Because Sloane definitely needs more stuff to work with. XD I kinda wish they made it so she only worked with swarm fighters and gave Phantoms swarm.

I really like this. I would play it.

Escort is... a good "nerf". But it doesn't really make sense. Do these really run interference in Air Superiority?

23 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I would take the original ship and swap out Escort for Grit. Maybe swap a blue for a red for both Anti Squadron and Anti ship Batteries.

You know why red dice are red, right?

Because THEY ARE SATAN! THEY ARE THE FIRST DEMON HIMSELF, STRAIGHT FROM THE FIERY PITS OF ETERNAL TARNATION!!

No, no - red dice will not do. Especially for anti-squadron, they are so incredibly swingy it creates a heck of an NPE. I mean, 1/8 chance of double-hit, but only 3/8 total of doing anything at all? I've seen a single Z-95 one-shot a full-health Firespray, and whole swarms of them unable to land a point of damage on a scarred TIE Fighter. For anti-squadron work, red dice are ridiculous. (Not as bad anti-ship, on a bomber anyway, so...maybe that could work if there is too much resistance to the double-blues as a result of Sloane. However, given how poor a situation she is in...I dunno. I mean, how many folks have actually played her very often? She's not bad, but I've gone entire games where her ability didn't trigger once...or triggered and was immediately reset by the turn refresh)

6 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I really like this. I would play it.

Escort is... a good "nerf". But it doesn't really make sense. Do these really run interference in Air Superiority?

Sort of. In the old X-Wing and TIE Fighter PC games, they were among the few Imperial craft with hyperdrives. (Well, the only one, actually, until the TIE Advanced and TIE Defenders started showing up later in the games)

So you did see them as escorts of convoys, often. Or jumping in mid-battle to give your fighters a heck of a time. They weren't very good dogfighters, per se - something between an X-Wing and a Y-Wing. But they were there, when other Imperial fighters couldn't be, so...

As noted earlier in the thread, when FFG re-interpreted them from their 'Legends' source, they defined them specifically as a multi-role fighter. As implementing in X-Wing, their highest safe speed is '3' (in a game where ships can hit 4 or 5), and they lack the ability to turn around (no k-turns, s-loops, or t-rolls). Not much of a dogfighter there, either. But they can carry a lot of ordnance, and are noticeably hardier than the TIE Bomber (if not quite as fast or able to turn about - unless they SLAM which lets them do a double-movement, but then typically cannot fire or can only fire with reduced effectiveness).

But it's really hard to say what FFG intends 'escort' to reflect. I mean...X-Wings have it. And the TIE Advanced, from the Empire's side. So...??? What the heck do those two ships have in common in any other medium?

I gotta ask, why does the Empire need a 2 dice anti ship squadron when no one uses the one you have with Sloane?

With Sloane winning as much as she is, what reason do we have to make her stronger? Why do you need a speed 3 2 dice bomber in the Empire? What design purpose does this serve that isn't already there or going against a current design standard the imperial stuff has? With a Flight Controllers slot as easily available as it can be in Imperial ships, these get stupid good, especially under Sloane. The cost isn't prohibitive enough to meaningfully make you consider other options, so you're going to run into design problems when these get taken en masse. Especially, again, with a 2 blue dice bomber, where 2/8 sides wreck a defense tokens without me being able to do anything about it.

You're building from a position of "I want a thing!" Rather than "my faction needs a thing." From my understanding, that first one only gets to happen if you win a World's.

6 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I gotta ask, why does the Empire need a 2 dice anti ship squadron when no one uses the one you have with Sloane?

With Sloane winning as much as she is, what reason do we have to make her stronger? Why do you need a speed 3 2 dice bomber in the Empire? What design purpose does this serve that isn't already there or going against a current design standard the imperial stuff has? With a Flight Controllers slot as easily available as it can be in Imperial ships, these get stupid good, especially under Sloane. The cost isn't prohibitive enough to meaningfully make you consider other options, so you're going to run into design problems when these get taken en masse. Especially, again, with a 2 blue dice bomber, where 2/8 sides wreck a defense tokens without me being able to do anything about it.

