A title that reduces the X-Wings points cost by one point if you have an astromech equipped would still make it impossible to put five in a single list, while effectively reducing the ship's cost.

I think it is fun to fly the X-Wing without repositioning or movement-as-action. However, this is a big disadvantage in the game and the ship should have some strong point to compensate for that. This is not really the case. In other words, the X-Wing should be the kind of craft that gives a huge reward if you are able to position it well, without needing to react to what your opponent does.

This could be perhaps be achieved by some kind of new offensive action, maybe granted by a new non-unique astromech, and benefitting from higher attack values.

Strike X

Title, 1 point

X-Wing only, Rebel Alliance only

When attacking or defending at Range 2 roll one additional dice (or if that's too strong, reroll one die).

Jousting efficiency goes way up, doesnt make it like any other ship. May push out some B-Wing play but with the sensor slot they still have a place. As worded, it works with and against secondary weapons too.

But 'would of' isn't a misspelling of 'would have' it's just wrong! (Yes I'm crying more than a little now)

So, what your saying is, you could care less?

But 'would of' isn't a misspelling of 'would have' it's just wrong! (Yes I'm crying more than a little now)

So, what your saying is, you could care less?

Yes, technically I could care less. Or I could care more. Either way, the amount of caring I have is...middling.

But 'would of' isn't a misspelling of 'would have' it's just wrong! (Yes I'm crying more than a little now)

So, what your saying is, you could care less?

Argh no because to care less you'd need to care more..it's paradoxical.

Kudos on your hatred for 'could care more' blinding you to me not using you're.

But hey, at least I didn't say 'Legos' instead of 'Lego'.

Kudos on your hatred for 'could care more' blinding you to me not using you're.

But hey, at least I didn't say 'Legos' instead of 'Lego'.

If you did gadge would have to slap you one

First off -- in response to a few comments / questions, here's a few more numbers for reference.

Z-95: 100.0% (reference)

TIE Fighter: 99.3%

X-wing + I.A -1pt: 95.6% (3/2/2/4 @ 21)

B-wing + FCS: 95.3%

Y-wing + TLT + BTL: 94.2%

X-wing + free hull: 94.0% (3/2/4/2 @ 21)

TIE Adv + ACC: 93.9%

A-wing + Refit: 93.1%

B-wing: 92.5%

X-wing + I.A: 92.3% (3/2/1/5 @ 22)

X-wing + I.A: 91.3% (3/2/2/4 @ 22)

Vader + ATC: 90.4%

Kihraxz: 89.7%

X-wing: 86.3%

Y-wing + TLT: 85.7%

Fel + PtL + SD + AT: 85.5%*

Corran + FCS/R2-D2: 83.2% (R2-D2 = +3S)

E-wing: 78.8%

TIE Defender: 77.2%

Added:

• X-wing with free hull
• X-wing + I.A @ 21 points
• X-wing + I.A @ 22 points, immune to all crits
• Kihraxz
• E-wing
• TIE Defender
• Corran Horn

Major Juggler..

Your post says X-wing + IA - with the astromech cost - have you worked it out for the benefit of the various astromechs?

Did you distinguish from taking 2 crits, and being able to use IA on the worst of 2 crits?

I approximated I.A. as +2 shields -1 hull, for a net statline of 3/2/2/4. 1/6 of the hit points are vulnerable to crits, instead of 2/5 in the vanilla X-wing. I included the crit immune 3/2/1/5 version above as well for reference.

Of course I can´t find a link *grumbls*

But I do seem to recall an interview with (one of) the designers, where it was stated the T-65 didn´t need so much as a fix, but more of a boost. It was about getting more choices for your X-wing, buffing it a bit.

Low and behold, there is the T-70, which is better in stats, but also more expensive point-wise.

But also included are some fine upgrades, none to expensive, which will buff your T-65.

With an integrated astromech and then the wide array of astromechs to choose from (and also making them more thematic) you can build them the way you like. I am all for it.

