Alrighteous. I do not have a way of posting an image of the actual math, so you're gonna have to bear with my typing it in word-form, rather than as a concise formula. Alas.

So.

Ship A's Health, divided by (The damage spread of attackers per round minus Ship A's Mitigation spread) equals the spread of rounds required to kill Ship A.

A spread, here, referring to the discrete percentages of potential damage dealt. "Average" damage is an incomplete answer for our purposes, even if its more user-friendly.

That being said, the part of the spread of rounds required to kill Ship A that crosses the threshold of Rounds to Play (in itself a variable determined by the Time Limits) are its likelihood to survive.

Now, mobility factors in two places:

• Being able to outfly your opponent reduces their damage spread, from their spending actions to regain you in their arc, or attacking you at disadvantageous range, or simply not having a shot at you.
• The reversal is also true. Highly mobile ships attack at advantageous range, have shots on their opponents, and can often do so without needing to spend all of their actions.

Critical Vulnerability is complex, and I'm still trying to find the language to describe it well. Suffice it to say, it's a relationship between how likely you are to suffer face-up damage, and how much of the damage deck hurts you, and by how much.

If Soontir Fel takes the crits that reduce his PS to 0 and force you to ignore his pilot ability and Elite Talent, then he's basically become an Alpha Squad pilot that's taken 2 damage; a 12 point difference in your fleet.

If he takes a Munitions Failure, he's still Fel.

More on that later, in a forthcoming post.

An effective ship is one that negates a greater percentage of the enemy fleet than it itself is worth. This is not limited to damage, as damage prevention, mobility, and other forms of counterplay are still very effective, including the rarely discussed Psychological aspects.

An effective upgrade follows that same rule.

If your Prockets usage carve more than 3 points out of your opponents' hull than your regular Range-1 attack would, the Prockets were effective.

If your Engine Upgrade-based Boost allowed you to maneuver so that you dealt and/or prevented more than 4 points of damage to fleet, the Engine Upgrade was worth it.

If your Assault Missiles prevented your opponent from flying in formation, rendering them more vulnerable to partial engagements in which your fleet had the damage advantage.... you can follow the pattern, I'm sure.

That's enough of a ramble for now. Let me know if any of it makes sense, or what of it confuses, and I'll ramble further in reply

The concept you're looking for, I think, is Loss Exchange Ratio, which is a relative figure of merit that compares how much damage you can dish out compared to how much you can take. There's a whole school of conflict modeling that is associated with building differential conflict models to tease out LERs under widely varying conditions to be able to compare forces and strategies (e.g. conventional on conventional force, conventional on guerilla force, what happens when those forces are aided by asymmetric abilities such as artillery or air strikes, etc).

I've been patiently waiting for "MathWing 2.0" to arrive that takes the concept to the list building level -- so developing figures of merit for entire lists rather than just individual ships. I've done a little work on the concept myself, but haven't wanted to delve too deeply yet -- I did conflict modeling projects in college built around differential LERs but haven't had to use differential equations much since then, and am in no rush to refamiliarize myself with the subject.

The concept you're looking for, I think, is Loss Exchange Ratio, which is a relative figure of merit that compares how much damage you can dish out compared to how much you can take. There's a whole school of conflict modeling that is associated with building differential conflict models to tease out LERs under widely varying conditions to be able to compare forces and strategies (e.g. conventional on conventional force, conventional on guerilla force, what happens when those forces are aided by asymmetric abilities such as artillery or air strikes, etc).

I've been patiently waiting for "MathWing 2.0" to arrive that takes the concept to the list building level -- so developing figures of merit for entire lists rather than just individual ships. I've done a little work on the concept myself, but haven't wanted to delve too deeply yet -- I did conflict modeling projects in college built around differential LERs but haven't had to use differential equations much since then, and am in no rush to refamiliarize myself with the subject.

Well, in the model I'm using, there is a rather significant variable that will always be out of your hands: the amount of damage your opponent is bringing to the table.

That rather prevents this from organically creating list-building strategy right out of the gate, unless you're able to run the formula multiple times with multiple fleet ideas, to see how your deck stacks against multiple points in a single metagame.

Yeah, I have a few problems with MathWing 1.X. I mean, I think it's awesome; i just disagree with the fundamental model of the "Jousting Value", as it doesn't describe everything I want it to describe. Thus, I make long-winded posts that eventually arrive at the point.

