I like your formula. It probably is pretty close to what FFG starts with, but it is not where it ends too. But at least, it gives a good starting point when designing your own ships. I will definitely open this thread again when I feel like doing some play design on my own.

I do not see a point why you should not be able to use your scheme with X-Wing and Y-Wing as the base ship except that they are overcosted when compared to the B-Wing/Z-95, but you could just add another factor for that too, so the " the X-Wing and Y-Wing predate the Z-95 and B-Wing and so cannot be priced based upon their attributes " argument is incredibly stupid. I am not sure how you imagine mathmatics to work.

Another point on how math works: IF FFG had a formula, this formula could be total bull as well, since it is just a model. As FFG's model probably is not perfect (because there obviously are good and bad ships) it does not mean, that finding a formula is that is different from FFGs is a bad thing, the formula you came up with might be even better than FFG's.

Your post is confusing because you say "FFG starts with an estimate and then play tests a lot." This ENTIRE THING is about determining how "FFG starts with an estimate." There, you said it yourself. The OP is giving you the starting estimate. That's it. Nothing more.

Wouldn't be surprised if they pluck it out of the air.

Also, you are the OP. Why are you talking about yourself in third person?

I believe he was using OP as Original Post, not Poster.

I don't know what do with this information....

Potential starting point if you're into making custom cards maybe?

I'll add this f0rbiddenc00kie formula to the one I've been using, by Shadowjak, which is completely different.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

That is (almost) the entire point of mathematical modeling.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

That is (almost) the entire point of mathematical modeling.

Which is the problem with some fields of mathematics and science in general.... You're right until someone comes up with a different way of looking at the problem, proving you wrong (they never hand over the Nobel prizes though). As an engineer... we get this from scientists a lot. The OP has his theory and respect to him for coming up with some numbers he has been able to fit a theory to. I would suggest in the pursuit of his ultimate proof his larger errors (from the printed costs) possibly show that he's further off than he thinks.

To the OP though, it's your system, good on you. I disagree with you but there we go.

All of the actions and some of the upgrades have an additional associated points cost, I believe that the focus action has no associated cost (if you're going the purely math route) I also believe that torp/missile slots have a 0 cost for inclusion and that probably an astromech slot is costed higher than an illicit slot. Basing it purely from an attack/agility dice perspective overlooks the value of ships with high shield vs high hull. Take the B-wing vs Y-wing the y-wing in theory costs less than a B-wing because while it has the turret slot, the B-wing has an action maneuver (barrel roll) and has 5 shields compared to the Y's 3. They take just as much damage to put away but removing all other factors a B-wing will resist critical damage more effectively. If you assumed that a 3 attack ship lands a hit and a crit every round and neither B or Y wing rolls an evade (not interested in the odds, I don't play wargames to calculate odds of success with a spreadsheet, I look at the table and pick up the dice) then the Y-wing will sustain 2 crits to the B-wings one by the time they have both lost their shields.

I believe there is a cost associated with crew slots and system slots given how equipment in those slots can change the game state independently of combat. I would agree completely with another poster above though, FFG don't have any "mathematical model" they plug numbers into. They assign a cost based on comparable ships and some "how do we think it will do" theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly.

I think part of the problem is the value of dice. The formula has likely changed since the TIE Advanced was released as you could tell that they valued the green dice on the TIE Advanced at the same weight as the red dice as it is a direct opposite of the X-Wing with the same point values.

You guys are right, my comment is confusing. I changed it so many times before posting that it got off topic. I was initially going to post links to other similar efforts, make some comparisons, and ask some questions, but decided against it.

Good work and good presentation.

I don't know what do with this information....

Potential starting point if you're into making custom cards maybe?

I'll add this f0rbiddenc00kie formula to the one I've been using, by Shadowjak, which is completely different.

ah I see now...

I've been just lookin' up in the air, scratchin' my head and stuff.

From 2 attack dice to 3 attack dice is not 100% more offense

oh god they dont teach reading comprehension anymore do they

he didn't say it was 100% more offense. He said that FFG treats it as 100% more offense.

