What makes a ship a jousting ship vs an arc dodging ship vs a turret ship? Yeah, I know some of them are kind of obvious but I am trying to figure out how to assess new ships as they release and find my own play still and want to make sure I have a thorough understanding of the different 'classes' of ships.

Turret ships are obvious. They have turrets. Even though they have turrets, they still may want to arc-dodge or joust. Fat Han and Admiral Chiraneau are both great arc dodgers if you take Engine Upgrade on them.

The other two are going to vary depending on what you find yourself up against. Arc dodging ships will generally have a higher pilot skill and a way to reposition after seeing where their opponent's arcs are facing. When your ships are more point efficient than your opponent's ships you benefit from trying pull them into a joust. B-Wings and TIE swarms tend to do well at jousting.

Turret ship - does it have a turret? It's a turret ship.

Arc dodging - does it have a dial with more than the usual amount of green (especially green hard turns)? Does it have cloak, boost, and/or barrel roll? Does it have relatively low HP for its cost? Does it have pilot abilities and upgrade slots that help support taking multiple re-positioning actions per round while still having focus and/or target locks for offense? The more you answer "yes" to these, the more likely it's an arc dodging type of ship.

Jousting - does it have a lot of HP relative to its cost? Does it have a limited or slow maneuver dial? Does it lack re-positioning options? Does it have pilot abilities and upgrade options that support directly exchanging fire with your foes? The more you answer "yes" to these, the more likely it's a jousting type of ship.

Results

-------------------------------------- REBEL SHIPS ------------------------------------

----------------------------------------- X-wings --------------------------------------

Commentary

The generic X-wings are overcosted by about 2 points, and most of the named pilots also appear to be overcosted. This generally agrees with tournament results. Biggs is the exception, and his ability is almost impossible to mathematically model, but he clearly has a disruptive ability that is one of the best in the game.

Decreasing the cost of the Rookie Pilot to 20 or 19 would allow 5 of them in a list, which is almost certainly why they were initially priced at 21 points during wave 1. However, now that alternatives (B-wing, Z-95) are available, generic X-wings see almost no competitive use.

Most of the named X-wing pilots also appear to be overcosted, which is generally confirmed by tournament results.

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 X-wing 21 | 18.4 | 20.2 | 17.8 | 88.3% | 86.3% - 90% | 135%

PS4 X-wing 23 | 19.8 | 20.4 | 17.8 | 87.1% | 85.1% - 88.7% | 159.1%

Tarn Mison² 23 | 21.1 | 19.4 | 17.8 | 91.8% | 89.7% - 93.6% | 159.1%

"Hobbie"¹ 25 | 21.6 | 20.6 | 17.8 | 86.5% | 84.6% - 88.2% | 185%

Biggs Darklighter⁴ 25 | 24.6 | 18 | 17.8 | 98.9% | 96.6% - 100.8% | 185%

Garven Dreis² 26 | 23.3 | 19.9 | 17.8 | 89.6% | 87.6% - 91.3% | 198.6%

Jek Porkins^0.5 26 | 23.3 | 19.7 | 17.8 | 90.2% | 88.1% - 91.9% | 198.6%

Luke Skywalker* 28 | 26 | 21 | 19.7 | 93.7% | 91.6% - 95.5% | 189.1%

Wes Janson2 29 | 25.5 | 20.3 | 17.8 | 87.9% | 85.9% - 89.6% | 241.6%

Wedge Antilles* 29 | 27.8 | 21.1 | 20.5 | 97% | 93.1% - 100.1% | 187.8%

*Luke (approximation): 20% more durability

*Wedge: as per ability

------------------------------------- IMPERIAL SHIPS ----------------------------------

----------------------------------------- wave 1 ---------------------------------------

-------------------------------------- TIE Advanced ------------------------------------

Commentary

The stock TIE Advanced is clearly overcosted by a wide margin. Vader is easily the best pilot of the group, as he has one of the best abilities in the game.

Analyzing the TIE Advanced Fix requires several different approaches to get a complete picture, since there are several different options.

Analysis #1: Free FCS

The first approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Fire-Control System. Without an overall point cost reduction, it is still not an effective ship, particularly for the generics.

Analysis #2: Free Accuracy Corrector

The second approach is to give the TIE Advanced a free Accuracy Corrector. This dramatically increases the ship's damage output, while simultaneously allowing its action economy to be used for defense. To simulate the added durability, ships with the "HiD" flag have their durability calculated as if they have focus available to spend on defense 2/3 the time instead of 1/2 the time. This increases the TIE Advanced's durability by about 10%. With a free Accuracy Corrector, the generics have a jousting efficiency right around 100%. Maarek Steele's ability here is valued at zero points because he never gets critical hits. Vader is still obviously the best overall value, simply by valuing his ability at 3 points.

Note: the analysis below for ATC is simplified and treats the extra die result from ATC as a hit, not a crit. When attacking unshielded ships, it will perform even better than the numbers below indicate.

