mxlm-

Lol, yes. Don't get stressed. :-)

Jokes aside, I made a big mistake in my game and forgot about R3A2. Mostly, just anticipate taking an early stress from them, and don't let yourself be in a position where you are either double stressed or forced into a bad play to clear stress. The reason I put Turr in front is because he is good at flying without necessarily using PtL, but then I forgot and did it anyway.

A Stress-HOG on the other hand is an absolutely lethal ship that has to be avoided at range 1-2 at nearly all costs, and focused down at the earliest opportunity even if it isn't otherwise optimum. Get past him, control him if you have elements for that, but otherwise just put him at the very top of your target priority.

I think I used the wrong terminology, sorry. I meant a TLT Y-Wing with the title and R3-A2, which has the ability to double stress you at two and three or single-stress you at range one.

I'm thinking the only thing to do is jump from out of range to range one and go from there (well, and hope you alpha strike it before it can fire), but if there are alternatives I'm not seeing I'd love to hear about them.

I would add, also, that in the KO's TC Aces match of 3 Interceptor Aces vs TLTs, he had extraordinarily good luck

Ugh, another solid victory dismissed because of lucky dice. I find that distasteful.

To analyze a game and make a balance determination you either need a lot of data from many games, and/or you need to look at the specific rolls. There is simply no other way around it. In this case it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation about the balance of that specific matchup without getting into the details. If that offends you, well, I'm clearly just a heartless machine that crunches numbers, so it doesn't bother me.

In all seriousness though, technical balance analysis is a very cold and heartless task. The very existence of my math work (which is largely a free public service) seems to offend no small number of people. Well, you can't please everyone all the time, so such is life.

In the case of the other Regionals game that you refer to, if the rolls were indeed as reported to me, then it was noteworthy simply because it was the best lucky streak that anyone will likely have playing in a Premier level Final Table match for the next 1000 years. I didn't make a big deal of it other than as a small footnote somewhere. Again, I ran the numbers as a public service because someone asked.

I'm not offended at all, I said it was distasteful.

Your math being a free public service is great - when it is asked for.

The Crackswarm (5 Crack Shot Black Squadron Pilots and Howlrunner with Push The Limit and Stealth Device) can take a nice bite out of them; again, you have the firepower to punch out a Y-wing in the first pass, and with Crack Shot you don't mind (too much) if the first shots are at range 3.

What about Scum? Apart from Rebel lists they can pull off as well (8 z-95s) and Brobots, what would be a good Scum list to take on TLTs?

Scum have quite a few ways to make a ship ludicrously evasive without being tied to 1-2 tokens, which makes them good at dodging multiple unmodified attacks.

Xizor's ability doesn't help against a Twin Laser Turret, because like an Ion Cannon there are no uncancelled Hit results left.

However, the Virago is bloody agile, so nipping inside a range 1 space is fairly easy.

More importantly, a combination of Agility 3, Autothrusters and a Sensor Jammer makes him a bugger to hit. You can fill the illicit slot with Glitterstim and for the first turn of engagement you are the next best thing to untouchable with twin laser fire. With any luck Xisor and escorting Black Sun Z-95s can take one of the Y-wings down before it can fire more than once, and you should make a nice mess of the remainders, even if you lose your wingmen over the next few turns.

It's not half bad against other squads, too, because whilst he's not the PS8-9 of real arc dodgers, he's **** manouvrable and very, very hard to hit.

Ah, mathematics. X-Wing's shiny, Golden Rod God.

I'm not offended at all, I said it was distasteful.

Your math being a free public service is great - when it is asked for.

I think defending someone's ego is great - when it is asked for.

So to sum up what KO is suggesting:

- TLT spam has a low skill floor, but also a (relatively) low skill ceiling.

-Because of this, seasoned players will/should soon adapt and find ways to beat it using advanced tactics.

Personally i tend to agree with both statements, however i have yet to meet a person iny my area who enjoys playing the 4Y TLT lists. It's super limited in what it does, but it does what it does so well that many people don't enjoy the experience (win or loose). It's hard to pinpoint the exact reason, but what i usually hear is some variant of "its mostly throwing a lot of dice at people", which if course isnt true, but actually supports the 2 statements above for 2 reasons:

-Ys arent very mobile (slightly better with unhinged) so usually you dont have to think to hard about your maneuvers because there simply arent that many options (compare to brobots f.e.!).