Which he only thinks they do because it fits his model.

That is (almost) the entire point of mathematical modeling.

Which is the problem with some fields of mathematics and science in general.... You're right until someone comes up with a different way of looking at the problem, proving you wrong (they never hand over the Nobel prizes though). As an engineer... we get this from scientists a lot. The OP has his theory and respect to him for coming up with some numbers he has been able to fit a theory to. I would suggest in the pursuit of his ultimate proof his larger errors (from the printed costs) possibly show that he's further off than he thinks.

To the OP though, it's your system, good on you. I disagree with you but there we go.

All of the actions and some of the upgrades have an additional associated points cost, I believe that the focus action has no associated cost (if you're going the purely math route) I also believe that torp/missile slots have a 0 cost for inclusion and that probably an astromech slot is costed higher than an illicit slot. Basing it purely from an attack/agility dice perspective overlooks the value of ships with high shield vs high hull. Take the B-wing vs Y-wing the y-wing in theory costs less than a B-wing because while it has the turret slot, the B-wing has an action maneuver (barrel roll) and has 5 shields compared to the Y's 3. They take just as much damage to put away but removing all other factors a B-wing will resist critical damage more effectively. If you assumed that a 3 attack ship lands a hit and a crit every round and neither B or Y wing rolls an evade (not interested in the odds, I don't play wargames to calculate odds of success with a spreadsheet, I look at the table and pick up the dice) then the Y-wing will sustain 2 crits to the B-wings one by the time they have both lost their shields.

I believe there is a cost associated with crew slots and system slots given how equipment in those slots can change the game state independently of combat. I would agree completely with another poster above though, FFG don't have any "mathematical model" they plug numbers into. They assign a cost based on comparable ships and some "how do we think it will do" theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly.

The problem with mathematics and science in general is that there is no uniquely 'right' (although there are wrong) answers as soon as you leave high school.

The test such a system has to pass is whether it is usable or not.

And the OPs system sure is usable considering its purpose of calculating the cost of a stat line(!!!).

Like most people should have learned in high school, a model is never an exact image of reality, it just displays part of it. That is what OPs system does.

You are right when you say it is not a perfect or even a comnplete model.

But instead of going 'hurr durr, this is bull, delete it and never think about it again' (I dont talk to you specifically boomaster, but to most people posting in this thread) you could write something with intelectual output to refine the system or show its weaknesses.

I believe there is a cost associated with crew slots and system slots given how equipment in those slots can change the game state independently of combat. I would agree completely with another poster above though, FFG don't have any "mathematical model" they plug numbers into. They assign a cost based on comparable ships and some "how do we think it will do" theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly.

Yeah? I believe there may be a cost associated with crew and system slots, too. That's what all my explanations are for after every ship, to put into perspective what taxes you may be paying, why, and for how much.

"assign a cost based on comparable ships" is EXACTLY what I did, and then "and some 'how do we think it will do' theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly" is EXACTLY what I think (and hope) they do after. I left comments for every ship regarding just this.

It really sounds like you're trying to disagree with me, but when I read what you're saying it sounds like you're agreeing with me. So...

I'm pretty sure it involves a dart board and a blind fold. Probably a bit of muttering about letting the force guide them as well.

I'm pretty sure it involves a dart board and a blind fold. Probably a bit of muttering about letting the force guide them as well.

The force is with me, I am one with the force.

I believe there is a cost associated with crew slots and system slots given how equipment in those slots can change the game state independently of combat. I would agree completely with another poster above though, FFG don't have any "mathematical model" they plug numbers into. They assign a cost based on comparable ships and some "how do we think it will do" theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly.

Yeah? I believe there may be a cost associated with crew and system slots, too. That's what all my explanations are for after every ship, to put into perspective what taxes you may be paying, why, and for how much.

"assign a cost based on comparable ships" is EXACTLY what I did, and then "and some 'how do we think it will do' theorycrafting. They play test the bejesus out of it and adjust it accordingly" is EXACTLY what I think (and hope) they do after. I left comments for every ship regarding just this.