Now, FFG, my humble repetitive request and a chance to include more pilots giving synergie to others:

-Please develop a T-65 aces pack, including one T-65 in Wraith Squadron colours and one in Corsec Green colours, include Corran Horn, Whistler, Gara Pethothel, Myn Donos, Tycho Celchu, ´Piggy´, Tonin, Mynock, Generic R2´s and R5´s, Targeting Astromechs, Integrated Astromechs, and the list goes on

I know, it is all legends and stuff, and there is a new movie with newer T-70´s, but it never hurts to ask right? Please?

The X-wing has needed more of a nudge relative to the "massive buff" like the TIE Advanced got, or several other ships that still need to get touched up. FFG will probably eventually get it right, it will just take them several years after I first quantified the problem for them.

There is also the Rogue One movie coming out eventually.

Interesting. Do you err on the side of caution?

And there are several more other faction ships less efficient than the I.A. X-Wing. Shouldn't they be of more concern?

When rebalancing someone else's blockbuster game, as a general rule yes.

It's not an either / or. But the release of new / updated ships is not determined by the X-wing team, it's determined by higher up (presumably the CEO Christian Petersen).

Nevertheless I'm still surprise to hear you say "the cost efficiency is just one metric (albeit the biggest one)".

It has always been that way, ever since (and before) the original MathWing 1.0 post that I made in early 2014.

MJ I have a lot of respect for your work; seriously I do. I think your skills are amazing to have figured all of this out. I would not have the time to devote to doing this and I'm not sure I'd even have the skill set without a bit of study. I don't mean my comments as rude, insulting or disrespectful in any way. It's just I can't seem to understand how so many people are devastated by a 1.2% difference in efficiency and how game breaking they perceive it to be. I know my opinions are just that and limited by my knowledge of the facts. So I'm sure there is something I'm missing. But the distance between math and practicality seems enormous right now.

Would you say that cost efficiency is more important than just good flying; cost efficiency is more important than predicting your opponents next move; cost efficiency is more important than knowing how to play the game; cost efficiency is more important than knowing the capabilities of your squad as a whole and individually? Isn't there any point where the numbers are simply close enough? I would think that if something has 50% the efficiency of most other ships it could use a fix. But we are at a point where plus or minus a few percentage points has gotten many up in arms screaming from roof tops (metaphorically speaking) and demanding that FFG fix the obvious fractional percent difference and perceived error.

A 1.2% difference in the B-Wing and people are citing this as a major flaw that is insurmountable making the X-Wing unplayable. Isn't there some point in simple game play where the math should say the following ships are within 15% to 20% of each other making the ships dependent on the people fielding the squad and how they play.

Thanks for the kind words.

The issue can be made with an analogy to the "waterfall effect". If you have two parallel waterfalls, then water will only flow down the lower one. Likewise, when you have multiple ships that are very similar in capability, then players at the highest levels will always select the flat-out-better ship. In this case the B-wing arguably has more versatility than the X-wing, so you want the X-wing to be just a hair more brute force efficient. You only want a few percentage points difference, but you want it the other way around in favor of the X-wing.

Although this is "only" what the math predicts, after having done this for a few years now, the metagame has always followed the math. And the model is getting pretty accurate now, so I can be pretty confident in predicting relative efficiencies within about 1%. The MathWing 2.0 post is probably around 2% - 3% for the generic ships. By way of comparison, FFG's design process of actual pricing vs where it should be, has historically had a 10% - 15% window.

Piloting matters. But so does ship selection. Paul proves both. If you look at his Worlds squads, he always takes The Best Ships available at the time. He has the same approach for Imperial Assault. Take the best broken thing in the game (I.A. is probably actually broken, but I'm not an expert on that game) and play as well as you can with it.

If an X-wing is more effective than B-wing, B-wing goes extinct.

if X-wings get free "discard damage card" free astromechs (suddenly the dial is greener than Interceptor's)

And barrel rolls they immediately outperform B-wings, BTL-Y's and even Defenders.

At 21 points.