-TLTs are the most efficient turret commonly available in the game at range 2-3. It's unprecedented that you can have 100% of your list filled with the most efficient turret. To clarify: You can't build 2 fat hans or 2fat chiraneaus, you can however have 4TLT Ys in your list. Or in other words: If your premise is that fat PWTs are cheesy, it's still just 60-65% of your list. 4TLT however are 100% of your list.

So here we have an upgrade that is superior in efficiency compared to it's peers + you can put it on every ship in your list. It's not far fetched that this makes for an uneven play experience.

I know it's hard to playtest for fun because it's an entirely subjective thing, but if many players see a list as "not fun" it indicates they might be on to something. And most of these people dont even read or care about the ffg forum.

I applaud the designers for taking measures to break up the old 2ship meta, i just wish they would've taken a different road because the TLT has created a whole list of new issues.

Personally i think the following combination of things wouldve been enough to break up the old 2 ship meta:

- Mov change (hurts 60+pt ships alot)

- 75 minute rounds (no more decis surviving with 1hull)

- Increased efficiency of ordnance for alpha strikes that can take hurt or down large point fortresses (already coming with tracers + unspoiled upgrades).

-2TLT per list max or make TLT 7pts so it's 4 naked Y.

- A couple more nuanced upgrades like Agent Kalus

As it stands, they seem to have completely killed big ships save for brobots or outliers like the Palpmobile. This didnt have to happen in order to shift the meta towards 3+ ships.

To sum up the above posts, TLT is ridiculously easy for a noob to win with.

A number of people feel dirty for playing it and resent having to face it.

TLT can be beaten but then you need to use either:

1) A swarm of 5-6 cheap ships with a lot of red dice; (for noobs to mediocre pilots)

2) Arc dodgers with auto thrusters and very friendly green dice; (for veteran pilots who want to show off)

Time will tell, but I predict 4x Y Wing TLT will become the next defining build. Sure a noob will have mixed results, but a pro will win 95% of the time with this list.

Sure you will get those horribly biased dice result games, but average for average TLT is king.

All FFG managed to do is ensure they sell a lot of K-Wing kits and Y-Wing kits and not much else. Hounds tooth are still sitting on shelves as are punishers and new scum k fighters.

To sum up the above posts, TLT is ridiculously easy for a noob to win with.

A number of people feel dirty for playing it and resent having to face it.

TLT can be beaten but then you need to use either:

1) A swarm of 5-6 cheap ships with a lot of red dice; (for noobs to mediocre pilots)

2) Arc dodgers with auto thrusters and very friendly green dice; (for veteran pilots who want to show off)

Time will tell, but I predict 4x Y Wing TLT will become the next defining build. Sure a noob will have mixed results, but a pro will win 95% of the time with this list.

Sure you will get those horribly biased dice result games, but average for average TLT is king.

All FFG managed to do is ensure they sell a lot of K-Wing kits and Y-Wing kits and not much else. Hounds tooth are still sitting on shelves as are punishers and new scum k fighters.

You missinterpret this. The fact that TLTs are so easily countered means they do not have what it takes to become truly dominant. Sure, a lot of people are going to jump on to this new strong and relatively easy to fly list, but those who counter it will have an easy way to the top. That is why I would assume that Brobots will be even more of a thing than they already were. They are easily teched towards TLTs without losing much of their strength against other builds. Of course Autoceptors aren't a good matchup for them and Autoceptors have mixed (although mainly positive) feelings about facing TLT spam, so all in all TLTs are a neccessary evil (and I don't think they are that bad or boring, but that is personal preference of course) that brings us a more diverse meta, which is good.

As it stands, they seem to have completely killed big ships save for brobots or outliers like the Palpmobile.^{[Citation needed]}

To sum up the above posts, TLT is ridiculously easy for a noob to win with.

No one here but you is saying that.

A number of people feel dirty for playing it and resent having to face it.

You know, I feel the same way about Biggs. FFG should accommodate my preferences by banning him.

