I'm wondering if Cad is the buff Proximity Mines were waiting for, or if they're still not going to see as much use. I suspect they benefit a bit more from Cad's reroll than cluster mines do. I'm not sure.

Prox Mines go from an average damage of 1.5 (no Cad) to 2.19 (with Cad)... right?

Cluster Mines are harder to pin down because they depend heavily on how many mines land. It'll bump one mine from an average of 1 damage to 1.5, so you can expect 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 average damage depending on the number of mines your foe clipped. I may be doing the math all wrong though.

Cluster mines may ultimately remain the better choice, whatever the odds boost, simply for the width of area they cover. They may simply be easier area control tools, especially with Minefield Mapper.

Thoughts?

38 minutes ago, Wazat said:

Prox Mines go from an average damage of 1.5 (no Cad) to 2.19 (with Cad)... right?

2.25 actually. Cad Bane's effect is identical to a target lock on those dice. With a reroll, an attack die has a 75% chance of ending up on a hit or crit. 3 x .75 = 2.25.

38 minutes ago, Wazat said:

Cluster Mines are harder to pin down because they depend heavily on how many mines land. It'll bump one mine from an average of 1 damage to 1.5, so you can expect 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 average damage depending on the number of mines your foe clipped. I may be doing the math all wrong though.

Your math is right if you just assume the player uses Cad Bane on the first Cluster Mine token. However, the average damage will be improved slightly if the player chooses which token to use Cad Bane on based on what they roll (e.g. the first token rolls two hits, so you don't use Cad Bane on it).

38 minutes ago, Wazat said:

Thoughts?

I'm thinking this is the Rules Questions subforum and wondering if you actually have a rules question or are just looking to discus math and strategy.

Huh... I'm not sure why I was only doing 2 of the 3 dice. I think I was mixing his ability up with another, sorry.

I asked here because it was the closest forum I could find. I guess squad lists is the next best place. Sorry, man!

Herm, the cluster mine scenario lays out an interesting math problem with actual game scenario implications. Assuming you're attempting to maximize damage - when should you use his reroll ability?

If the ship clips just 1 token, then you obviously use it on the first token, and you'll get an average damage of 1.5. Distribution: (0 @ 6.25%, 1 @ 37.5%, 2@ 56.25% )

If the ship clips 2 tokens, then you can have 0, 1, or 2 results from the first one, and on the 0 or 1 result choose to use his ability. Then you can have 0, 1, or 2, with or without Bane for the second token. Let's take a closer look.

If you roll 0, it's only logical to use his ability right away - you can't roll worse and you chance not using it at all. If you roll 2, you cannot use his ability anyways. But 50% of the time you'll roll 1, so let's see what happens on the second roll with and without a reroll.

S1. 0 -> 0 = 6.25%

S2. 0 -> 1 = 12.5%

S3. 0 -> 2 = 6.25%

S4. 2C = 25%

S5. 1C = 50%

S6. 1 -> 1 = 25%

S7. 1 -> 2 = 25%

On the second roll, 25% of the time you'll have 2 naturally regardless of what happened on the first roll. Without Cad, you'll have 0 25% of the time, and 1 50% of the time. With him, you'll have 6.25% chance of 0, 37.5% of 1, and 50% total of two. That means the above probability trees become:

S1a. 0 @ 6.25%, 0 @ 25% ---> 0 damage @ 1.5625%

S1b. 0 @ 6.25%, 1 @ 50% ---> 1 damage @ 3.125%

S1c. 0 @ 6.25%, 2 @ 25% ---> 2 damage @ 1.5625%

S2a. 1 @ 12.5%, 0 @ 25% ---> 1 damage @ 3.125%

S2b. 1 @ 12.5%, 1 @ 50% ---> 2 damage @ 6.25%

S2c. 1 @ 12.5%, 2 @ 25% ---> 3 damage @ 3.125%

S3a. 2 @ 6.25%, 0 @ 25% ---> 2 damage @ 1.5625%

S3b. 2 @ 6.25%, 1 @ 50% ---> 3 damage @ 3.125%

S3c. 2 @ 6.25%, 2 @ 25% ---> 4 damage @ 1.5625%

S4a. 2 @ 25%, 0 @ 6.25% ---> 2 damage @ 1.5625%

S4b. 2 @ 25%, 1 @ 37.5% ---> 3 damage @ 9.375%

S4c. 2 @ 25%, 2 @ 56.25% ---> 4 damage @ 14.0625%

Average Damage of above = 1.375 damage

All of these are the easy choices on whether to use Cad Bane or not. But then as I said, the question because do you use him to reroll one blank or not… Scenario 5 represents not using him, and Scenarios 6&7 represent using him.