It really sounds like you're trying to disagree with me, but when I read what you're saying it sounds like you're agreeing with me. So...

You could say I disagree with your topic statement, "you have figured out how to roughly make all the ship costs fit based on an approximate model using only stat-lines". I'd also be interested to know why you choose the B-wing rather than the Y-wing. Since the Y was wave 1 and the B is a wave 3 ship (could also add the Z as a wave 4). My point about that is, after wave 1 (realistically wave 2) FFG realised some of their costing strategy was a little off and so subsequent ships where adjusted (no idea why they went the way they did with the Starviper....). For instance, the Tie-In costs 50% more than the Tie-F because it has 1 extra attack and FFG values attack over defense. Your "model" doesn't reflect the dial or actions available to the Interceptor which DO have a cost implication.

What you got wrong is your choice of title: "I figured out how FFG prices their ship base values." You've made a model that approximates ship costs fairly well but the title claims that this is the model FFG uses, a baseless claim you can't even begin to back up yet stated with absolute certainly. The forum is riddled with such claims like a woodworm infestation often from users so obstinate that they'll insist their speculation is fact even after having it throughly debunked before their eyes. As a result, the instinct of a lot of users on thinking they've seen yet more of these claims is to leap on them like a pack of starved hyenas and try to tear them to pieces.

Or the fact that when you take half an equation out, dials, you can plug in what ever you want and get half an answer. If you have to explain why each is different than expected after each example this shows that you truly don't have as much of an understanding as you might tend to believe. Hence the whole half an equation doesn't mean jack.

If anything to take from this it is at least a mind excerise, nothing more.

What you got wrong is your choice of title: "I figured out how FFG prices their ship base values." You've made a model that approximates ship costs fairly well but the title claims that this is the model FFG uses, a baseless claim you can't even begin to back up yet stated with absolute certainly. The forum is riddled with such claims like a woodworm infestation often from users so obstinate that they'll insist their speculation is fact even after having it throughly debunked before their eyes. As a result, the instinct of a lot of users on thinking they've seen yet more of these claims is to leap on them like a pack of starved hyenas and try to tear them to pieces.

Everyone has a tendency to be a little click-baity in their titles, and if you read the post he actually states it's just a model yadda yadda... So the rabid hyenas need to chill, instincts or not. SW minis tends to attract that kind unfortunately. So flash back to the 80s, Franky says Relax.

Interesting; you're quite the thinker.

I do agree here:

"[1] TIE-Punisher: HALF offense, 12.5% defense increase = ~17.53 {official 21}

FORMULA vs PERCEPTION: Poor Punisher... Cries.

NO EXPLANATION: I have no explanation as to why FFG made this ship so horridly priced outside of its estimated range. What was their reasoning? Opportunity cost for slots? If so, then why doesn't the K-Wing pay the same tax? It doesn't have an impressive or unique dial or action bar. The only half-assed reason I can give is that aside from the TIE-Advanced, it is the only ship in the game with a primary 2ATK dice that also has access to Accuracy Corrector, and the TIE-Advanced does it worlds better! Rest in peace, good friend..."

I'd also be interested to know why you choose the B-wing rather than the Y-wing. Since the Y was wave 1 and the B is a wave 3 ship (could also add the Z as a wave 4). My point about that is, after wave 1 (realistically wave 2) FFG realised some of their costing strategy was a little off and so subsequent ships where adjusted (no idea why they went the way they did with the Starviper....). For instance, the Tie-In costs 50% more than the Tie-F because it has 1 extra attack and FFG values attack over defense. Your "model" doesn't reflect the dial or actions available to the Interceptor which DO have a cost implication.

