If the game was 100% mathematically balanced, it'd be boring as hell and there'd be nothing to talk about. I am totally against a Mathwing playtester.

So according to probability statistics TLT is better than 3 attack dice, I would agree. Sure 3 attack dice has a chance of doing more damage but on average it will do less than 2.

So in order to beat TLT you have to have 4 attack dice, well good thing for TLT is that the only ship that can do 4 a 4 dice primary weapon attack and equip TLT is Miranda.

So it is settled TLT is the new 3 Attack, the super offensive is here to combat the super defensive that had dominated the meta in the past.

The same game could have its theme exchanged with whatever else (instead of StarWars starfighters, now it is farmers in feudal Japan harvesting rice) and the game would be 100% unaffected.

This is pretty much universal though, at least within a reasonable range. It's already been used for both capital ships and dragons, it would work perfectly well for any dogfighting system, or really anything with momentum (which is the only truly unique thing about the system). Jousting knights, charging dinosaurs, heck, it'd make a pretty reasonable Car Wars.

So according to probability statistics TLT is better than 3 attack dice, I would agree. Sure 3 attack dice has a chance of doing more damage but on average it will do less than 2.

So in order to beat TLT you have to have 4 attack dice, well good thing for TLT is that the only ship that can do 4 a 4 dice primary weapon attack and equip TLT is Miranda.

So it is settled TLT is the new 3 Attack, the super offensive is here to combat the super defensive that had dominated the meta in the past.

That's not the only way to get 4 attack dice. Ships that are 3 attack, high PS, and maneuverable (e.g. Fel) should be able to get that sweet sweet range 1 shot for 4 dice. The only thing the TLT really adds to that is a high hit % making it something of a stealth device killer.

The same game could have its theme exchanged with whatever else (instead of StarWars starfighters, now it is farmers in feudal Japan harvesting rice) and the game would be 100% unaffected.

This is pretty much universal though, at least within a reasonable range. It's already been used for both capital ships and dragons, it would work perfectly well for any dogfighting system, or really anything with momentum (which is the only truly unique thing about the system). Jousting knights, charging dinosaurs, heck, it'd make a pretty reasonable Car Wars.

I was just thinking last night how well it would work as a Mad Max type of game. Just add damage to collisions and a way to handle reverse gears and you're set.

The same game could have its theme exchanged with whatever else (instead of StarWars starfighters, now it is farmers in feudal Japan harvesting rice) and the game would be 100% unaffected.

This is pretty much universal though, at least within a reasonable range. It's already been used for both capital ships and dragons, it would work perfectly well for any dogfighting system, or really anything with momentum (which is the only truly unique thing about the system). Jousting knights, charging dinosaurs, heck, it'd make a pretty reasonable Car Wars.

Still, it involves a lot of chance, and there is still the theme of fast moving things trying to joust each other. Even just that is usually too much theme for the typical Eurogame. They are usually much more abstract, totally chance-less, and would do perfectly fine with absolutely no theme attached to them.

I guess the grand-uncle of X-Wing, Wings of War, would be a closer approximation to an EuroX-Wing, even when the theme was strong with that one also. Wings of War without the WWI/II theme. Just abstract game pieces moving around on a table, trying to face each other and scoring a fix amount of points every time they manage. And then the editor commissions an artist to paste some art and theme on top of that and we could have "Medusa: A game about turning your enemies into stone by looking at them". Who knows.

I mean, the game was /reasonably/ balanced pre-Phantom. Seems like when that hit whatever formula that was used to determine point costing was thrown out. There are still traditional ships like the M3-A and Starviper and Punisher that come out, funnily enough these 'normal' ships balanced in line with the old game aren't very competitive.

Bemoan how overpriced Rhymer is all you want, but I'd rather have a whole wave of Rhymers than another Phantom or wave 5. Look at wave 6, only scum lists that were relevant were dual IG's.

I prefer the conservative approach to game balance. Now we're going to have a fat turret with a 2 white Segnor's. >_>

Therefore I do not see evidence that they have math nerds with the necessary qualifications working for them.