S5a. 1 @ 50%, 0 @ 6.25% ---> 1 damage @ 3.125%

S5b. 1 @ 50%, 1 @ 37.5% ---> 2 damage @ 18.75%

S5c. 1 @ 50%, 2 @ 56.25% ---> 3 damage @ 28.125%

Not using him results in an average damage of 2.625. Distribution (0 @ 1.5625%, 1 @ 9.375%, 2 @ 29.6875%, 3 @ 43.75%, 4 @ 15.625%)

And if you do use him…

S6a. 1 @ 25%, 0 @ 25% ---> 1 damage @ 6.25%

S6b. 1 @ 25%, 1 @ 50% ---> 2 damage @ 12.5%

S6c. 1 @ 25%, 2 @ 25% ---> 3 damage @ 6.25%

S7a. 2 @ 25%, 0 @ 25% ---> 2 damage @ 6.25%

S7b. 2 @ 25%, 1 @ 50% ---> 3 damage @ 12.5%

S7c. 2 @ 25%, 2 @ 25% ---> 4 damage @ 6.25%

Using him on the first roll results in an average damage of 2.625. Distribution (0 @ 1.5625%, 1 @ 12.5%, 2 @ 29.6875%, 3 @ 34.375%, 4 @ 21.875%)

So, if someone runs over 2 tokens, you’ll get the same average damage regardless of when you use the reroll, but you have a 3.125% higher chance of getting at least 3 hits if you wait until the second roll to use it. In exchange, you have a 6.25% higher chance of getting all 4 if you use it on the first roll (though this should be obvious – you’re accepting that you won’t get all 4 if you don’t use it on the first roll after rolling just 1 hit).

And I’m kinda too lazy at this time to put in the work for all three mines and how it works out, especially seeing as it didn’t make a difference in average damage on the first one. I suspect though that if there’s a “best path” it’ll be to not reroll a single die on the first token, reroll a single die on the second.

11 minutes ago, Khyros said:

And I’m kinda too lazy at this time to put in the work for all three mines and how it works out, especially seeing as it didn’t make a difference in average damage on the first one. I suspect though that if there’s a “best path” it’ll be to not reroll a single die on the first token, reroll a single die on the second.

Your math matches mine for the two token case. I did some of the three token case. If you only reroll the first or second token on double blanks, you get 3.71875 average damage. If you reroll the first or second token on single OR double blanks, you get 3.65625 average damage.

Interestingly, because of the result for the two token case, we can definitively say that if you only reroll double blanks on the first token, it doesn't matter (much) what your strategy is for the second token. If you used Cad Bane on the first token, then you have no choice. If you didn't use Cad Bane on the first token, then the rest of the math simplifies down to a two-token case, which we've already proven has the same expected value whether you reroll on only double blanks or on any blank.

Therefore, I would say in the three-token case, the best choice most of the time will be to reroll only double blanks on the first token, then make your decision on the second token based on the current game state and how much more damage you need to deal to finish off the enemy ship. If you need max damage to finish them off, then you might want to reroll on a single blank. If you only need one or two more damage, then reroll on double blanks only except for the last token.

15 minutes ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

Your math matches mine for the two token case. I did some of the three token case. If you only reroll the first or second token on double blanks, you get 3.71875 average damage. If you reroll the first or second token on single OR double blanks, you get 3.65625 average damage.

Interestingly, because of the result for the two token case, we can definitively say that if you only reroll double blanks on the first token, it doesn't matter (much) what your strategy is for the second token. If you used Cad Bane on the first token, then you have no choice. If you didn't use Cad Bane on the first token, then the rest of the math simplifies down to a two-token case, which we've already proven has the same expected value whether you reroll on only double blanks or on any blank.

Therefore, I would say in the three-token case, the best choice most of the time will be to reroll only double blanks on the first token, then make your decision on the second token based on the current game state and how much more damage you need to deal to finish off the enemy ship. If you need max damage to finish them off, then you might want to reroll on a single blank. If you only need one or two more damage, then reroll on double blanks only except for the last token.

Glad to see your math supports my 3 token theory regarding rolling on the first blank... Don't. And once we've determined that, then it's simple to figure out the rest. You either double blanked on the first roll, in which case of course you use Cad, or you didn't double blank, and you have Cad Bane available and it's the same as the 2 token roll as calculated before (except you have 1-2 extra damage from the first token), and you have the choice about the more reliable damage, or the gamble for the higher damage, even though both give the same average results.