Analysis #3: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 50% proc rate

A third approach is to give all the ships the Advanced Targeting Computer (ATC) for +1 point. Because the Target Lock is not spent during use, this makes it difficult to exactly calculate, since its effectiveness will largely depend on the tactical situation. The first analysis of ATC will assume that the ship has a 50% chance of having a Target Lock on the target, in addition to its normal 67% chance of having a focus available for attack. I may refine this approach later, but for now it should provide a reasonable estimation of how these ships should perform. With this upgrade, I have increased Maarek Steele's pilot ability to be valued at 2 points, contrasted with being valued at 0.5 points stock, because he will very frequently be getting a critical hit through his opponent. I have excluded Vader from this analysis, because I assume that he will always have a Target Lock on his target, since he is PS9 and gets 2 actions.

Analysis #4: Advanced Targeting Computer for 1 point, assuming 100% proc rate

The final approach is to give each ship ATC for one point, and assume that it kicks in for every shot. This is in addition to the 67% chance for having focus on offense, and so represents how effective a ship is after it gets the Target Lock queued up from a previous round, such as when firing on a high hit point ship. Vader is analyzed here assuming that he will always have target lock and focus available to use on attack. This is slightly different than the "stock" version of Vader, where I analyze his ability by giving him a free TL and then keeping the same focus action economy. However, the ATC TL is not spent during the attack, so Vader will not always need to spend his 2 actions on both TL and focus. Instead, he will sometimes be able to spend his 2nd action on evade instead. To simulate the potential for his added durability, I calculated his value twice: once with standard durability and once with "HiD" durability. Vader's resulting PS1 jousting value is between 24.5 - 25.8 points, which is an exceptional value for a 30 point PS9 pilot with an EPT slot, and corresponds to a PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency of 112% - 118%.

TIE Advanced Fix Summary

Generic Pilots

The generic pilots will be viable with a free Accuracy Corrector, which is almost the identical analysis as performed in this thread. Generic pilots can also work with the Advanced Targeting Computer, but if they can't get the Target Lock queue going they will be better off taking Accuracy Corrector.

Named Pilots (not Vader)

The named pilots will generally be better off with ATC. I believe the best way to evaluate Alozen and Steele with ATC is to use the 50% proc assumption, although if you can manage to get ATC to proc 100% of the time while still having focus available to spend on offense, then you will be doing significantly more damage. Predator is a reasonable upgrade in conjunction with ATC, but since you are only rolling 2 dice most of the time, it is not auto-include.

The Dark Lord Rises

Vader is still by far the best TIE Advanced pilot. Regardless of what fix FFG chose, this was nearly a mathematical certainty unless they simultaneously implemented a universal or generic-specific cost reduction. Vader is extremely good with a free Accuracy Corrector, but Advanced Targeting Computer is so good on him that it is nearly auto-include. Vader + ATC now has one of the highest PS1 equivalent jousting efficiency in the game. Conversly, his required efficiency is only somewhere between 131% - 144%, which should be attainable simply by shooting last at PS9. Almost any other pilot with an efficiency this high has a significant weakness that can be exploited, such as ACD Phantoms that are vulnerable to stress and higher pilot skill. Vader's only weakness is getting blocked during the activation phase to lose his two actions, which is not something that you can simply counter by list building. With this fix, Vader will undoubtedly become a prominent piece in many Imperial lists, and should see consistent and competitive high level tournament play. If anything, this fix could potentially make Vader too powerful, as many Imperial players will now be looking at ways to always incorporate Vader into their list.

----------------------------------- Stock TIE Advanced ---------------------------------

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 16.1 | 20.2 | 15.6 | 77.2% | 77% - 77.5% | 172.1%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 17.4 | 20.4 | 15.6 | 76.2% | 76% - 76.4% | 203%

Commander Alozen 25 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 17.3 | 83.6% | 82.8% - 84.4% | 194.9%

Maarek Steele^0.5 27 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 15.6 | 75.9% | 75.7% - 76.2% | 271%

Darth Vader³ 29 | 24.3 | 18.9 | 15.6 | 82.4% | 82.1% - 82.6% | 308.3%

Darth Vader* 29 | 26 | 21.1 | 19 | 90.1% | 89.2% - 91% | 214.7%

* Vader modeled here as free TL on every attack

------------------------ TIE Advanced + Title + Fire Control System --------------------

50% chance of having a target lock when attacking

Note: Expected damage output is 21% higher than stock. (Alozen 9%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 18 | 20.2 | 17.4 | 86.1% | 85.5% - 86.7% | 141.4%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 19.4 | 20.4 | 17.4 | 84.9% | 84.3% - 85.5% | 166.6%