None of this is a citation for "why the meta would be flooded with X-wings". You are making things up. The best solution would have been to just give the X-wings a free Hull (and barrel roll for kicks) as I had suggested a year ago.

• The Defender is terrible, the X-wing (and nearly every other ship) already outperforms it, so I'm not sure why you included that a comparison point.
• The X-wing should be slightly more efficient than the B-wing. (see above)
• The X-wing should be slightly more efficient than the BTL-Y.
• A green dial doesn't matter nearly as much if you're not constantly PtL-ing. How many generic TIE Interceptors do you see?

B-wing trades 1 evade die for 2 shields (let's consider IA is just a shield, although it IS better)

It's nearly a fair trade unless 4+ dice attacks start flying or Single Turbolasers get used.

Mathwise you're 146% correct, but epic matches show that X-wings are epicly good. IA gives them ability to nullify any crit at your desire. Two evades are more than enough and 5 HP can survive a lot of punishment.

PS2 also helps.

They begin to outperform swarms at 200 points and onwards.

Do you have any data to support this premise? I was at Worlds for the Team Epic match on Friday and there weren't many X-wings present. There were plenty of TLT's though.

I am aware of the underlying math and it has already been considered even at the epic level. Giving suggestions on how to approach analysis is fine. However, to be polite but blunt, if you're going to attempt to correct me on technical basis, you're a little of your league. If you can, at a minimum, recreate the work that I have already laid out here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/128417-mathwing-comprehensive-ship-jousting-values-and-more/

... then we can talk.

Problem is that "fixing" things by nerfing TLT doesn't hamper the main TLT users out there because they are unique.

And TLT lists aren't even close to powerhouse levels.

Enough to win nationals when people didn't expect them, but not nearly as strong to compete with meta tops.

Check your references. Worlds Top 32 fact check:

• 30% of all points spent were spent on TLTs.
• 28% of all points spent were spent on Y-wings. The only time this number has been higher for any single ship was in 2013 for TIE Fighters, and there were only 3 waves at that point.

And now exclude all the TLT-user "vanilla generic pilots" from there, and how may were Jouster ships.

I somehow don't see that many jousters, where are they?
1 BBBBZ list

1 Obsidian Howlie-swarm list

1 miniswarm with Whipster

1 black Crack list

Jousters are dead for good. IV episode wave Phantom Menace, V-VI wave Boost-PWT-Pancake and current Ace+TLT Eras don't let them see that much use.

The TLT Y-wing is now the most cost efficient generic ship by virtue of leveraging its turret. It beats the previous best jousters at their own game of cost efficiency + forcing the occasional non-shot. This was predicted by the math before wave 7 release. Now it has actually happened in real life at Worlds.

There are the same number of generic ships now as there were last year, they are just taking TLT, Crackshot, or carrying Palpatine instead of being vanilla filler.

Obviously, if you assume that one player is simply better than the other, then it is pretty easy to assume that the better player will win by a huge percentage no matter what he plays.

Obviously in a perfect world with perfect players this would make a difference. But even between perfect players it amounts to 12 times out of 1,000 plays or 1.2 times out of 100 plays.

Question, are you saying that 1.2 times out of a 100 would not be obscured by mistakes of the players themselves and that players are so consistent that the 1.2% is observable and measurable in practical play and tournaments? 1.2% maybe measurable in math but on the table perhaps it's not.

At some point aren't we just chasing numbers and bemoaning those rather than actual play?

First, let me say that two players being of equal skill may not necessarily mean they don't make mistakes. But obviously at higher levels of competition, that is exactly what it would mean. The idea is simply that skill is not a factor on the outcome, which I think is a fair thing to assume if one is trying to balance things.

I am not necessarily saying that it would be observable in many situations, but there are factors that could make the 1.2% feel much worse than it maybe is (again, assuming equal skill). An easy example would be 4Bs v 4Xs. The 1.2% is per ship, so in this type of matchup the X-Wing player would feel himself at a great disadvantage, despite somewhat equal points. Also, I can say with some experience that 1.2% chance of failure may seem like a small number but it can rear it's ugly head at bad times. I used to play L5R, where if you constructed your deck properly you had a ~1% chance to get "gold-screwed" which would likely amount to an auto-loss. I cannot tell you how frequently that 1/100 game happened in cut rounds and greatly impacted the outcome of the tournament.