I'd love to know what you think of my Damage Mitigation thread, though.

As an example of that concept, Han at Range 1-2 with the MF title, C3-P0, and R2D2 will mitigate (3+ a 37.5% spread of X iterations, where X is one fewer than the number of attacks suffered) per round, even though the R2D2 mitigation technically occurs on the round following and increases his Critical Vulnerability.

Against 4x Tempest Squadron Pilots with the TIE/x1 title and Accuracy Correctors (handy because the spread is 87.5% 2 and 12.5% 3 at Range 1[actionless], and everywhere else is 100% 2), the Falcon's spread is 100% of at least 3 damage mitigated, a 75% chance of at least 4, a 31% chance of at least 5, and a 5% chance of the maximum 6 mitigated.

For specificity's sake, there's a 24.4% of canceling exactly 3 damage, 43.9% of exactly 4, 26.3% of exactly 5, and a 5.3% of exactly 6.

So, as Falcon has 13 HP, we can expect to deal 4 damage per round to the Falcon with those Tempests, which will usually take 3-4 rounds of combined fire at Range 2... assuming it doesn't kill or outfly any of our Tempests.

Note: I'd run these bad boys with Cluster Missiles, giving an Alpha-Strike round of 17 expected damage vs 3+(Spread of 3/8 with 7 iterations, most significant at 2,3), so 17-(5,6) = 12,11 = Falcon with 1-2 HP remaining as the likeliest result.

Remembering that one of those HP is from R2-D2, and comes the round AFTER Combat, that's actually either a Dead Falcon, or a Falcon with 1 hull 1 shield remaining, as the likely results.

Factor in the critical possibilities, and it looks even worse for our flyboy.

Of course, since we're dealing with a damage spread of 7 iterations, the denominator involved is 8⁷, so variance is going to play a larger role than usual.

However, as mentioned in that Damage Mitigation thread, this fleet is bloody useless against SuperFel, so I'd basically have to melt the Decimator and then play for time in that match-up.

If your Prockets usage carve more than 3 points out of your opponents' hull than your regular Range-1 attack would, the Prockets were effective.

If your Engine Upgrade-based Boost allowed you to maneuver so that you dealt and/or prevented more than 4 points of damage to fleet, the Engine Upgrade was worth it.

If your Assault Missiles prevented your opponent from flying in formation, rendering them more vulnerable to partial engagements in which your fleet had the damage advantage.... you can follow the pattern, I'm sure.

What is your opinion on the generic R7 droid? This seems right up your alley. For a mere 2 points its benefit is huge. Modified attacks get turned into unmodified attacks, unmodified attacks get turned into super unmodified attacks.

This build in particular: Tarn + R7, Red Squadron +R7, Rookie Pilot + R7, and Biggs + R7.

If your Prockets usage carve more than 3 points out of your opponents' hull than your regular Range-1 attack would, the Prockets were effective.

If your Engine Upgrade-based Boost allowed you to maneuver so that you dealt and/or prevented more than 4 points of damage to fleet, the Engine Upgrade was worth it.

If your Assault Missiles prevented your opponent from flying in formation, rendering them more vulnerable to partial engagements in which your fleet had the damage advantage.... you can follow the pattern, I'm sure.

What is your opinion on the generic R7 droid? This seems right up your alley. For a mere 2 points its benefit is huge. Modified attacks get turned into unmodified attacks, unmodified attacks get turned into super unmodified attacks.

This build in particular: Tarn + R7, Red Squadron +R7, Rookie Pilot + R7, and Biggs + R7.

Once again, you've given me half the question. "Against What?" is still required.

IF the opponent concentrates fire, then R7 is a single use per round. Yes, even on Tarn.

The question then becomes "When should I use R7?" For most ships, only the single attack has the opportunity, and others operate as normal.

That single attack's damage is halved before applying any of their own modifiers, of which only Focus and focus-like abilities work.

It needs further analysis before I can fully answer, I'm afraid.

However, its the only form of Damage Mitigation in the game that scales with the Attacker's dice, rather than with the defender's stats, so the harder they hit, the more effective R7 becomes.

Whether it's "Effective", however, is fairly reliant on your ability to use it.

The beauty of using it with Tarn is that he doesn't sacrifice damage to use the R7. Your other ships do.

At this point, it turns your Target Lock action into a target-specific pseudo-Focus that doesn't fade at turn's end. That's pretty nifty in its own right, particularly in a Metagame with few attacks per round, but you've got to know when and how to use it.