Commander Alozen 25 | 21.9 | 20.7 | 18.2 | 87.8% | 86.9% - 88.7% | 178.3%

Maarek Steele^0.5 27 | 22.8 | 20.5 | 17.4 | 84.6% | 84% - 85.2% | 222.6%

Darth Vader³ 29 | 26.8 | 18.9 | 17.4 | 91.8% | 91.1% - 92.5% | 252.9%

------------------------ TIE Advanced + Title + Accuracy Corrector ---------------------

damage directly calculated; durability now assumes 2/3 chance of defensive focus vs 1/2

Note: Expected damage output is 43% higher than stock. (Alozen 32%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 21 | 21 | 20.2 | 20.3 | 100.5% | 99.5% - 101.6% | 106.8%

PS4 TIE Advanced 23 | 22.7 | 20.4 | 20.3 | 99.1% | 98.1% - 100.2% | 125.9%

Commander Alozen 25 | 25.6 | 20.7 | 21.3 | 103% | 101.5% - 104.6% | 133.5%

Maarek Steele⁰ 27 | 26.1 | 20.9 | 20.3 | 96.9% | 96% - 98% | 168.1%

Darth Vader³ 29 | 30.7 | 18.9 | 20.3 | 107.2% | 106.1% - 108.3% | 191.2%

---- TIE Advanced + Title + Advanced Targeting Computer (50% duty cycle assumption) ----

Advanced Targeting Computer modeled as 1 free hit (not crit) 50% of the time

This is in ADDITION to a 2/3 chance of focus on offense.

Vader: assumes always has TL+F; his numbers are in the next section

Alozen: always gets TL @ range 1. Otherwise 50% chance of free extra hit.

Note: Expected damage output is 52% higher than stock. (Alozen 40%)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 22 | 20.3 | 21.1 | 19.6 | 92.9% | 91.4% - 94.3% | 123%

PS4 TIE Advanced 24 | 22 | 21.3 | 19.6 | 92% | 90.5% - 93.4% | 144.1%

Commander Alozen 26 | 25.1 | 21.5 | 20.9 | 97% | 95% - 98.8% | 148.8%

Alozen + Predator 29 | 27.3 | 24.9 | 23.5 | 94.4% | 92% - 96.6% | 146.4%

Maarek Steele² 28 | 27.2 | 20.1 | 19.6 | 97.5% | 95.9% - 99% | 190.2%

Steele + Predator² 31 | 29.7 | 23.2 | 22.3 | 96% | 93.9% - 97.9% | 181.5%

---- TIE Advanced + Title + Advanced Targeting Computer (100% duty cycle assumption) ---

Advanced Targeting Computer modeled as 1 free hit (not crit) 100% of the time

This is in ADDITION to a 2/3 chance of focus on offense.

Vader: assumes always has TL+F on offense.

Vader durability calculated 2 ways: 1) standard, and 2) "HiD": 2/3 chance of defensive focus vs 1/2

(approximation for increased action economy and occasional evade tokens instead)

Note: Expected damage output is 104% higher than stock.

(Alozen 69%, Vader 58% relative to a free TL stock)

Cost | | PS1 Jousting Efficiency | req

Ship name actual|predict| PS1 | JV | std | range | eff

PS2 TIE Advanced 22 | 23.9 | 21.1 | 23.1 | 109.3% | 106.8% - 111.6% | 91.6%

PS4 TIE Advanced 24 | 25.9 | 21.3 | 23.1 | 108.2% | 105.8% - 110.5% | 107.3%

Commander Alozen 26 | 27.8 | 21.5 | 23.1 | 107.3% | 104.9% - 109.6% | 123.9%

Alozen + Predator 29 | 29.9 | 24.9 | 25.8 | 103.6% | 100.7% - 106.3% | 123.9%

Maarek Steele² 28 | 31.7 | 20.1 | 23.1 | 114.7% | 112.1% - 117.1% | 141.7%

Steele + Predator² 31 | 34.1 | 23.2 | 25.8 | 111% | 107.9% - 113.9% | 139.6%

Vader 30 | 33.5 | 21.8 | 24.5 | 112.1% | 109.2% - 114.7% | 144.5%

Vader + Predator 33 | 35.8 | 24.8 | 27 | 109% | 105.7% - 112% | 143.7%

Vader (HiD) 30 | 35.3 | 21.8 | 25.8 | 118.3% | 114.9% - 121.6% | 131.2%

Vader + Predator (HiD) 33 | 37.8 | 24.8 | 28.5 | 115.1% | 111.2% - 118.8% | 130.3%

Ok, next question related question. The quote here is from the MathWing thread. I want to make sure that I am reading the information correctly. It is saying that the higher the value in JV column, based on stat line, in theory the better at jousting the ship should be. The std column is how efficiently a ship can use its stat line in a joust, how well they can apply the stats. The req eff column is how many points a ship must make back based on its actual value to 'earn its keep.' Are these interpretations correct?

It sounds like you've got the gist of it.

Ok, thanks a lot. Trying to get better at the game and I am pretty certain that good jousting ships are were I should be flying because of my natural play style.