Very cool analysis, thank you!

If I'm thinking right, then it sounds like Proximity Mines are a decent deal. If you usually tag your foe with about 1.5 tokens per cluster mine on average, then the prox mine is looking better.

(though mines are often at least as effective as a threat as they are actual damage dealers, and undetonated cluster tokens remain on the board to continue influencing the opponent's choices).

As I think of it, I do have a related rules question, possibly a very contested one... How does Minefield Mapper work with Extra Munitions tokens? Does it let you continue discarding cards until you have none left (so you can spend all munitions tokens and then discard your cards)? Or do you select X cards in advance (up to the number you have equipped), and then discard each once, placing their tokens (so you can only place half your bombs)?

People have been joking about the 3 TIE Punisher minefield mapper lists that ring the enemy starting position with mines if they start in a corner. It's a silly strategy just for a laugh (and can be more serious if you use the mines for area control instead), but they seem to assume you can discard all your bombs. FFG still hasn't clarified Targeting Synchronizer fully, let alone Jabba's RAW problem... I worry we won't have a clear answer on this before the ships hit the table. It's sure to be the source of contention.

I ask because I plan to fly the joke fleet at least once, and Prox mines would give each punisher just enough points to equip Lightweight Frame and become just a little more effective in combat, once the enemy plows through the mines/asteroids and comes seeking revenge.

That is, in fact, a rules question. And one that's been hotly debated.

Minefield mapper says you can discard any number of equipped bombs upgrade cards and place those tokens in the play area.

People who think you should be able to place both the regular bomb and the Extra Munitions bomb appear to either think that Extra Munitions means that its tokens actually count as bomb upgrade cards for this purpose (which is silly) or that the selection of bomb cards to discard is iterative and allows time for the munitions token to resolve and prevent the discard (which I also disagree with, but more respectfully).

People who don't think you can discard both the card and the token (*waves* hi there) either think that you have to select all the bomb cards you want to discard before you move on to actually discarding them (*waves again*), so that the munitions tokens don't have a chance to kick in while you're still choosing bombs to discard, or that the once-per-opportunity rule prevents Minefield Mapper from being used twice on the same card.

That final one could be the clincher. Otherwise you could have 2 bomb cards with tokens, choose 4 as your "any number" to discard, and drop 4 bombs. But who knows... it's such a language issue (and FFG is terrible with language), I don't think we can solve it. Despite the general consensus here, I still don't like to use Targeting Synchronizer with primary weapons because FFG hasn't cleared the mist with a solid answer, and I don't want to be accused of cheating at the table.

Well I think it's pretty defensible to say that in this game when you're asked to choose "any number" out of a concrete set of things that actually exist, you're expected to select from that set, not just name a number.

("Choose any number of these sandwiches." / "Eleventy billion!")

But yes, it's something that FFG could, God help us, rule either way on.

1 hour ago, Wazat said:

Despite the general consensus here, I still don't like to use Targeting Synchronizer with primary weapons because FFG hasn't cleared the mist with a solid answer, and I don't want to be accused of cheating at the table.

It's in the FAQ:

Quote

Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock?

A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

Spending a lock to reroll attack dice is a "game effect".

And the trigger for it is 'when a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking'. The second sentence is not dependent on the second clause of the first.

It could certainly have been more clearly written though. AND more clearly FAQed.

Oh I know. Hasn't helped the holdouts though because it's not plain and simple in the FAQ, and it's a frustrating discussion to have over a gaming table. And there are counter-examples to the "first clause is the trigger", like Accuracy Corrector (which would be madness with that interpretation), and people still like to bring up Shara as wording for how borrowing primary weapon locks should work. The consensus here doesn't help because it's not the official channel. Until FFG gives a plain-as-day explanation, it's going to be crappy. Imagine having that argument during a tournament, with the clock ticking, and you don't quite know how the TA will rule... It's just not worth it.

I feel like FFG does us a disservice by not explicitly stating it in the FAQ, which seems like an easy thing to do. And I worry that cards like Minefield Mapper won't fare better. Imagine the fight over that wording during a tournament. So much of the battlefield changes depending on whether you're able to launch half or all your mines at the game's start. If it's not made clear by FFG, it will be contentious.

10 hours ago, wurms said:

Spending a lock to reroll attack dice is a "game effect".

