22 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Are people actually excited about another x-wing in the same faction?

It's the name of the game. A bit funny that more factions have TIEs than X-Wings.

4 minutes ago, viedit said:

Where is the price point where Afterburners go from OP (Over Priced) to OP (Over Powered)?

Or maybe if torps go way up we'll figure out that answer on our own?

The few times i have run Luke i have always walked away thinking....man winning that would have been easier if i had afterburners instead.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

The few times i have run Luke i have always walked away thinking....man winning that would have been easier if i had afterburners instead.

At it's current points, it is still tempting to get for Aces. If it goes to 6 points (or less?!!?!) it would be an auto-include for me. Imagine being able to 4-k boost as Luke and still have two force for mods. Or SNR a BR->4K->Boost.

30 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Are people actually excited about another x-wing in the same faction?

I didn't sign up to play YT-1300 The Miniatures Game!

10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

The few times i have run Luke i have always walked away thinking....man winning that would have been easier if i had afterburners instead.

Yeah I think at 8pts for AB vs 9 pts for proton torps most people just default to "Pew pew pew" rather that "Duck dip dodge those arcs". If torps go up to 12-15 points and AB's stay the same price this problem might solve itself and we have a much more move and positioning based game.

16 minutes ago, viedit said:

Where is the price point where Afterburners go from OP (Over Priced) to OP (Over Powered)?

Or maybe if torps go way up we'll figure out that answer on our own?

Less than 8 but more than 0

Deep, insightful answers!

Just now, Brunas said:

Deep, insightful answers!

Subscribe.

5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Less than 8 but more than 0

Deep, insightful answers!

This what what filthy internet money was made for!

30 minutes ago, viedit said:

"Pew pew pew" rather that "Duck dip dodge those arcs"

If you can't have both I think one of these is more correct than the other.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

I don't think I accept those differences - the difference for lulo is ~11%, while the difference for the generic is ~15%. Also, that's ignoring agility, which isn't really a fair comparison - going from one hit to two is much more valuable than going from two to three, in my opinion.

No worries, I said basically the same in the post I linked.

I just thought it's an interesting fyi that optics is just ever so slightly better on Lulo.

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

No worries, I said basically the same in the post I linked.

I just thought it's an interesting fyi that optics is just ever so slightly better on Lulo.

Haha, it depends on how you define better! I reject your definition of better!

47 minutes ago, viedit said:

Where is the price point where Afterburners go from OP (Over Priced) to OP (Over Powered)?

Or maybe if torps go way up we'll figure out that answer on our own?

I think it's something like 3 points that we start getting wary about Afterburners. I don't think it should be a card you can throw in casually. 4-5 seems like you might put it on a lot of stuff. 6 feels like it's still aces only, but probably more fair.

It's free actions, but it's limited use and only lets you cheat a little (you can't bump, and it's not pre-move maneuver), so it's largely wholesome, I think.

Just now, Brunas said:

Haha, it depends on how you define better! I reject your definition of better!

Optics improves offense, so a larger improvement would be better in that context. The math on Lulo looks better.

But I also reject that definition, because the result is virtuall the same, but had other consequences. That's why I played most games with lonewolf instead on him. See for example also my SV week 7 (?) comment where I questioned Marcel's choice to put optics on Lulo instead of a generic.

4 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I think it's something like 3 points that we start getting wary about Afterburners. I don't think it should be a card you can throw in casually. 4-5 seems like you might put it on a lot of stuff. 6 feels like it's still aces only, but probably more fair. 

Afterburners plus high init torps or a heavy alpha could be problematic. Burners aren't just for getting you out of trouble... They can get your opponent in trouble by making out so you can't guess your range bin incorrectly.

4 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

Afterburners plus high init torps or a heavy alpha could be problematic. Burners aren't just for getting you out of trouble... They can get your opponent in trouble by making out so you can't guess your range bin incorrectly.

Yeah, you would need a corresponding bump to Protons, but Protons need the bump anyway. The 3 speed lower limit for burners makes them not great for range control, but they're definitely good for fleeing or flanking.

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Optics improves offense, so a larger improvement would be better in that context. The math on Lulo looks better.

But I also reject that definition, because the result is virtuall the same, but had other consequences. That's why I played most games with lonewolf instead on him. See for example also my SV week 7 (?) comment where I questioned Marcel's choice to put optics on Lulo instead of a generic.