I should also mention the fallacy in the idea that just because something isn't observable in general that it is somehow less of a problem. I cannot easily observe my pipes leaking, but that doesn't mean there isn't water damage in my house =).

"Chasing Numbers" is important. The math doesn't lie. Actual play, as you have noted, can obscure the truth. I think MajorJuggler himself said that it is possible to balance the numbers such that you could achieve perfect/near perfect balance. I think he is right. My only question there is would someone want to play in that system, which is another topic entirely =).

Obviously, if you assume that one player is simply better than the other, then it is pretty easy to assume that the better player will win by a huge percentage no matter what he plays.

Obviously in a perfect world with perfect players this would make a difference. But even between perfect players it amounts to 12 times out of 1,000 plays or 1.2 times out of 100 plays.

Question, are you saying that 1.2 times out of a 100 would not be obscured by mistakes of the players themselves and that players are so consistent that the 1.2% is observable and measurable in practical play and tournaments? 1.2% maybe measurable in math but on the table perhaps it's not.

At some point aren't we just chasing numbers and bemoaning those rather than actual play?

FYI, that's not a correct interpretation of the cost efficiency. Cost efficiency simply states what the ship DOES cost vs what it WOULD cost if it were at the same statistical baseline as a Z-95.

There is a mapping between efficiency vs. win rate, but it is not a simple as you suggested. It involves more advanced non-published math and data analytics.

MJ I have a lot of respect for your work; seriously I do. I think your skills are amazing to have figured all of this out. I would not have the time to devote to doing this and I'm not sure I'd even have the skill set without a bit of study. I don't mean my comments as rude, insulting or disrespectful in any way. It's just I can't seem to understand how so many people are devastated by a 1.2% difference in efficiency and how game breaking they perceive it to be. I know my opinions are just that and limited by my knowledge of the facts. So I'm sure there is something I'm missing. But the distance between math and practicality seems enormous right now.

Would you say that cost efficiency is more important than just good flying; cost efficiency is more important than predicting your opponents next move; cost efficiency is more important than knowing how to play the game; cost efficiency is more important than knowing the capabilities of your squad as a whole and individually? Isn't there any point where the numbers are simply close enough? I would think that if something has 50% the efficiency of most other ships it could use a fix. But we are at a point where plus or minus a few percentage points has gotten many up in arms screaming from roof tops (metaphorically speaking) and demanding that FFG fix the obvious fractional percent difference and perceived error.

A 1.2% difference in the B-Wing and people are citing this as a major flaw that is insurmountable making the X-Wing unplayable. Isn't there some point in simple game play where the math should say the following ships are within 15% to 20% of each other making the ships dependent on the people fielding the squad and how they play.

Thanks for the kind words.

The issue can be made with an analogy to the "waterfall effect". If you have two parallel waterfalls, then water will only flow down the lower one. Likewise, when you have multiple ships that are very similar in capability, then players at the highest levels will always select the flat-out-better ship. In this case the B-wing arguably has more versatility than the X-wing, so you want the X-wing to be just a hair more brute force efficient. You only want a few percentage points difference, but you want it the other way around in favor of the X-wing.

Although this is "only" what the math predicts, after having done this for a few years now, the metagame has always followed the math. And the model is getting pretty accurate now, so I can be pretty confident in predicting relative efficiencies within about 1%. The MathWing 2.0 post is probably around 2% - 3% for the generic ships. By way of comparison, FFG's design process of actual pricing vs where it should be, has historically had a 10% - 15% window.

Piloting matters. But so does ship selection. Paul proves both. If you look at his Worlds squads, he always takes The Best Ships available at the time. He has the same approach for Imperial Assault. Take the best broken thing in the game (I.A. is probably actually broken, but I'm not an expert on that game) and play as well as you can with it.