You're building from a position of "I want a thing!" Rather than "my faction needs a thing." From my understanding, that first one only gets to happen if you win a World's.

the only one we have (i say "we" because I've been running sloane a lot the last month or so) is a firespray and it has rogue so it doesn't work with sloane. well, it and Maarek but everyone who uses sloane uses Maarek .

Edit: phantoms, there are also phantoms. But phantoms are kind of terrible.

14 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I gotta ask, why does the Empire need a 2 dice anti ship squadron when no one uses the one you have with Sloane?

Mostly because the existing 2-dice anti-ship generic squadron that would work with Sloane has a few strikes against it:

• You are paying for 'Cloak' in the squadron's cost, which is a keyword of marginal utility when ship hunting
• It is a somewhat fragile little guy for its price (costs nearly twice as much as a TIE Fighter for only a single point more health)
• It continues with the Imperial tradition of fighter squadrons that are too fast for their supporting ships

Starting from the TIE Phantom isn't a bad spot, necessarily - we just want 'Bomber' instead of 'Cloak', add some health and reduce some speed. Indeed, one of the other ways of trying to do minor/incremental changes and mix up new units while the formula to do so remains opaque to us is to take two other things that exist and just average the stats all out between them. The TIE Phantom is almost useful, here - take these two guys...

...mixed with...

...stick them in a blender and average the results, and you get:

• 13 pts
• 5 health
• 3 blue anti-squadron
• 1 blue/1 red anti-ship
• Ummm... 3.5 speed (yeah, things get weird here)
• 1/2 cloak
• 1/2 bomber

Assuming Bomber and cloak are equivalent-ish in cost...at least enough that knocking off one promotes the other to a full value if we round down on speed...you end up with...

...not very far off from what we are discussing. I like the OP version better, but...you get the idea.

Also:

Quote

With Sloane winning as much as she is, what reason do we have to make her stronger?

Say, huh? Where is Sloane 'winning as much as she is'? What regional-level event has she won?

And that's before Thrawn shows up to completely knock her down a peg...

15 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Starting from the TIE Phantom isn't a bad spot, necessarily - we just want 'Bomber' instead of 'Cloak', add some health and reduce some speed.

Right, but it's that same "want" vs need" issue. With bomber, you get to reroll a dice under BCC, and if you're fishing for accuracies under Sloane.... you can reroll them AGAIN.

You can WANT bomber, but you need to realize that BCC and Sloane let you reroll blue dice bombers twice to go fishing for accuracies to discard tokens. Especially with a 2 dice bomber, it's not just something you can throw in easily and everything will be fine. In a similar vein, because Ackbar exists, I can't get a Red die side arc small ship as easily as I used to be able to. You gotta take everything into effect when designing something new. If you WANT a 2 dice bomber, it can't be something as easily exploitable as this would be under Sloane for this cost. Maybe the latest one might be ok? But you and I aren't game designers so I can't comment much on it.

As for Sloane wins, I'm gonna throw up the @Baltanok signal and see if he has a list of Sloane wins. IIRC, she was the most dominant Imp admiral recently, especially through store champ season.

Sloan’s should have been a global effect of some faction or upgrade.

Afaik I don’t recall Sloan’s dominance either. Let’s bring the data?

Either way imperial squadrons are no where near as useful or dominant as rebel fighters. You trade them out often also losing point. Making them powerful but high cost. Which makes for lower scores.

3 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Chipping in, but I wouldn't want to see these guys with Heavy. XGs could handle themselves in a fight, and were perfectly fine running interference on behalf of other craft (so, they would lock down enemy fighters).

Escort was a good idea, but I think I'd go for Rogue since these fighters were pretty independent (wish we had these over Firesprays tbh...). For distinction I'd -1 hull to +1 speed, with three AA blue. Battery would be one black or two blues here. Rogue, Bomber. 16 points.

Agreed!!! ^^^

3 hours ago, DampfGecko said:

I like the idea of converting the TiE Defender a bit more than the firespray- after all, they are kind of competing designs. What I'd love to see is the Star Wing as a modular platform, instead of having an "ace" coming in two different flavours with Escort (Gunboat) and Bomber (Missile Boat).

Look, I'm just happy to talk about the Gunboat. These ideas look great!