Of course. From the beginning I always suspected that the Y-Wing was paying an opportunity cost for the turret slot on a 2ATK ship, and the data supports that. The turret slot is "fluff," making the Y-Wing a poor basis. The B-Wing was chosen because it has historically been a well-known backbone of Rebel lists (4BZ, for example) filling in the slot of a relatively efficient and durable fighter with 3ATK. I'm picking ships known for efficiency and simplicity in order to eliminate as many variables (dials/actions/upgrades) as possible. With that being said, there is a slim chance that the B-Wing is paying a 1pt tax for its System slot, but it's still the best guideline for a 1 AGI ship we got.

As far as the Tie-Interceptor goes, you are only somewhat correct. Remember, this formula is only meant to be A STARTING POINT. If you look back you can see that historically the Alpha Squadron Pilot (PS1 TIE-Interceptor) never grabbed a strong footing despite having stats in line with its cost. What this tells us is that FFG in play-testing noticed that it was too squishy for how many points it was, especially since it only has one focus it needs to share for both defense and offense (in stark contrast to a B-Wing, for example). The dial and action bar were likely handed out for free as compensation. Further evidence of this logic can be seen in ALL squishy 3ATK fighters: TIE-IN, Attack Shuttle, Heavy Syck w/Mangler, Protectorate Starfighter. Every single one of them with no exception is either 1pt cheaper than estimated and/or has badass bonuses to its dial, upgrade bar, and/or actions.

EDIT: I made a new section going into detail about glass cannon generics and their bonuses.

I'd also be interested to know why you choose the B-wing rather than the Y-wing. Since the Y was wave 1 and the B is a wave 3 ship (could also add the Z as a wave 4). My point about that is, after wave 1 (realistically wave 2) FFG realised some of their costing strategy was a little off and so subsequent ships where adjusted (no idea why they went the way they did with the Starviper....). For instance, the Tie-In costs 50% more than the Tie-F because it has 1 extra attack and FFG values attack over defense. Your "model" doesn't reflect the dial or actions available to the Interceptor which DO have a cost implication.

Of course. From the beginning I always suspected that the Y-Wing was paying an opportunity cost for the turret slot on a 2ATK ship, and the data supports that. The turret slot is "fluff," making the Y-Wing a poor basis. The B-Wing was chosen because it has historically been a well-known backbone of Rebel lists (4BZ, for example) filling in the slot of a relatively efficient and durable fighter with 3ATK. I'm picking ships known for efficiency and simplicity in order to eliminate as many variables (dials/actions/upgrades) as possible. With that being said, there is a slim chance that the B-Wing is paying a 1pt tax for its System slot, but it's still the best guideline for a 1 AGI ship we got.

As far as the Tie-Interceptor goes, you are only somewhat correct. Remember, this formula is only meant to be A STARTING POINT. If you look back you can see that historically the Alpha Squadron Pilot (PS1 TIE-Interceptor) never grabbed a strong footing despite having stats in line with its cost. What this tells us is that FFG in play-testing noticed that it was too squishy for how many points it was, especially since it only has one focus it needs to share for both defense and offense (in stark contrast to a B-Wing, for example). The dial and action bar were likely handed out for free as compensation. Further evidence of this logic can be seen in ALL squishy 3ATK fighters: TIE-IN, Attack Shuttle, Heavy Syck w/Mangler, Protectorate Starfighter. Every single one of them with no exception is either 1pt cheaper than estimated and/or has badass bonuses to its dial, upgrade bar, and/or actions.

EDIT: I made a new section going into detail about glass cannon generics and their bonuses.

About your 3 dice statement, How do you explain the X-Wing and the E-Wing? Their dials aren't phenomenal and they are heavily overprice 3 atk ships.

About your 3 dice statement, How do you explain the X-Wing and the E-Wing? Their dials aren't phenomenal and they are heavily overprice 3 atk ships.

Read the comments for the ships. I could go into detail more about the E-Wing, I suppose, so I'll do that right now.