TLT can be beaten but then you need to use either:

1) A swarm of 5-6 cheap ships with a lot of red dice; (for noobs to mediocre pilots)

2) Arc dodgers with auto thrusters and very friendly green dice; (for veteran pilots who want to show off)

If you're interested in your list-building options for fighting back against TLT, can I recommend this thread?

Or, as an alternative, you could read the topic post. KineticOperator goes into a great deal of detail, including sample lists, for what you can do to beat TLT consistently.

Time will tell, but I predict 4x Y Wing TLT will become the next defining build. Sure a noob will have mixed results, but a pro will win 95% of the time with this list.

Sure you will get those horribly biased dice result games, but average for average TLT is king.

Pre-nerf Phantoms didn't even manage 95%.

All FFG managed to do is ensure they sell a lot of K-Wing kits and Y-Wing kits and not much else. Hounds tooth are still sitting on shelves as are punishers and new scum k fighters.^{[Citation needed]}

Learning the "rule of 11" off YouTube can help you gauge distances and firing ranges. Being able to sit just outside and then zip in close can be very helpful to a player.

All FFG managed to do is ensure they sell a lot of K-Wing kits and Y-Wing kits and not much else. Hounds tooth are still sitting on shelves as are punishers and new scum k fighters.

mxlm-

Lol, yes. Don't get stressed. :-)

Jokes aside, I made a big mistake in my game and forgot about R3A2. Mostly, just anticipate taking an early stress from them, and don't let yourself be in a position where you are either double stressed or forced into a bad play to clear stress. The reason I put Turr in front is because he is good at flying without necessarily using PtL, but then I forgot and did it anyway.

A Stress-HOG on the other hand is an absolutely lethal ship that has to be avoided at range 1-2 at nearly all costs, and focused down at the earliest opportunity even if it isn't otherwise optimum. Get past him, control him if you have elements for that, but otherwise just put him at the very top of your target priority.

I think I used the wrong terminology, sorry. I meant a TLT Y-Wing with the title and R3-A2, which has the ability to double stress you at two and three or single-stress you at range one.

I'm thinking the only thing to do is jump from out of range to range one and go from there (well, and hope you alpha strike it before it can fire), but if there are alternatives I'm not seeing I'd love to hear about them.

TLT only declares a target once, so it will only give you one stress with R3A2. Still quite dangerous though. :-)

More or less, yes. Low skill floor, low skill ceiling. It does what it does well, but cannot adapt to a changing game state very effectively. Seasoned players already have ways of beating it consistently without sacrificing their ability to take on other lists. I was just trying to pass on a few ideas to help newer players develop their own lists and tactics to do so.

Personally, I find facing TLT spam to be a very satisfying game because there are specific and effective ways to build against and play against it that will show consistently good results. There are other lists that are very difficult to deal with depending, mostly because they can react more effectively to what you are doing. Classic Fat Han is a great example, because large ship boost + PS 9 left him in the drivers seat.

I'm not offended at all, I said it was distasteful.

Your math being a free public service is great - when it is asked for.

I think defending someone's ego is great - when it is asked for.

Fair enough, my last comment wasn't at all helpful, which does bother me, so I'll try to fix it:

MJ (and other Mathwingers') work is a fantastic resource which is used by a lot of us in the list-building aspect of this game. It tells us what the most point-efficient ship and upgrade combos are. It also serves as a prediction for what you are likely to see at large events.

I have used MJ's work in the past to try to predict the meta, and build counters. I have also directly asked Mathwingers what the best options would be to fill out particular squads, and I will likely continue to do this. Both of these scenarios are examples of a real contribution to the community - a great public service!

The difference here is the round by round and roll by roll analysis of dice. Comparing actual results to expected damage. This in no way offers anything to KO. KO can do nothing about that, and the analysis will not affect the way he plays in the future. The only purpose it serves is to discredit his win. This is not a public service.

So, please ignore the snide comment from last night. This is what I was trying to get at.

mxlm-

Lol, yes. Don't get stressed. :-)

Jokes aside, I made a big mistake in my game and forgot about R3A2. Mostly, just anticipate taking an early stress from them, and don't let yourself be in a position where you are either double stressed or forced into a bad play to clear stress. The reason I put Turr in front is because he is good at flying without necessarily using PtL, but then I forgot and did it anyway.