Also agreed!!!

2 hours ago, geek19 said:

I gotta ask, why does the Empire need a 2 dice anti ship squadron when no one uses the one you have with Sloane?

With Sloane winning as much as she is, what reason do we have to make her stronger? Why do you need a speed 3 2 dice bomber in the Empire? What design purpose does this serve that isn't already there or going against a current design standard the imperial stuff has? With a Flight Controllers slot as easily available as it can be in Imperial ships, these get stupid good, especially under Sloane. The cost isn't prohibitive enough to meaningfully make you consider other options, so you're going to run into design problems when these get taken en masse. Especially, again, with a 2 blue dice bomber, where 2/8 sides wreck a defense tokens without me being able to do anything about it.

You're building from a position of "I want a thing!" Rather than "my faction needs a thing." From my understanding, that first one only gets to happen if you win a World's.

Ok then, it's decided this HAS to happen. To get our Five-pointed Stars in Armada, @xanderf, you will be our champion - you MUST win this year's WORLD'S!!!!

4 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

Rogues dont woek wirh Sloane so thats a non starter

Then Assault Gunboats shouldn't be the model we're discussing.

I'm particularly keen on craft representing, somewhat accurately, their source material. I'm still feeling irked that Proton Rockets does not snap CR-90s in half like a pair of them did in the simulators. The X-Wing XG is loyal to the spirit of the original, even if SLAMs on the generic is somewhat unusual. Heavy on the XGs is antithematic, in my opinion....

...but Rogue is not. More often these fighters were used as independent hyperspace raiders that would come out of hyperspace on another vector and lead the attack- many times without capital ship escorts. They were perfect reinforcement vehicles that could do anything that was needed on the field to help craft in a pinch. If XGs come in, I'd like to see them with Rogue.

I know it doesn't help Sloane. All I'm saying is, choosing fighters to help Sloane, the Gunboat isn't a good fit.

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Mostly because the existing 2-dice anti-ship generic squadron that would work with Sloane has a few strikes against it:

• You are paying for 'Cloak' in the squadron's cost, which is a keyword of marginal utility when ship hunting
• It is a somewhat fragile little guy for its price (costs nearly twice as much as a TIE Fighter for only a single point more health)
• It continues with the Imperial tradition of fighter squadrons that are too fast for their supporting ships

Starting from the TIE Phantom isn't a bad spot, necessarily - we just want 'Bomber' instead of 'Cloak', add some health and reduce some speed. Indeed, one of the other ways of trying to do minor/incremental changes and mix up new units while the formula to do so remains opaque to us is to take two other things that exist and just average the stats all out between them. The TIE Phantom is almost useful, here - take these two guys...

...mixed with...

...stick them in a blender and average the results, and you get:

• 13 pts
• 5 health
• 3 blue anti-squadron
• 1 blue/1 red anti-ship
• Ummm... 3.5 speed (yeah, things get weird here)
• 1/2 cloak
• 1/2 bomber

Assuming Bomber and cloak are equivalent-ish in cost...at least enough that knocking off one promotes the other to a full value if we round down on speed...you end up with...

...not very far off from what we are discussing. I like the OP version better, but...you get the idea.

Also:

Say, huh? Where is Sloane 'winning as much as she is'? What regional-level event has she won?

And that's before Thrawn shows up to completely knock her down a peg...

I nearly took first with her in KC...

5 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

edit: don't much like the new 2.0 card, the Assault Gunboat was not a lumbering bomber.

Yeah, I'm coming around to that. Especially when comparing two ways to get at the ultimate goal (multirole fighter that balances decent anti-squadron with two-dice anti-ship, and doesn't overspend on speed)...

...and...

22 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

I nearly took first with her in KC...

Well, no offense - obviously that's better than I've done - but when the argument is 'Sloane doesn't need help because she's winning so much' and the supporting evidence is 'one time someone almost won a major event with her...but didn't'

I mean...that's really not a convincing argument, is it? To the extent Imperial admirals are winning (not bloody many!), it's the same Imperial admiral who has always been winning - Motti. Which is really a counter-point to the strength of Sloane, given how often she's being picked and then not winning.