Thank you for your considered response. I think you've hit on what may be an underlying issue that sometimes I have a hard time clearly stating. The Top Tier player will of course choose 'the Best Ships available at the time' and this is to be expected. But is 2% - 3% that critical for a good game? Perhaps I'm missing just how relevant this spread is to play.

Obviously, if you assume that one player is simply better than the other, then it is pretty easy to assume that the better player will win by a huge percentage no matter what he plays.

Obviously in a perfect world with perfect players this would make a difference. But even between perfect players it amounts to 12 times out of 1,000 plays or 1.2 times out of 100 plays.

Question, are you saying that 1.2 times out of a 100 would not be obscured by mistakes of the players themselves and that players are so consistent that the 1.2% is observable and measurable in practical play and tournaments? 1.2% maybe measurable in math but on the table perhaps it's not.

At some point aren't we just chasing numbers and bemoaning those rather than actual play?

FYI, that's not a correct interpretation of the cost efficiency. Cost efficiency simply states what the ship DOES cost vs what it WOULD cost if it were at the same statistical baseline as a Z-95.

There is a mapping between efficiency vs. win rate, but it is not a simple as you suggested. It involves more advanced non-published math and data analytics.

Again thank you for a reasoned response, I appreciate the input.

Do your numbers include the 'non-published math'? Better put, when we look at your numbers are we looking at more than 'jousting' and considering the ship, PS, maneuver dial, actions, etc.?

Do your numbers include the 'non-published math'? Better put, when we look at your numbers are we looking at more than 'jousting' and considering the ship, PS, maneuver dial, actions, etc.?

The MathWing thread includes a method to get a "total ship value" including the intangibles.

Mapping jousting efficiency or total cost prediction efficiency to win rate is not published.

Problem is, that's the B-Wing and Y-Wing's job. If the X-Wing is better at hauling torpedoes than torpedo-built ships, we got a thematic clash here.

I could see it giving up the Torpedo slot to get, say, a barrel roll. I'd make sure that it could not be taken by the T-70, as the boost/barrel roll combo might be a bit _too_ strong. A barrel roll would be a nice bit of repositioning for the PS 2 X-Wing, and let it have some function as a blocker. Higher PS ships would like to have a 3rd action on their bar, so that they have more options in a round.

The downside to this is the total lack of any reason _not_ to swap out the torpedo slot. There simply aren't good torpedo options for the X-Wing itself. So maybe you'd also get the option to swap out the torpedo slot for something that lets you get a second use out of a 1 use EPT. So Cool Hand Luke can be a bit more of a thing. Or Crackshot Wedge would get 2 nasty shots.

Or even just giving the Xwing two EPT slots would be great, Like the Test Pilot title for the Awing. then you could give Xwings Barrel rolls and another EPT

Wedge would be pretty good with PTL and predator.

Or even just giving the Xwing two EPT slots would be great, Like the Test Pilot title for the Awing. then you could give Xwings Barrel rolls and another EPT

Wedge would be pretty good with PTL and predator.

No, I think the EPTs need to be cheaper of free for the X-Wing, giving a ship two EPT's take away the A-Wings special something niché.

I'd prefer the X-Wing get a buff to its attack more than anything else. There are a lot of ways to make it more survivable between astros and modifications now.

I would like to see a linked cannons title with the text: when you hit an enemy ship with your primary weapon, that ship suffers 1 additional damage.

Or even just giving the Xwing two EPT slots would be great, Like the Test Pilot title for the Awing. then you could give Xwings Barrel rolls and another EPT

Wedge would be pretty good with PTL and predator.

No, I think the EPTs need to be cheaper of free for the X-Wing, giving a ship two EPT's take away the A-Wings special something niché.

What about giving it an EPT slot that can only be filled with 'discard to use' EPTs? I'd love to give Biggs or the Red Squadron Pilot something basic like Lightning Reflexes or Crackshot.