A Stress-HOG on the other hand is an absolutely lethal ship that has to be avoided at range 1-2 at nearly all costs, and focused down at the earliest opportunity even if it isn't otherwise optimum. Get past him, control him if you have elements for that, but otherwise just put him at the very top of your target priority.

I think I used the wrong terminology, sorry. I meant a TLT Y-Wing with the title and R3-A2, which has the ability to double stress you at two and three or single-stress you at range one.

I'm thinking the only thing to do is jump from out of range to range one and go from there (well, and hope you alpha strike it before it can fire), but if there are alternatives I'm not seeing I'd love to hear about them.

TLT only declares a target once, so it will only give you one stress with R3A2. Still quite dangerous though. :-)

The TLT Y-WIng can also take the title, in which case you can double stress at range three, but not one. Thats what he said.

Thinking about old lists, what about triple Firespray? It seems to me that with the large movements it can make, and the PS advantage, you could beat 4 TLT Y's with 3 Firesprays. I did some quick math, and, assuming everyone can shoot at anyone, and no range bonuses on either side (HUGE assumptions, I know!), you'd kill the 4 Y-Wings with a 2 hull Firespray remaining. Probably cuts it a bit close!

You have a point for a Tactical Jammer, so you could try to do a bait and switch where a non-Jammer Firespray was in the lead position, then you'd shift the Jammer to protect the one that was damaged. Even forcing one extra TLT to fire to finish off the first Spray could be enough to get more margin of error.

Edit: those big bases can probably get pretty close after the first round of fire and deny more shots, as well.

Thinking about old lists, what about triple Firespray? It seems to me that with the large movements it can make, and the PS advantage, you could beat 4 TLT Y's with 3 Firesprays. I did some quick math, and, assuming everyone can shoot at anyone, and no range bonuses on either side (HUGE assumptions, I know!), you'd kill the 4 Y-Wings with a 2 hull Firespray remaining. Probably cuts it a bit close!

Yeah. Unfortunately the Bounty Hunter isn't all that efficient, so it can't really afford to joust with the TLTs, and not only can't it arc-dodge very effectively, but it doesn't get any defensive bonus from doing so. Improving their action economy a little bit would get you some leverage out of the evade action--but with three Hunters, you can't afford it.

I think you could win with three, but as you say, it'll be close. If three Firesprays turned out to be a good list against the rest of the metagame, it's a close enough matchup with TLT spam that I might run it...?

Thinking about old lists, what about triple Firespray? It seems to me that with the large movements it can make, and the PS advantage, you could beat 4 TLT Y's with 3 Firesprays. I did some quick math, and, assuming everyone can shoot at anyone, and no range bonuses on either side (HUGE assumptions, I know!), you'd kill the 4 Y-Wings with a 2 hull Firespray remaining. Probably cuts it a bit close!

Yeah. Unfortunately the Bounty Hunter isn't all that efficient, so it can't really afford to joust with the TLTs, and not only can't it arc-dodge very effectively, but it doesn't get any defensive bonus from doing so. Improving their action economy a little bit would get you some leverage out of the evade action--but with three Hunters, you can't afford it.

I think you could win with three, but as you say, it'll be close. If three Firesprays turned out to be a good list against the rest of the metagame, it's a close enough matchup with TLT spam that I might run it...?

I think the thing that 3 Firesprays would have going for it against 4xTLTs is that those big bases will be able to end up in range one an awful lot.

Thinking about old lists, what about triple Firespray? It seems to me that with the large movements it can make, and the PS advantage, you could beat 4 TLT Y's with 3 Firesprays. I did some quick math, and, assuming everyone can shoot at anyone, and no range bonuses on either side (HUGE assumptions, I know!), you'd kill the 4 Y-Wings with a 2 hull Firespray remaining. Probably cuts it a bit close!

There IS this list:

Bounty Hunter + Tactical Jammer

Bounty Hunter + Tactical Jammer

Soontir Fel + PTL + Autothrusters

For specific TLT counter, could drop to a lower PS Interceptor with more upgrades. Of course, Tactical Jammer is optional.

I DO think multiple Firesprays could be a viable option for taking on TLT. I've never been a fan of Triple Firespray, but Soontir and 2 Firesprays has always been great. I think if 2 Firesprays can pound down 2 Y Wings before dying, then Soontir should have a chance to mop up 2 Y Wings. "Should", I haven't tested that one out! But I believe I will!