Not only do you need math nerds with a particular set of skills, but they have to be in a decision-making role.

Which still goes back to being a business decision! The nuclear option is to hire a Technical Balance Director that derives the mathematical models describing the games that the designers can invent, and gets veto power over design elements and costing. But that would command a large salary -- almost certainly well in excess of what Frank and Alex get paid combined. As long as we are still buying plastic spaceships, I doubt they will ever see a reason to spend more money on design and development.

Right, if they can get things "good enough" and theme, IP, and overall design are selling the game to the point where hiring someone with this kind of expertise isn't going to make enough of a difference, it's actually poor business decision to do so even if it would make the game better.

I mean, the game was /reasonably/ balanced pre-Phantom. Seems like when that hit whatever formula that was used to determine point costing was thrown out. There are still traditional ships like the M3-A and Starviper and Punisher that come out, funnily enough these 'normal' ships balanced in line with the old game aren't very competitive.

Bemoan how overpriced Rhymer is all you want, but I'd rather have a whole wave of Rhymers than another Phantom or wave 5. Look at wave 6, only scum lists that were relevant were dual IG's.

I prefer the conservative approach to game balance. Now we're going to have a fat turret with a 2 white Segnor's. >_>

How do you know the Punishing One will have two white segnors? I highly doubt it will due to the asymmetric dial.

Oddly enough I tried to run Rhymer the other day. Utter failure. I even was modest and only equipped 1 AHM and Expanded Munitions. Throwing more over-priced useless ships in the game is not the answer.

So in order to beat TLT you have to have 4 attack dice, well good thing for TLT is that the only ship that can do 4 a 4 dice primary weapon attack and equip TLT is Miranda.

So it is settled TLT is the new 3 Attack, the super offensive is here to combat the super defensive that had dominated the meta in the past.

If any of this were true--and to be clear, it isn't--why would it be a bad thing?

I mean, the game was /reasonably/ balanced pre-Phantom.

The TIE Advanced, X-wing, A-wing, Firespray, and HWK would all like a word with you.

One of the reasons I'm pro-math is it would finally allow people to fly an X-Wing in X-Wing. Every time I play against X-Wings, it just feels too much like kicking a baby.

Through a combination of different theoretical approaches coupled with empirical data mining, you can absolutely use mathematics to achieve technical balance. I have at least four different approaches in mind. I have only published one. A few other people quite possibly also have some other very good ideas.

The common reaction of "math can't model everything and would make the gameplay mechanics boring" is a very one-dimensional view of a three-dimensional world. To be fair, nobody in the game industry is doing anything like this, so even having a 1D view of the world is probably "ahead of the curve", relatively speaking.

Having varied game elements and technical balance are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is nearly impossible to have a wide assortment of competitively viable game elements without technical balance. The entire point of using technical balance tools is to get all those varied game elements actually implemented in the game properly and executed with a high degree of confidence that all of those elements will be viable in real world use.

Using math does not mean that the game suddenly devolves into throwing out the maneuver templates and just rolling statistically tuned dice until you declare a winner. I understand how the game works reasonably well. I won a 70-ish person Regionals and placed Top 4 at the 77 person NOVA Open.

Given some of the issues the game has had, I am unconvinced that having a playtester with such power would be a bad thing.

Sure, but it would have to be an employee, not a playtester. There are many qualified playtesters working for the industry. However there is close to (or possibly even exactly) zero people currently employed by or playtesting for the industry that are technically capable of what I have described and have envisioned*. Taking any pseudo-random playtester and granting them that power would be far far worse than what FFG is doing now.

* Trade secret.

No. It is not the most efficient way. It is the only way to actually get a balanced game at launch.

// mic drop

If you don't use the right technical tools, then you get... well, what we have now. FFG cares a lot about game balance, and X-wing's game balance is generally considered very good among miniature games... and even so about half the ships don't get used competitively.

I mean, the game was /reasonably/ balanced pre-Phantom.

The TIE Advanced, X-wing, A-wing, Firespray, and HWK would all like a word with you.