I'd like to see a Stutter Fire title for the T-65, say call it the T-65B or T-65 C and make it Rebel Alliance only. And the card upgrade would be this: Reduce Attack to 2 dice, but may make a second primary attack on the same target as the first primary weapon attack. Maybe also where the defender also has to reduce their Agility dice by one, on the second attack.

It would be representing the dual fire as opposed to Quad-fire mode of the 4 laser cannons.

Yeah it isnt that great but the first attack woud freuently get rid of an evade or focus token (on a mediocre or bad defense roll), and the seocond attack would hopefully score some damage.

It would also represent what the Republic did against the Vong constantly. And what Corran Horn and Wedge would do in the Rogue Squadron novels where they would hope to hit the Interceptors and ties with lots of weaker hits.

Or even just giving the Xwing two EPT slots would be great, Like the Test Pilot title for the Awing. then you could give Xwings Barrel rolls and another EPT

Wedge would be pretty good with PTL and predator.

No, I think the EPTs need to be cheaper of free for the X-Wing, giving a ship two EPT's take away the A-Wings special something niché.

What about giving it an EPT slot that can only be filled with 'discard to use' EPTs? I'd love to give Biggs or the Red Squadron Pilot something basic like Lightning Reflexes or Crackshot.

perhaps a title

Rogue Squadron

x-wing only

Rebels only

you may equip a Crackshot or Lightning Rexles talent card in addition to any other talent as long as it's not CS or LR

those two disposables sound like what makes a rogue a rogue.

A strong T-65 list:

Porkins' Revenge

Jek Porkins (26)

Draw Their Fire (1)

R5-P9 (3)

Integrated Astromech (0)

Biggs Darklighter (25)

R2 Astromech (1)

Integrated Astromech (0)

Rookie Pilot (21)

R2 Astromech (1)

Integrated Astromech (0)

Rookie Pilot (21)

R2 Astromech (1)

Integrated Astromech (0)

Total: 100

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Been flying it since mid-September using proxied Integrated Astromech cards, and it's quite good.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189431-porkins-revenge-xxxx/

I didn't read all ten pages so I don't know if someone said this yet.

What about a title card like the interceptor?

(Rogue Squadron)

(X-Wing T-65 Title Only)

(You may equip two different modifications on this ship.

You can only equip this card if your pilot skill is 4 or higher.)

It has always been that way, ever since (and before) the original MathWing 1.0 post that I made in early 2014.

In his defence, always been claimed. Most of the people who argue against obsessing over 'jousting value' are generally doing so from the perspective of ships for which there is an option of "Well don't joust, then" - stuff with boost/barrel roll (or now Segnor/Talon moves), or turrets, or both.

The problem with the T-65 X-wing is that it has none of these, and the Integrated Astromech 'fix', whilst cheap, doesn't help if not be a straight-line jouster. So unlike....well....nearly everything else, it really does live and die by the average performance of its dice in a head-to-head match.

The problem with twin EPTs or twin modifications is that FFG have (quite rightly) made a policy of not duplicating card effects if they can avoid it. This helps keep clear water between the 'feel' of different ships, even if ships achieve the same end result.

I keep meaning to have a try with some classic T-65 aces - Biggs is one that's always been worth a look, and making him tougher for a small amount of points can hardly be a bad thing.

MajorJuggler- if you get a chance would you mind sharing any thoughts you have on fixes for the E-wing?

MajorJuggler- if you get a chance would you mind sharing any thoughts you have on fixes for the E-wing?

I'll eventually update my House Rules but there's no ETA. The existing House Rules have the PS1 and PS3 E-wings discounted by 3 points. It has been obvious since the E-wings were previewed that the generics were overcosted by at least 3 points.

The "correct" price for the PS1 E-wing is actually almost certainly 23 points at PS1, for a total discount of 4 points. Final analysis and confirmation is still pending on a few technical details that aren't fully incorporated into MathWing 3.0 yet.

I used the Integrated Astro on my Biggs Key West list last night. Works great! Helps keep biggs and wes alive a little longer. For 0 points a free shield upgrade is pretty sweet!

Will this work to give the x-wing some jump?