I'd say, probably the best thing to think when looking at this model (from reading the posts and comments and stuff) apart from a possible reasonable basis for custom ships is that it does seem pretty close to an "expected" value of a ship, which either syncs closely with the actual value of the ship (accounting sometimes for PS, certain upgrade options, titles, etc) or it syncs with general consensus on ships which are overpriced - which often mirrors later cost adjustment done by FFG (I/e, math on the A-Wing says it should cost two points less, low and behold FFG has a -2 point upgrade for it). The ships chosen as a basis have good efficiency and tend to have pretty I would say "normal" dials, the B-Wing is a little different than some small ships but the 1 AGI think and heavier design might account for it.

For example, People do tend to think the basic X is a little over costed, and this model suggests it is, but obviously FFG thought about 5 ATK 3 X-Wings in Wave 1 and deliberately priced against it, similar to how say, you deliberately cannot run 5 Strikers with Crackshot or so many Protectorated with title.

About your 3 dice statement, How do you explain the X-Wing and the E-Wing? Their dials aren't phenomenal and they are heavily overprice 3 atk ships.

Read the comments for the ships. I could go into detail more about the E-Wing, I suppose, so I'll do that right now.

Ok, your explanation on the X-Wing

" EXPLANATION : Conservative pricing. During the early stages of the game, they may have thought that rounding down the cost from 21 to 20 might have made the ship too powerful along with having 5 in a squad."

Doesn't jive with your later comment:

" The dial and action bar were likely handed out for free as compensation. Further evidence of this logic can be seen in ALL squishy 3ATK fighters: TIE-IN, Attack Shuttle, Heavy Syck w/Mangler, Protectorate Starfighter. Every single one of them with no exception is either 1pt cheaper than estimated and/or has badass bonuses to its dial, upgrade bar, and/or actions."

And before you say the X isn't squishy, 5 health behind 2 agi is pretty squishy.

Im not trying to be mean, but your later comments and your earlier comments aren't consistent.

I also doubt the X, Y, TIE Adv and TIE Ftr were balanced the same as ships past wave 3 or 4 as it was obvious later on that the TIE Advance essentially swapping the attack and evade of an X-Wing weren't the same even though the were priced the same which likely required some review and overhaul of how they weighted dice.

And before you say the X isn't squishy, 5 health behind 2 agi is pretty squishy.

According to the model, the X-Wing is not treated as a glass cannon. "Squishy" is a relative term, so disagree if you like. Honestly, I don't entirely disagree with your assessment. It would explain why the Kihraxz Fighter is not seen much. You may actually be right, but that doesn't mean the model is wrong. It just means that perhaps the Kihraxz needs a "glass cannon bonus" as well. I would guess that its "glass cannon" bonus should be around half that of other glass cannons due to its 2 AGI nature.

EDIT UPDATE (12/31/16): I have confirmed that the Kihraxz does indeed have lower defensive value than it should. I came to this realization when I deduced that the Rebel Z-95 is actually paying for its extra pilot skill and missile slot. My initial model was incorrect because I assumed that the Z-95 had identical efficiency to the TIE-Fighter, and now that I have refined the formula I can eliminate all remaining data anomalies like the Kihraxz Fighter. However, even with my refined formula, there can still be plenty of debate over whether the Kihraxz Fighter should be entitled at least partially to a "glass cannon bonus."

***HUGE UPDATE***

I have now confirmed that the B-Wing is indeed paying 1pt tax for its upgrade bar, and now I can with 100% confidence predict the base values for 1 AGI small ships with relatively normal dials/actions/upgrades. Unfortunately, this means that the TIE-Punisher is even worse than I thought. It is MORE overpriced than pre-fix TIE-Advanced...

*sobs*

I also added a mathematical theory explaining why the Kihraxz may feel "squishy," and I am growing more confident in its accuracy. I will likely go back and incorporate what I have learned into a new model for 2-AGI ships.

Also added absolute values for offense and defense for easy comparison across different ships.

Also, the X was the first, if it's "squishy". It was before even the Interceptor, which theoretically has the weakest compensation for being a glass cannon. The X was not treated like a glass cannon, it was treated as a standard, all-rounder ship which could explain between the slight price hike and lack of anything but 3 ATK to push it above an "average" level they're very underutilized - requiring really good pilot abilities to be worth using.