Those ships were too busy having a pity party with the rest of their friends:

• Y-wings
• Generic YT-1300
• Named B-wings
• Generic TIE Interceptors
• TIE Bombers
• Named Lambda Shuttles

... and that's just through wave 3!

I was just thinking last night how well it would work as a Mad Max type of game. Just add damage to collisions and a way to handle reverse gears and you're set.

This - is a fantastic idea!

I may come up with something semi-playable in my free time. I've always liked the concept of Car Wars, but the rules that are available are irredeemably bad.

X Wing has a good basic framework and already accounts for different levels of pilot skill and active and passive defense. Overall there would be a lot less green dice, zero for a tank or heavy commercial vehicle, one for a car or van and two for a buggy or a sportscar. Make up as many upgrade and pilot cards as there are in X Wing and you have billions of combinations to choose from.

Through a combination of different theoretical approaches coupled with empirical data mining, you can absolutely use mathematics to achieve technical balance.

I'm not sure what you have in mind--because you're being pretty cagey about what you see as an IP issue--but in general, I agree. There's a lot the industry in general, and FFG in particular, could be doing with mathematical tools that they currently aren't.

And these are tools that are considered fairly basic in science and engineering. They're complex, but their applications here (at least the ones I can brainstorm) would be pretty straightforward.

I think the key is this: X-wing is a very mathematical game. There are a lot of things that help determine how good a particular game element is, but taking ships as an example, the largest single contributor is the stat line--and those are easy to model. Good modeling would help FFG avoid some problems they've stepped into in the past.

So according to probability statistics TLT is better than 3 attack dice, I would agree. Sure 3 attack dice has a chance of doing more damage but on average it will do less than 2.

So in order to beat TLT you have to have 4 attack dice, well good thing for TLT is that the only ship that can do 4 a 4 dice primary weapon attack and equip TLT is Miranda.

So it is settled TLT is the new 3 Attack, the super offensive is here to combat the super defensive that had dominated the meta in the past.

That's not the only way to get 4 attack dice. Ships that are 3 attack, high PS, and maneuverable (e.g. Fel) should be able to get that sweet sweet range 1 shot for 4 dice. The only thing the TLT really adds to that is a high hit % making it something of a stealth device killer.

but all ships with 3 attack can't take TLT. So now if there is a ship with a turret slot TLT is a must because it beats 3 PWT which also beats 2 and 1 firepower.

So back to the question which is better. TLT or a ship with 3 attack and no turret upgrade. Well for this we go to the range bands. The Area of range band 2 > Area of range band 1. Since TLT is better than 3 PWT at range band 2-3 it is more than double the area of range band 1 where PWTs can get a 4 dice attack the only thing that can out gun TLT.

So to sum it up TLT > 3 PWT in more situations where 3 PWT needs a very specific situation to surpass TLT.

How do you know the Punishing One will have two white segnors? I highly doubt it will due to the asymmetric dial.

The white 2 S-Loop is in the picture.

Unless you meant "how you know that there will be more than a single white S-Loop?". I don't know that we do.

I was doing some statistics on TLT vs just a normal 3 dice or 4 dice attack and came back with some interesting numbers. It's long been thought that TLTs were disproportionately effective against low agility ships (e.g. Decimator). From what I'm seeing, it looks like the reverse is true and only just slightly. Essentially, the number of evade dice being thrown doesn't really change its damage output compared to a normal 3 dice attack.

Defense Dice | Mean Damage | Equivalent Attack Dice

0 | 1.75 | 3.50

1 | 1.47 | 3.62

2 | 1.19 | 3.67

3 | 0.93 | 3.67

4 | 0.72 | 3.66

5 | 0.54 | 3.64

6 | 0.40 | 3.62

What does change, however, is the Hit % (i.e. the chance you'll do any damage at all).

Defense Dice | Hit % | Equivalent Attack Dice

0 | 98.44% | 4.75

1 | 92.95% | 4.78

2 | 83.50% | 4.74

3 | 71.52% | 4.65

4 | 58.76% | 4.55

5 | 46.62% | 4.44

6 | 35.95% | 4.33

TL;DR: unless your opponent only has one hull left or has more focus tokens than you (or once per turn effects), you're better off with a 4 dice attack than TLT. Also, your opponent's agility value doesn't change your TLT's advantage over a 3 dice attack.