(IMHO, her entire design is flawed. For her price, you need to get real value out of her spending defense tokens - which happens rarely at the best of times. But if you DO build your list on that, you are inevitably burned when you go a whole game and never score the statistically-uncommon result of an accuracy. Fishing for a 1/4 occurrence as a major component of your strategy is seriously just a bad idea. On the other hand, if you don't build your list on it, she's hardly worth her cost. The design intent - of providing some useful way for Imperial anti-fighter squadrons to do something in the ship-to-ship fighting - is noble, but the implementation as it is turns her into a pure RNG as to whether she's awesome in a match or junk. Probably would have been better to just let her re-roll all crits and accuracies, and leave the fighters doing only damage and nothing else. But, that's a ship that has sailed, so...nothing for it but to try to patch in a solution, and if brings our sexy, new, "multirole" Star Wings to the table, that's just a win-win to me!)

9 minutes ago, xanderf said:

(IMHO, her entire design is flawed. For her price, you need to get real value out of her spending defense tokens - which happens rarely at the best of times. But if you DO build your list on that, you are inevitably burned when you go a whole game and never score the statistically-uncommon result of an accuracy. Fishing for a 1/4 occurrence as a major component of your strategy is seriously just a bad idea. On the other hand, if you don't build your list on it, she's hardly worth her cost. The design intent - of providing some useful way for Imperial anti-fighter squadrons to do something in the ship-to-ship fighting - is noble, but the implementation as it is turns her into a pure RNG as to whether she's awesome in a match or junk. Probably would have been better to just let her re-roll all crits and accuracies, and leave the fighters doing only damage and nothing else. But, that's a ship that has sailed, so...nothing for it but to try to patch in a solution, and if brings our sexy, new, "multirole" Star Wings to the table, that's just a win-win to me!)

As I said. It shoulda been some sort of global or factional upgrade. Compatible we every sort of admiral, isntead of jsut one.

6 hours ago, xanderf said:

Not sure I follow the question?

Compare...

...to...

You swap out 'Escort' for 'Rogue' and that adds 1 pt. Because 'Rogue' is better than 'Escort'. Otherwise, ships are identical. Given that premise, apply to:

...you take 'Rogue' off and put 'Escort' back, and lose the penalty point. So down to 17.

Not exactly 'playtested' - it may prove this is still too high, as the generic Firespray isn't exactly dominating top lists which may point to a costing problem around it already. But at least that was the reasoning for this point value as a starting point.

As an interesting point on this, sort of validating this 'find the change between two designs and copy that'....let's take the above one step further. (And partially agree that the 'Bomber' keyword paired with BCC and 2 blue anti-ship might be a problem for fishing-for-accuracies...even if, possibly, that's actually needed to help Sloane become viable...anyway...)

...to...

• -1 pt
• -Bomber
• +1 counter

...would yield us, after the quoted starting points on the Firespray-31 (IE., start with Firespray-31, then do the conversion from 'Rogue Squadron' to 'generic X-Wing Squadron', then do the 'Green Squadron' to 'Generic A-Wing Squadron' conversion)...

...which deals with the 'bomber keyword is a problem with 2 anti-ship dice and Sloane' complaint (which, as noted, may or may not be valid - Sloane does seem to need help).

What makes it interesting is the I'm-sure knee-jerk reaction to "OMG, YOU CANNOT COMBINE COUNTER AND ESCORT, SO BROKEN!!!" except...

*cough*

So compared to our hypothetical Star Wing, we've got:

• Identical keywords and values on them
• Identical anti-squadron attack
• +1 speed and -1 hull, which feels like a wash
• Yes, the anti-ship value goes from one blue dice to two, but...
• +3 cost... IE., 25% increase in price.

And I imagine most Imperial players would be pretty happy with this one, too. Importantly, they feel like they would be stats/results that come out of the same calculation system.

31 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Yeah, I'm coming around to that. Especially when comparing two ways to get at the ultimate goal (multirole fighter that balances decent anti-squadron with two-dice anti-ship, and doesn't overspend on speed)...

...and...

...sort of feels close. Maybe without landing hits, but...certainly a salvo that is bracketing the target.