Well, here's what I mean. More realistic target is 3 agility focus:

2df: .227 http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAAAAAAAA

2df + optics: .310 http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAAAAAEAA

31% increase in damage

32 points for .227 damage: .0071 damage per point

36 points for .310 damage: .0086 damage per point

3df: .638 http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAAAA

3df + optics: .810 http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAEAA

27% increase in damage

38 points for .638 damage: .0168 damage per point

42 points for .810 damage: .0193 damage per point

Basically, how do you define better. Optics gives 2 die attacks proportionally more damage per attack than 3 die attacks, but it's always much more complicated than that. It's also "better" on 3 die attacks than 4 die attacks for the same reason. If you want to just define "this upgrade does X more damage for Y points" you'd rather have it on lulo, but I don't think that's accurate.

Whoops, I forgot the main point there. Damage rounds down to 0, so I'd rather have my A hit for 1 instead of 0 than lulo hit for 2 instead of 1.

10 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

The 3 speed lower limit for burners makes them not great for range control, but they're definitely good for fleeing or flanking.

My judgement is a little skewed as I put it exclusively on super luke. Supernatural plus burners plus torps plus an 18 point bid meant I was literally never wrong and got torps off in 100% of games.

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

Are people actually excited about another x-wing in the same faction?

Not really, but a T-85 is probably coming anyhow. That's why we're coming up with ways to make it into a TIE Striker or TIE Phantom.

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Basically, how do you define better. Optics gives 2 die attacks proportionally more damage per attack than 3 die attacks, but it's always much more complicated than that. It's also "better" on 3 die attacks than 4 die attacks for the same reason. If you want to just define "this upgrade does X more damage for Y points" you'd rather have it on lulo, but I don't think that's accurate.

I don't want to be pedantic, but the discussion is interesting to me. The reason I made the point in the first place is because I disagree with that statement because I understood "gains" to reference numbers: "the gains on a 3-die optics is far more marginal than 2-die optics." Because to me, e.g. your numbers show something different.

It's not that the gains (difference in numbers) are more marginal. It's that the value of the gains are linked to the ship they're coming from. Among other reasons because of this:

5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Damage rounds down to 0, so I'd rather have my A hit for 1 instead of 0 than lulo hit for 2 instead of 1.

It is not the exact same, but the way I had phrased a similar thought: "Consistent damage across the list is better because I will mess up, get bumped, not get arc, or anything like that during the game. Considering that the damage is basically the same for all, I have more flexibility. "

Another reason is that optics on a high initiative ship is much more dependent on arc-dodging because that focus has a different value on a 2 vs 3 vs infinite (=dodging) agility ship.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I don't want to be pedantic, but the discussion is interesting to me. The reason I made the point in the first place is because I disagree with that statement because I understood "gains" to reference numbers: "the gains on a 3-die optics is far more marginal than 2-die optics." Because to me, e.g. your numbers show something different.

It's not that the gains (difference in numbers) are more marginal. It's that the value of the gains are linked to the ship they're coming from. Among other reasons because of this:

It is not the exact same, but the way I had phrased a similar thought: "Consistent damage across the list is better because I will mess up, get bumped, not get arc, or anything like that during the game. Considering that the damage is basically the same for all, I have more flexibility. "

Another reason is that optics on a high initiative ship is much more dependent on arc-dodging because that focus has a different value on a 2 vs 3 vs infinite (=dodging) agility ship.

I agree.

I don't have much more to contribute, numbers and context are hard, and we're already pretty close to feelings territory, haha.

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't have much more to contribute, numbers and context are hard, and we're already pretty close to feelings territory, haha.

It's all fine. I just thought it's the correct conclusion for a reason I probably don't understand and disagree with, and that's always a difficult discussion as it quickly sounds or even is so pedantic.

To get back to your SVleague list. I am very much looking forward to that game/logfile because that list looks hard to play! Those A-wings have to deliver a lot. Lulo doesn't count, he just can't die. But Zari needs to block like a champ, and Tallie's bullseye is hard to get.

That's all.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's all fine. I just thought it's the correct conclusion for a reason I probably don't understand and disagree with, and that's always a difficult discussion as it quickly sounds or even is so pedantic.

To get back to your SVleague list. I am very much looking forward to that game/logfile because that list looks hard to play! Those A-wings have to deliver a lot. Lulo doesn't count, he just can't die. But Zari needs to block like a champ, and Tallie's bullseye is hard to get.

That's all.

Haha, you way overestimate what I"m planning to do. Get behind rocks, take trick shot attacks, be annyoing to chase, the end!

Sad reacts only

4 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Haha, you way overestimate what I"m planning to do. Get behind rocks, take trick shot attacks, be annyoing to chase, the end!

Any reason for that specific bid? You mentioned earlier that you didn't have room for optics. I'm not advocating anything on that front, just curious about the bid number choice.