Full data set available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PgePFqFcd7puTcN9RRecyyCvJWWAhvIb1Z4Npwucf30/edit?usp=sharing

Do you have any std-dev on these numbers? It'd be interesting to see how 3 dice compares to TLT with stddev. The bigger the variance the more advantage to the underdog.

I just added std-dev to the sheet.

I've never been flabbergasted by a spreadsheet up until now. Looks like FFG needs to ban a card from tournaments. Or limit it to 2 TLTs per list.

I've never been flabbergasted by a spreadsheet up until now. Looks like FFG needs to ban a card from tournaments. Or limit it to 2 TLTs per list.

It's possible the card should have been 7 points, although that wouldn't have substantially limited its power on Y-wings. But it's not broken.

I've never been flabbergasted by a spreadsheet up until now. Looks like FFG needs to ban a card from tournaments. Or limit it to 2 TLTs per list.

It's possible the card should have been 7 points, although that wouldn't have substantially limited its power on Y-wings. But it's not broken.

7would barely change a thing if you put 2 TLT in a list. It would have, however, made the silly 4Y+unhinged list quite a bit weaker. Anybody not OK with that?

I see the spreadsheet only considers unmodified attacks, that in case of the TLT are quite common, while in the case of normal 3 or 4 dice attacks, the usual thing is to have either Focus, Predator, Lone Wolf or Target Lock modifying those attacks.

It would be interesting to compare the most usual kind of TLT attack (one attack modified by focus, another unmodified), versus a focus-modified 3 or 4 attack (or Predator-modified), that is the most usual kind of attack for these kind of weapons. I guess Hit chance wont vary much, but damage dealt should clearly go up for the 3 and 4 dice attacks, while staying the same for TLT in most cases. Right?

I see the spreadsheet only considers unmodified attacks, that in case of the TLT are quite common, while in the case of normal 3 or 4 dice attacks, the usual thing is to have either Focus, Predator, Lone Wolf or Target Lock modifying those attacks.

It would be interesting to compare the most usual kind of TLT attack (one attack modified by focus, another unmodified), versus a focus-modified 3 or 4 attack (or Predator-modified), that is the most usual kind of attack for these kind of weapons. I guess Hit chance wont vary much, but damage dealt should clearly go up for the 3 and 4 dice attacks, while staying the same for TLT in most cases. Right?

Completely right. Look at MajorJuggler's first post upthread.

It would be interesting to compare the most usual kind of TLT attack (one attack modified by focus, another unmodified), versus a focus-modified 3 or 4 attack (or Predator-modified), that is the most usual kind of attack for these kind of weapons.

It would be interesting to compare the most usual kind of TLT attack (one attack modified by focus, another unmodified), versus a focus-modified 3 or 4 attack (or Predator-modified), that is the most usual kind of attack for these kind of weapons.

One modified attack and one unmodified attack wouldn't be quite right for TLT though. If the token doesn't get spent on the first attack it is still available for the second. The token won't get spent if the roll doesn't have any focus results and is almost never going to get spent on the first roll if that is eyeball-blank-blank.

Edit: although I'm not having it be "intelligent" about not spending focus on blank blank. It's not neccesarily trying to maximize damage, it just always spends the focus on offense anytime there is an eyeball and hits + crits <= defender agi.

AKA nuclear focus spend philosophy.

With https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YrPMS-cdTpd4ASeQrlh5sGDD_hjpF0SbNRh8VEwm9UA/edit#gid=772791687you can run whatever sims you want. To sim TLT, just run it twice and only look at hit%. I may add a TLT/Clustermissiles mode in the future.

p(damage == 0) = (1 - p(firstHit)) * (1 - p(secondHit))

p(damage == 1) = (1 - p(firstHit)) * p(secondHit) + p(firstHit) * (1 - p(secondHit))

p(damage == 2) = p(firstHit) * p(secondHit)

meanDamage = p(damage == 1) + 2 * p(damage == 2)