Well, no offense - obviously that's better than I've done - but when the argument is 'Sloane doesn't need help because she's winning so much' and the supporting evidence is 'one time someone almost won a major event with her...but didn't'

I mean...that's really not a convincing argument, is it? To the extent Imperial admirals are winning (not bloody many!), it's the same Imperial admiral who has always been winning - Motti. Which is really a counter-point to the strength of Sloane, given how often she's being picked and then not winning.

(IMHO, her entire design is flawed. For her price, you need to get real value out of her spending defense tokens - which happens rarely at the best of times. But if you DO build your list on that, you are inevitably burned when you go a whole game and never score the statistically-uncommon result of an accuracy. Fishing for a 1/4 occurrence as a major component of your strategy is seriously just a bad idea. On the other hand, if you don't build your list on it, she's hardly worth her cost. The design intent - of providing some useful way for Imperial anti-fighter squadrons to do something in the ship-to-ship fighting - is noble, but the implementation as it is turns her into a pure RNG as to whether she's awesome in a match or junk. Probably would have been better to just let her re-roll all crits and accuracies, and leave the fighters doing only damage and nothing else. But, that's a ship that has sailed, so...nothing for it but to try to patch in a solution, and if brings our sexy, new, "multirole" Star Wings to the table, that's just a win-win to me!)

point spread was 25/24/24/23. I was one of the 24's. going into the third round i was tied at 18 with someone, next highest was 16 followed by 2 15's. I 6/5'd it to 24 and thought i had the number 1 spot hands down (our game took 45 mins) but one of the 15's got a 10/1 game(which seems crazy to me in the third round of a regionals but whatever, he played a great game) and the other 9/2'd his game.

ya, anecdotal evidence, but saying "she's bad" when she takes third in a hard fought top spot is kinda meh. I think a lot of people are fielding her, i don't think a lot of people are landing with her but i don't expect them to be. it's weird to me that people are complaining that she's under powered, i think she does great.

49 minutes ago, xanderf said:

As an interesting point on this, sort of validating this 'find the change between two designs and copy that'....let's take the above one step further. (And partially agree that the 'Bomber' keyword paired with BCC and 2 blue anti-ship might be a problem for fishing-for-accuracies...even if, possibly, that's actually needed to help Sloane become viable...anyway...)

...to...

Nearly the same ship, only:

• -1 pt
• -Bomber
• +1 counter

...would yield us, after the quoted starting points on the Firespray-31 (IE., start with Firespray-31, then do the conversion from 'Rogue Squadron' to 'generic X-Wing Squadron', then do the 'Green Squadron' to 'Generic A-Wing Squadron' conversion)...

...which deals with the 'bomber keyword is a problem with 2 anti-ship dice and Sloane' complaint (which, as noted, may or may not be valid - Sloane does seem to need help).

What makes it interesting is the I'm-sure knee-jerk reaction to "OMG, YOU CANNOT COMBINE COUNTER AND ESCORT, SO BROKEN!!!" except...

*cough*

So compared to our hypothetical Star Wing, we've got:

• Identical keywords and values on them
• Identical anti-squadron attack
• +1 speed and -1 hull, which feels like a wash
• Yes, the anti-ship value goes from one blue dice to two, but...
• +3 cost... IE., 25% increase in price.

And I imagine most Imperial players would be pretty happy with this one, too. Importantly, they feel like they would be stats/results that come out of the same calculation system.

What did you use to make the custom ship card?

3 hours ago, geek19 said:

As for Sloane wins, I'm gonna throw up the @Baltanok signal and see if he has a list of Sloane wins. IIRC, she was the most dominant Imp admiral recently, especially through store champ season.

Well, not sure what the question is, but I haven't seen her as dominating the field. She was very popular during store champs, appearing in 38% of imperial lists (21% of all lists), and got into the top quarter pretty often (20% of all top quarter) but didn't win that often (8% of winners). Sloane fleets tended to be ISD+QF, plus gozanti's to taste. Fighters were generally TIE, INT, or DEF + Aces of same. Sprinkle Intel or Strategic. There was one successful Bomber+Demo fleet that was very out-of-character for her. (#2 at Dragon's lair Austin)

She got a couple of decent results in regionals so far, but no first place finishes. Haven't done more than eyeball the numbers, but she's performing at expected levels, with 4 of 19 lists in the top 5. GSD+VSD show up about as often as the ISD+QF. Sloane Fighter wings at regionals are more likely to be TIE or INT. TIE/DEF wings tended to be lower down the charts.