Which is not an answer to the actual question. Whether or not spending target locks is a 'game effect' is a separate issue to whether it works for non-cost effects. The answer in the FAQ is wholly insufficient for many.

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Which is not an answer to the actual question. Whether or not spending target locks is a 'game effect' is a separate issue to whether it works for non-cost effects. The answer in the FAQ is wholly insufficient for many.

It doesn't work for non-cost effect. Spending a lock is the cost. The first part is there for things like Homing Missiles and Ion Missiles that dont spend the lock. That wording is there so you can fire them with Target Synch. The entire reason for the second part is so that ships like Manaroo cant pass around Target Locks as if they are her own, or Vader using it to add a crit. The game effect has to "spend" the target lock. Which is why it is written as such and not "That ship may treat the target lock as it's own". See the last part of the FAQ entry

Quote

Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

There is a reason why this was added to the FAQ on 3/17/2017 a month after wave X released.

The wording on Synch is dumb though.

It could just as easily have been '(When attacking) Any friendly ship at range 1-2 may spend your target locks as though they were its own.' Adding the 'when attacking' clause if it's felt necessary to avoid defensive uses like Norra or weird uses like Colzet.

It didn't need the 'treat attack TL as attack' bit, it didn't need any mention of game effects, it just needed not to allow ships to treat TLs as their own except when spending them. The obvious way to accomplish that being to enable spending, but nothing else.

The wording could have been SO much less obtuse.

16 hours ago, wurms said:

Spending a lock to reroll attack dice is a "game effect".

24 minutes ago, wurms said:

It doesn't work for non-cost effect.

I think we're using different means of 'cost' here. In game terms, only secondary weapons pay costs, as shown on the attack chart. Other effects may allow us to 'spend' tokens to do things, but those aren't even adresses as costs in the same way that secondary weapon costs are. Spending a target lock to reroll attacking dice might be colloquially referred to as paying a cost, but that's just a convenience thing; that's not anything to do with the actual rules of the game.

This is no different to how you can say two ships are physically touching because they bases are in contact, the in terms of game mechanics, that does not mean they are touching. One is a common useage of a word, the other is a gam term. I'm talking about the game term, which only applies to the costs to perform a secondary weapon attack.

35 minutes ago, wurms said:

The first part is there for things like Homing Missiles and Ion Missiles that dont spend the lock.

I have no clue what you mean here. The first part of the text is for the opposite: secondary weapons that do spend a target lock. It allows them to initiate an attack without a target lock and then spend the TL belonging to the ship with TS to pay the attack's cost. Not spending it as a cost makes no difference to this passage.

48 minutes ago, wurms said:

The entire reason for the second part is so that ships like Manaroo cant pass around Target Locks as if they are her own, or Vader using it to add a crit.

I do not know what this is in reference to. Without this passage, manaroo still couldn't pass them around and ATC still couldn't add a crit.

50 minutes ago, wurms said:

The game effect has to "spend" the target lock. Which is why it is written as such and not "That ship may treat the target lock as it's own". See the last part of the FAQ entry

Again, I'm not sure that this has anything to do with it. Unless you can clarify how this is in any way related, it seems irrelevant to me.

52 minutes ago, wurms said:

There is a reason why this was added to the FAQ on 3/17/2017 a month after wave X released.

Which is? I genuinely don't see how this is related.

Yea, suffice it to say, the above is not a discussion I want to have over the table during a game.

FFG please update the FAQ with a solid answer.

@InquisitorM What @wurms is trying to say is the reason targeting sync isn't worded "When a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking it may treat your TL as it's own." Is so that it doesn't trigger effects like advanced targeting computer, while still allowing you to fire ordinance and reroll dice.

2 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

@InquisitorM What @wurms is trying to say is the reason targeting sync isn't worded "When a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking it may treat your TL as it's own." Is so that it doesn't trigger effects like advanced targeting computer, while still allowing you to fire ordinance and reroll dice.

Which doesn't change the fact that it could have been worded a LOT more succinctly and clearly and still accomplished that:

'Other friendly ships at range 1-2 may spend your target locks as though they were their own.'

38 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

'Other friendly ships at range 1-2 may spend your target locks as though they were their own.'

^This^

9 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Which doesn't change the fact that it could have been worded a LOT more succinctly and clearly and still accomplished that:

'Other friendly ships at range 1-2 may spend your target locks as though they were their own.'

Your wording makes the card functionally different. As you have it worded, a ship with ordinance would still need it's own TL on the defender to use them.

True. Keep the bit about targetting changing then.