really quantify maneuvers and an individual players' though process into account.

MajorJuggler and I have had our differences, but the way he calculates ship durability is--if you're careful to keep in mind his assumptions, which he's explicit about--rock-solid. But people aren't thinking about some of the conclusions they can gather from it, even without the burden of looking at the rest of MJ's work.

(I'm relying heavily on, and quoting from, the "Calculating Expected Durability" section of his post here.)

Let's take a random example: why is BBBBZ so good? Well, if you add up the normalized durability of that list, you find out that it's as tough to take down as 6.7 TIE fighters. It brings four ships with 3 Attack, plus a ship with 2 Attack to lead off or clean up, while rivaling the classic Howlrunner swarm for tankiness. Okay, then.

Right, and one of the weaknesses of MathWing 2.0 in that thread, is that it doesn't take into account the differing action economy between ships. To roughly quote you, from another thread a couple weeks ago: "ships with high agility and attack suffer from not having their focus available to spend on both offense and defense."

So this actually makes BBBBZ even better.

there is something missing from the discussion, imo, and it's the "types" of durability. While juggler has done a splendid job condescending this information, it seems to me that the durability of certain ships is very dependent on what hits them.

Yeah, there is a circle of life that results from low attack countering low defense, and high attack countering high defense. The soft stat line counters are critical to long-term balance and healthy game design, provided you have enough ships in each quadrant to fully flesh it out. I'll eventually get around to quantifying this.

I beat a Dual IG squad with my Guri & Feedback Zs. I don't think IGs that frightening, they just requiring a lot of blocking and making use of the asteroids to beat.

Did they not have advanced sensors? Inertial dampeners? I appreciate and have frequently exploited their weaknesses (only way I won), but it is far easier said than done.

In regards to this thread, though, it was just that none of the 2 die shots were getting through. Then I switched on over to 3, and they went down like chumps (albeit deadly chumps that kill you down to one ship, but still chumps in comparison to how invincible they felt against Zs)

Iirc, they had AdvS but not ID. I just had enough range 1 shots with focus and TL (from previous round), or Feedback's auto damage, and Guri had predator.

This is why I only take ideas like jousting efficiency with a grain of salt, you can't really quantify maneuvers and an individual players' though process into account.

Right, but you can work it backwards to figure out what the relative firing duty cycles (arc dodging) needs to be.

This is why I only take ideas like jousting efficiency with a grain of salt, you can't really quantify maneuvers and an individual players' though process into account.

Right, but you can work it backwards to figure out what the relative firing duty cycles (arc dodging) needs to be.

Can you give me an example. I base my targeting priority on what I see as the biggest threat, best closer, and easiest target.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting your analysis, it's interesting work (the little bit of it I can understand). I know you take the TIE fighter as the baseline for jousting efficiency, but they just don't work for me. So regardless of what the math says, I'm most likely going to loose a match when I use them, unless I'm doing a full swarm, which isn't my style (and I only have 5 TIEs).

Funny you write this post today, I had just created a list that made me think "I should check the durability of this thing before running it..."

Thinking about durability and E-Wings makes me wish we could swap the Barrel Roll for a Boost, and therefore be Autothruster compatible. (Not to mention how much more useful boost is generally.)

Funny you write this post today, I had just created a list that made me think "I should check the durability of this thing before running it..."

Thinking about durability and E-Wings makes me wish we could swap the Barrel Roll for a Boost, and therefore be Autothruster compatible. (Not to mention how much more useful boost is generally.)

aye, I wish x-wings had boost too

but I have found that the character Es can endure a surprising amount of punishment. PTL + dat action bar + system slot + R2-D2 = expensive but durable, like a priceless porcelain vase that had every molecule of its structure super-glued together.

In general, I'd agree, but there are also the fat falcons and Decimators that have spent an additional 10, 12,15+ points solely on durability. It's not efficient, but it makes your heavy turret quite a chore to clear.

There's one rule in war. Don't die! I won a tantive in december and $30 store credit in 2 tourneys using XAfringer with pilots that I think most people would never consider for a tournament.

There's one rule in war. Don't die! I won a tantive in december and $30 store credit in 2 tourneys using XAfringer with pilots that I think most people would never consider for a tournament.

The goal isn't to go out and die for your country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his.

There's one rule in war. Don't die! I won a tantive in december and $30 store credit in 2 tourneys using XAfringer with pilots that I think most people would never consider for a tournament.

Please oh please tell me it was Tarn, Gemmer, Leebo

I got money on Tarn, Gemmer, Leebo!

I think employment of ships also makes a big difference in durability. The Major's baseline Academy Pilot has it's tabletop (as opposed to theoretical) durability decreased because of how it must be employed to do damage. It's a close-range brawler, so it exposes itself on the way in before it gets to really start earning its points.

Nothing you've aaid can't be taken into account by what MJ does. I fail to see the exact criticism of his work.

As it's said. Jousting efficiency stat line tells you how much "magic" you need to make happen with the dial and dodging and other shenanigans. If you can't make up that difference you simply are running something with less attack and less defense and deserve to lose.

I wasn't in any way criticizing any of MajorJuggler's analysis. I was talking about one if the things to think about when one is thinking about durability.

sorry i meant the OP. not you Bio

Durability comes in two forms in a miniature game. How much damage it can take, and how much damage it can negate, also known as endurance and damage reduction.

Endurance is fairly easy to calculate as all you have to do is add the hull plus shields and get a hit point value. It takes the same number of hits to take down an interceptor as it does a Tie fighter and the same number of hits to take down a Y-wing and a B-wing.

Reduction is fairly trickier as it involves damage reduction which is mostly designed around chance in order to keep the balance instead of giving it a straight up value. You could split this up into 2 forms of reduction chance and constant.

Chance is fairly easy, green dice is the first thing that comes to mind however it also represents the fickleness of depending on it. We all have heard of how Soontir met his fate with 6 green blanks. Yet when the defender has to stop a 3 dice attack and get 3 evades it is great for the defender while the attacker just shudders in disbelief.

Constant is something that has to remain fairly low in order to keep balance. Constants are like C-3PO and evade actions which will always stop 1 hit if they get shot at.

As for shields it is kind of funny because you tend to use them as endurance yet they have a certain damage reduction element. As far as damage reduction it is best to calculate how much of the hit points are shielded sort of a % instead of just how much shields. A B-wing has better damage reduction than a Y-wing because the shields can stop more critical hits than a Y-wing. Still I would classify shields as more of a chance reduction instead of a constant because it depends on if a critical hit was rolled or not.

Now this is all for individual ships. Calculating squadron list durability is something completely different. Say take the 4B-Z95 and compared with the 4X-Z95 lists. For durability stats (shields and hull) they all stack up or add up. the 4BZ list is known to have 22 shields and 14 hull where as the 4XZ has 10 shields and 14 hull. But as for agility the statistics do not stack instead it is more of an average. The average agility for the 4BZ is a hair above 1 while the average agility for the 4XZ list is 2.

Another thing with squadron durability is it depends on what part of your squadron is vulnerable. Biggs can put a lot of durability on the list with the drawing of fire but once it is gone and all you have are Z-95s the durability of the list is greatly reduced.