Contrast with my old Retiarian Trident list, which uses Fire Control Systems to acquire the Target Locks for free, similarly to Tarn. Unlike Tarn, they actually have to aim their nerf-bat, but it doesn't hurt their action economy, allowing R7 to stack with Focus/Evade for very high levels of mitigation.

One of the great strengths of R7 + Tarn/FCS is that it lets you use the TL for offense if it wound up not being needed defensively. That is pretty strong.

In a meta dominated by two ships lists, the ability to make your ships stupid hard to kill vs. half of their list is great. Even when faced with multiple attacks, it's best to simply pick the biggest threat and deny that one any damage. A TIE Fighter in 3 ship's arcs with a single evade token isn't any less vulnerable to multiple attacks.

*shrugs* How about a Terminators IG88 list? How would that fair vs. the list I suggested?

The most common complaint about R7 is that it only works against one attack. Focus and evade only work once too, however a TL stays until you need it. On an X Wing it's much better than focus for defense and can still be stacked with it. I think people see that you have to target lock a specific ship and immediately jump to the conclusion that it would be hard to predict which ships would be shooting at which X Wings when it's not too difficult to do, unless you face a swarm lol. Also, if you fly Biggs you know he's goign to get shot at first.

It functions in much the same way C-3P0 does. You see what your attacker rolls, then you get to decide whether or not to spend it. So if your opponent rolls 3 hits you can opt to spend your defensive target lock then, or if your opponent rolls 1 hit you can just let it slide and let your 2 agility deal with it.

Tarn still sacrifices damage to use it, he doesn't get his TL back.

One of the great strengths of R7 + Tarn/FCS is that it lets you use the TL for offense if it wound up not being needed defensively.

A Red Squadron Pilot with an R7 can still use his target lock offensively.

In a meta dominated by two ships lists, the ability to make your ships stupid hard to kill vs. half of their list is great. Even when faced with multiple attacks, it's best to simply pick the biggest threat and deny that one any damage. A TIE Fighter in 3 ship's arcs with a single evade token isn't any less vulnerable to multiple attacks.

*shrugs* How about a Terminators IG88 list? How would that fair vs. the list I suggested?

The most common complaint about R7 is that it only works against one attack. Focus and evade only work once too, however a TL stays until you need it. On an X Wing it's much better than focus for defense and can still be stacked with it. I think people see that you have to target lock a specific ship and immediately jump to the conclusion that it would be hard to predict which ships would be shooting at which X Wings when it's not too difficult to do, unless you face a swarm lol. Also, if you fly Biggs you know he's goign to get shot at first.

It functions in much the same way C-3P0 does. You see what your attacker rolls, then you get to decide whether or not to spend it. So if your opponent rolls 3 hits you can opt to spend your defensive target lock then, or if your opponent rolls 1 hit you can just let it slide and let your 2 agility deal with it.

Tarn still sacrifices damage to use it, he doesn't get his TL back.

One of the great strengths of R7 + Tarn/FCS is that it lets you use the TL for offense if it wound up not being needed defensively.

A Red Squadron Pilot with an R7 can still use his target lock offensively.

Firstly, Tarn didn't spend an action to acquire that TL, just his pilot ability. The Red Squadron did. That's what I'm getting at...

Secondly, an IG88 build is a pretty bad match-up for an R7 list, as they're almost guaranteed to be using 88_B. That is to say, if their first attack misses, they get a second attack without your R7 being able to reduce their damage.

If you can concentrate fire on the actual 88_B, you're in a good position following, particularly if you can bait them into engaging at Range 1 rather than Range 3, or in an Asteroid Cluster.

X-Wings are surprisingly good at this, as you can slow-roll with 1 forwards, while an 88 performing the same maneuver moves twice as far. Bait them into fighting in your opening quadrant, close the gap for Range 1, and 88_B's ability doesn't work if they chose HLCs.

Of course, compotent Aggressor players know that the ship prefers Range 3 combat, and have practiced against BBBBZ and Stress-Wing fleets which perform the opening scenario similarly, so things are a little bit different.

Notably, Biggs is the only one that needs to be in Range 1 of them, if everyone else is in Range 1 of Biggs. However, Biggs' ability doesn't work if they've run into him.

You'd have a better time vs a Pic and Gorc fleet, unless the Gorc in question (YT1300, YT2400, or Decimator) has a Gunner.