I'm not offended at all, I said it was distasteful.

Your math being a free public service is great - when it is asked for.

I think defending someone's ego is great - when it is asked for.

Fair enough, my last comment wasn't at all helpful, which does bother me, so I'll try to fix it:

MJ (and other Mathwingers') work is a fantastic resource which is used by a lot of us in the list-building aspect of this game. It tells us what the most point-efficient ship and upgrade combos are. It also serves as a prediction for what you are likely to see at large events.

I have used MJ's work in the past to try to predict the meta, and build counters. I have also directly asked Mathwingers what the best options would be to fill out particular squads, and I will likely continue to do this. Both of these scenarios are examples of a real contribution to the community - a great public service!

The difference here is the round by round and roll by roll analysis of dice. Comparing actual results to expected damage. This in no way offers anything to KO. KO can do nothing about that, and the analysis will not affect the way he plays in the future. The only purpose it serves is to discredit his win. This is not a public service.

So, please ignore the snide comment from last night. This is what I was trying to get at.

However, if the dice rolls in that game favored the interceptors, then we should throw out this game as a piece of evidence, or at least heavily caveat it. In order to decide if that is the case, we must peek into whether or not the dice favored one side significantly.

And so, MJ has done the work to say whether this game is valid evidence or not. He is not trying to devalue Aaron's win, he is trying to establish whether or not this game is a worthy data point. To do so, in depth analysis of the dice rolls is necessary. The "devaluation" of Aaron's win is an unfortunate side effect, but we must be a little cold and impersonal to get at whether this is good evidence or not. As adults, we should be able to set aside our emotional attachments for just a bit to treat data as data and not a personal affront. Aaron is a very strong player and understands that math and luck are inherently portions of the game, and so I would guess he does not take personal offense even if he disagrees with the methodoolgy's conclusions.

So it does serve a purpose - the game is quite likely not good evidence in support of the argument that TLTs are not too strong.

Bounty Hunter + Tactical Jammer

Bounty Hunter + Tactical Jammer

Soontir Fel + PTL + Autothrusters

I really don't see getting all that much use from the Tactical Jammers. (Although I've never tried to use two of them, I've never had my efforts to use one of them rewarded. EVen 1 point's worth.)

I don't think that's a bad TLT-counter, although I'd be more likely to pick either:

(a) TL for Soontir, for ranging purposes, or ...

(b) APL for a BH, and just have it charge in and mix things up.

GiraffeandZebra-

Your point is spot on. I wouldn't normally care, except that "devaluing" that win is a result of what I believe are errors in analysis. That is why I posted a counterpoint, when it was suggested that "extraordinary good luck" was involved. The first turn had one of the two most likely results happen, which is hardly "extraordinary". Criticals came into effect twice during that first turn of shooting, both of which would have crippled or killed Jax, but the nature of TLTs nullified those Crits. In the following turns, criticals again came into play a total of 3 times, once when shooting Turr and twice when shooting at Y-Wings. Again TLTs nullified the effects of their own criticals, but the primary fire of the Interceptors managed to score powerful critical effects.

"If we ignore the effect of the criticals rolled against the Y-Wings", and "if Matt had taken TL on Jax (predicated on perfect knowledge of Jax's planned moves)", and "if all the maneuvers had gone off exactly the same way through the whole game despite the results being different" are ENORMOUS caveats. In the first turn there was a very slight advantage to the Interceptors, still well within the expected range of results.

In the subsequent turns, we find critical effects are disproportionately favoring the Interceptors. However, you cannot just gloss past this point. Interceptors are generally the MOST vulnerable to crits of all the ships in X-Wing, and there were 3 occasions for critical effects to cripple or kill Interceptors that had been nullified by the nature of TLTs before the Y-Wings ever took crits of their own. This is not "random", if your list shares a vulnerability that by design your opponent does not, that is inherent to the list. It does not belong in the "lucky dice" category.

