For example, in a 5 ship list, my 34 point Kenyan only has to do 20 percent of the work.

Keyan, adv sensors, stay on target

Rookie pilot x2

Bandit pilot x 2

In this setup, both the rookies and Keyan can underperform and still pull their weight, though it does place a burden on the bandits. Bandits being as efficient as they are, an extra 8% of work format seem hard to manage.

So why don't we take the whole list into account when we get into whether or not a ship is worth it's cost?

It's really not that hard to compare ships based on statlines to determine average damage dealt vs damage sustained. Just be aware, joustijg efficiency is just that. It represents how efficient a ship is when it jousts with other ships. Obviously there are many ships that never want to joust, ever. Also, most mathwing makes a lot of assumptions to fill in the blanks of its formulas, and that is very important to note. This is why I love MajorJugglers work. He doesn't write it as though its ironclad, he says this value is accurate if we assume these two values, particularly with situational abilities. "If we assume you can make X ability trigger 50% of the time, it is statistically worth Y points."

Oh I agree, it's just that we don't play the game that way. We play it with much broader scope. Sure, pre-buff Vader wasn't very good. But if you add in a mini swarm, Vader only has to live up to a much smaller slice of those points.

Thats an interesting way to look at the points.

That being said, I agree strongly that you need to look at the entire list when determining an individual ships effectiveness within the list. How ships work together is more important than how they work in a vacuum.

Another related take I see often is basically, if 100 points of this ship won't work, then 20 points of this ship won't work either. This one drives me crazy.

Cause it is too hard to do it any other way?

There are too many potential synergies to try to incorporate them all into some sort of universal field theory of how all these ships work (or don't) together. I don't know if Mathwing does (or can ) account for the blocking ability of a basic TIE or Z-95. Or if it can account for things unique pilot abilities like, say, Backstabber's ability when there are other ships on the board to draw the enemy attention.

Because space is a vacuum.

Cause it is too hard to do it any other way?

There are too many potential synergies to try to incorporate them all into some sort of universal field theory of how all these ships work (or don't) together. I don't know if Mathwing does (or can ) account for the blocking ability of a basic TIE or Z-95. Or if it can account for things unique pilot abilities like, say, Backstabber's ability when there are other ships on the board to draw the enemy attention.

I'm not asking for a breakdown of every possible combination. I'm asking to just consider how much the ship weighs in a squad. In my example, Keyan is only worth 20 percent. He can under perform his point value because he's legitimately a smaller part of the whole.

Because he isn't *worth* 20% of your squad.

To flip it around, if you run against a mirror match, and you destroy a bandit and he destroys Keyan. Who wins? You both destroyed 20% of the ships in the opposing fleet, but Keyan is *worth* more than a bandit.

Now, worth in this case may not be direct. If he only does 20% of the work, but takes 50% of the enemy fire to put down, then he's probably added extra value to your other ships.

It's an interesting way to think of it, and definitely has some merit. But I disagree that he is worth merely 20 percent of your squad, by virtue of being worth more victory points to your opponent, if nothing else.

I'm not asking for a breakdown of every possible combination. I'm asking to just consider how much the ship weighs in a squad. In my example, Keyan is only worth 20 percent. He can under perform his point value because he's legitimately a smaller part of the whole.

Tell you what. I'll bring 5 Cartel Marauders (chosen only because they're exactly 20 points) to the table. Then we'll kill off one of them, and take Keyan off the board too. 20% for 20%, we've still got a perfectly fair fight with the remaining ships, right?

ships are never compared in a vacuum. They're compared on a 1-to-1 basis with the context of their place in the list.

For example, those 2 Xs and Z-95s could be 3 B-wings.

I think it's because toolbox ships are hard to think about, or more accurately hard to write about (sometimes hanging out with your friends you can get ideas flowing back and forth better than with a forum post). Some ships are important in a squad because they bring the right abilities that the squad needs to shore up a particular weakness, that while taken on their own are not especially strong.

I think it's because toolbox ships are hard to think about, or more accurately hard to write about (sometimes hanging out with your friends you can get ideas flowing back and forth better than with a forum post). Some ships are important in a squad because they bring the right abilities that the squad needs to shore up a particular weakness, that while taken on their own are not especially strong.

re: Int Agent, Conner w/ Warden Squadron Pilot

I think it's because toolbox ships are hard to think about, or more accurately hard to write about (sometimes hanging out with your friends you can get ideas flowing back and forth better than with a forum post). Some ships are important in a squad because they bring the right abilities that the squad needs to shore up a particular weakness, that while taken on their own are not especially strong.

re: Int Agent, Conner w/ Warden Squadron Pilot

Yeah, that's one example, definitely.

Why do we examine the costs and "worth" of a ship in a vacuum?

Sometimes we just get swept up in looking at the problem, I guess.

[rimshot]

For example, in a 5 ship list, my 34 point Kenyan only has to do 20 percent of the work.

Keyan, adv sensors, stay on target

Rookie pilot x2

Bandit pilot x 2

In this setup, both the rookies and Keyan can underperform and still pull their weight, though it does place a burden on the bandits. Bandits being as efficient as they are, an extra 8% of work format seem hard to manage.

So why don't we take the whole list into account when we get into whether or not a ship is worth it's cost?

I'd say knowing how a ship performs in a generalized context is typically more useful than knowing how it performs in a narrow one. In fact, I'd go even further: being able to transition between a specific instance to the general principle (and vice-versa) is one of the hallmarks of increasing expertise.

Think of it in chess terms: there are times when a pawn is sufficient for a particular task. In fact, you can construct tableaux where a pawn is a critically important piece--nothing else will do. But that doesn't mean a pawn is a particularly strong piece overall.

Because space is a vacuum.

I clicked just so I could make that joke, now we must be enemies!

Really smart people have too much time on their hands?

I should clarify that I'm not trying to displace all our current indicators of value, and that math wing as a whole is a noble pursuit.

I just think that there are alternative ways of viewing a ship that can change the perception of cost/usefulness/value, whatever you want to call it.

Generally speaking, we really don't. A HWK is terrible value as a combat ship, but its special abilities add a lot to the table. So we wouldn't value it directly - but we can value its combat worth, so that way you know just how much its support capabilities need to be worth in order for it to be a good buy.

Knowing the price of a ship's raw firepower & durability stats is only the start, but it's a pretty dang good start.

As for your example, Keyan isn't worth 20% of your list; he's 20% of your headcount. If you're flying Fat Han & 3 Talas, you'd better believe you need Fat Han to do more than 25% of the lists work. Similar things happen at all point levels, but it's clearer in the extremes.

Because some people enjoy playing XWing, and others enjoy math homework.

Love ya Bob, but I love my Defenders more

Because some people enjoy playing SWing, and others enjoy math homework.

Love ya Bob, but I love my Defenders more

Not that that is very challenging... My point is, yes, some people do enjoy math recreationally... Legalize math!

Measurements are never pulled out of thin air, they are often referenced to a standard and even then measurements has a point of origin or a starting point.

For jousting values the units are well squadron points and the standard is the cheapest ship at the time (wave 2-3ish) which was the Academy pilot. Now was the academy pilot a better standard than say a rookie pilot? Good question but usually when picking a standard you try to go with the smallest increment and work your way from there. A mole was debated whether to be measured from a hydrogen atom because it was the smallest and was later decided that a carbon-12 isotope was a much more stable standard.