Even so, Han's ability exists, and the Decimators typically fly with Predator. R7 negates both with the same ease it does Target Locks. You re-roll all of their damage, and they re-roll all of their non-damage, so it is functionally identical to naked dice.

If Han focuses to damage you beyond the naked dice, he's not Evaded, so you're dealing more damage to him.

If he doesn't, you've reduced him to the naked dice, before your own mitigation. That's worth.

If the Decimator isn't packing a Vader for some reason, it's in trouble.

It's now relying on Focus for damage, but without any ability to use them defensively!

Of course, either could be flying a Gunner, which gives you the same issue as 88_B.

So, yeah, in this situation, R7's being effective, but your individual ships aren't necessarily following suit.

Biggs, for instance, needs to enable 27 points-worth of damage before tasting metal. His ability forces him into dying early, and early-game damage isn't worth as much as late-game damage, so he's quite difficult to use effectively.

I will say, however, that R7 shuts down a SuperDash fairly handily.

He doesn't operate with a Gunner, as he's not attacking with his primary.

He's used to his 4 attack Cannon dealing great damage on its own, but R7's effectiveness directly scales with his dice.

He's usually run with Veteran's Instinct to fly at a PS 9, so you don't have to worry about Predator kicking in.

Using just the quick statistical Averages, rather than the actual spreads, 4 attack that has been R7'd without additional modifiers is expected to produce 1 damage.

With an offensive Focus, that projection of 2/8 damage per die becomes one of 5/8 damage per die, resulting here in an estimated 2.5 damage (vs an estimation of 2 damage with his own TL).

However, this puts Dash's player in a position to which he is unused: having to choose between mobility or offense.

If he Barrel Rolls or Boosts, he's got a pea-shooter. If he focuses, he's gotta stay where he lands.

If you're good at predicting where he'll maneuver, and put the screws to him thereby, you force a Catch 22.

You play SuperDash so that you get both options, and so that you can punch through regular Damage Mitigation, so this is likely to throw him off his game.

Against HLC Aggressors, you can block them and deny them a range 2+ shot, which doesn't allow HLC IG88B to trigger. If they're not flying advanced sensors they're probably only going to be rolling 2 hits, which is easily quashed by r7 and your agility.

I feel like Super Corran might be the scariest thing to face with an R7. Gunner abilities only trigger if the first shot is missed, whereas Corran can Double Tap if the first shot misses. Regardless, you can C block at least one of those attacks, and if the first shot is poor you can save the TL for the second FCS shot, and R7 C blocks FCS.

The one time I played Super Dash, there were quite a few turns where I had to spend my actions on Barrel Rolls or boosts, so I definitely hear what you're saying about Super Dash. Super Dash is probably the ship I hate most post-Phantom Nerf, so this list being able to deal with it is exciting.

I like your triple E Wing r7 FCS build, but without Biggs and Tarn it seems not as good as 4 R7 ships. I'm also looking into Dutch Vander with an R7, he's 23 points I believe so swap out Biggs and put an autoblaster turret and r7 on him, gives your list a little more flexibility to spend target locks since they'll be easier to acquire.

Against HLC Aggressors, you can block them and deny them a range 2+ shot, which doesn't allow HLC IG88B to trigger. If they're not flying advanced sensors they're probably only going to be rolling 2 hits, which is easily quashed by r7 and your agility.

I feel like Super Corran might be the scariest thing to face with an R7. Gunner abilities only trigger if the first shot is missed, whereas Corran can Double Tap if the first shot misses. Regardless, you can C block at least one of those attacks, and if the first shot is poor you can save the TL for the second FCS shot, and R7 C blocks FCS.

The one time I played Super Dash, there were quite a few turns where I had to spend my actions on Barrel Rolls or boosts, so I definitely hear what you're saying about Super Dash. Super Dash is probably the ship I hate most post-Phantom Nerf, so this list being able to deal with it is exciting.

I like your triple E Wing r7 FCS build, but without Biggs and Tarn it seems not as good as 4 R7 ships. I'm also looking into Dutch Vander with an R7, he's 23 points I believe so swap out Biggs and put an autoblaster turret and r7 on him, gives your list a little more flexibility to spend target locks since they'll be easier to acquire.

Super Horn is a better match-up for an R7 list than simply splitting his points between 2 ships with 3 attacks each, as he can only double-tap every other turn, and you can save your TL for the second shot if it's not needed for the first.