I do believe that in the end, dice did favor the interceptors. It is certain that Jax should have been dead at the end of turn 2. It is entirely possible that Turr Phennir would have died as well once fire was concentrated on him (though he is a MUCH harder target, being less vulnerable to action denial/blocking lets him get into Range 1 and stay there). But the "dice skew" doesn't even remotely go so far that it would account for Jax dead, 2 more damage to Turr, and Soontir with Stealth being shot down by the survivors.

JMO, but that game is instructive of the expected results in this matchup. It is also representative of the real results I have had over dozens of similar games. I have won (and lost, often TERRIBLY, lol) enough games that there isn't any particular emotional investment in this for me. My offbeat lists tend to fail far more often than they work, theory crafting aside. In this case an otherwise "mainstream" list is pretty offbeat for dealing with TLTs, and it wouldn't have shocked me at all if it hadn't worked. But it does, consistently, assuming I don't just flat out mess up. Which is also an enormous caveat. TLTs give up vulnerability to Crits. Most of my odd lists give up vulnerability to a single bad move. :-)

GiraffeandZebra-

Your point is spot on. I wouldn't normally care, except that "devaluing" that win is a result of what I believe are errors in analysis. That is why I posted a counterpoint, when it was suggested that "extraordinary good luck" was involved. The first turn had one of the two most likely results happen, which is hardly "extraordinary". Criticals came into effect twice during that first turn of shooting, both of which would have crippled or killed Jax, but the nature of TLTs nullified those Crits. In the following turns, criticals again came into play a total of 3 times, once when shooting Turr and twice when shooting at Y-Wings. Again TLTs nullified the effects of their own criticals, but the primary fire of the Interceptors managed to score powerful critical effects.

"If we ignore the effect of the criticals rolled against the Y-Wings", and "if Matt had taken TL on Jax (predicated on perfect knowledge of Jax's planned moves)", and "if all the maneuvers had gone off exactly the same way through the whole game despite the results being different" are ENORMOUS caveats. In the first turn there was a very slight advantage to the Interceptors, still well within the expected range of results.

In the subsequent turns, we find critical effects are disproportionately favoring the Interceptors. However, you cannot just gloss past this point. Interceptors are generally the MOST vulnerable to crits of all the ships in X-Wing, and there were 3 occasions for critical effects to cripple or kill Interceptors that had been nullified by the nature of TLTs before the Y-Wings ever took crits of their own. This is not "random", if your list shares a vulnerability that by design your opponent does not, that is inherent to the list. It does not belong in the "lucky dice" category.

I do believe that in the end, dice did favor the interceptors. It is certain that Jax should have been dead at the end of turn 2. It is entirely possible that Turr Phennir would have died as well once fire was concentrated on him (though he is a MUCH harder target, being less vulnerable to action denial/blocking lets him get into Range 1 and stay there). But the "dice skew" doesn't even remotely go so far that it would account for Jax dead, 2 more damage to Turr, and Soontir with Stealth being shot down by the survivors.

JMO, but that game is instructive of the expected results in this matchup. It is also representative of the real results I have had over dozens of similar games. I have won (and lost, often TERRIBLY, lol) enough games that there isn't any particular emotional investment in this for me. My offbeat lists tend to fail far more often than they work, theory crafting aside. In this case an otherwise "mainstream" list is pretty offbeat for dealing with TLTs, and it wouldn't have shocked me at all if it hadn't worked. But it does, consistently, assuming I don't just flat out mess up. Which is also an enormous caveat. TLTs give up vulnerability to Crits. Most of my odd lists give up vulnerability to a single bad move. :-)

I don't intend to take a side one way or another, I am not a good enough player nor deep enough into mathematical analysis to say either way. I think MJs arguments are compelling, but I also happen to agree that the error compounds round by round. Though MJ makes a compelling point about the "B" alternative having to be strictly worse from a positioning standpoint, else it would be choice "A", I also think going multiple rounds on when positioning is involved is a stretch. I digress. It's all inconclusive as far as I am concerned with too many question marks both ways. It takes a lot more than a single game to say much of anything regardless. So in practice it is just best to leave them out as a discussion point in support of either side in any discussion (and I am aware that neither or you were the party to bring it up in the first place).

He is right in that taking bad hits reduces your choices, and leaves you in a worse position. Of course it is, it was a bad roll. But that wasn't the point I was making. I was just saying that some lists are much better at coping with bad results and/or capitalizing on good ones than other lists are.