Only Imp admiral I'm seeing as performing above the Imp trendline right now is Jerry. And he's either great or awful. Comparatively few middle-of-the-pack finishes. Motti is doing OK, comparable to Sloane, but more dependably average than unreliably good like Jerry. Sloane(18 fleets), Motti(17) & Jerry(15) are about 87% of the Imperial fleets (50/57), vader is 10%, and Ozzel is 1 fleet.

Again, haven't done any deep analysis on the numbers, but that's my quick & dirty take.

Yep. I was pretty sure I remembered right. She's taken rather often, has some success but isn't some sort of crazy runaway super strong performer.

That's not dominant or strong by any means.

"all right", decent, "strong enough" are all possible words.

@geek19, why did you say what you said?

Okay, but at the same time, does “performing at expected levels” translate to “needs an urgent boost” in the same order?

esoecially when the record is 25% in Top 5... I’m sure there are many admirals who would be jealous of such a record...

I would figure you’d want to look at purely underperforming admirals... Like a certain Grand Moff....

15 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Okay, but at the same time, does “performing at expected levels” translate to “needs an urgent boost” in the same order?

esoecially when the record is 25% in Top 5... I’m sure there are many admirals who would be jealous of such a record...

I would figure you’d want to look at purely underperforming admirals... Like a certain Grand Moff....

True, if anyone needs a buff, it’s this guy. Just make him work every round.

15 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Okay, but at the same time, does “performing at expected levels” translate to “needs an urgent boost” in the same order?

esoecially when the record is 25% in Top 5... I’m sure there are many admirals who would be jealous of such a record...

I don't think that was the argument.

The point of this thread was more about a better pairing with Sloane, and one of the replies was along the lines of 'anything that benefits Sloane is bad for the game, because Sloane is so OP'.

Clearly, based on this limited data, I think we can all agree that at least that is not correct - Sloane is not 'dominating' anything.

As to @Baltanok's data - I guess I read that a bit differently. She's priced the same as Motti, but she isn't performing the same as Motti - he wins regionals, she doesn't. So while she's not far out of the curve (she's making it into elimination rounds, she just fails to perform there), she's definitely underperforming her point value.

But that was one of the points of this discussion - I think a ship like the few versions proposed here might be the thing to push her over into 'truly competitive territory'. (Barring a complete redesign, of course, to push her away from a single-die-roll-pure-RNG-in-its-rawest-form...but that's not something we've ever really seen before.)

35 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yep. I was pretty sure I remembered right. She's taken rather often, has some success but isn't some sort of crazy runaway super strong performer.

That's not dominant or strong by any means.

"all right", decent, "strong enough" are all possible words.

@geek19, why did you say what you said?

I'm not @geek19, but I am his friend and I'm also up at 2:15 in the morning having just fed a fussy newborn, so I feel I can answer for him by saying that while Sloane isn't crushing tournaments right now, she's very common and every fleet needs to have an answer for "what if Sloane?" The current Rebel 2+3 permutation is specifically designed around Gallant Haven as its "what if Sloane?" answer, which is one of the reasons it does so well because Sloane is very common right now and she has some really strong matchups against fleets that aren't ready for her.

So even if she's not outright winning tournaments, she's doing well enough and she's had a big effect on the meta in terms of what kind of other fleets are "allowed" to be competitive when she's so common. Making her more common by giving her specific tools feels foolish in light of that. There are Imperial commanders that are basically garbage right now (Konstantine and Tagge are the clear front-runners here, we could argue about Tarkin but he's not exactly tearing up the tournament scene at the very least)*, so why should one of the most popular Imperial commanders get something?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It's a fan-made squadron, it seems to have some balance issues, FFG doesn't care about it, and if they make a squadron out of it, they'll do it themselves. We're largely arguing over nothing.

*on a side note, you can certainly argue that some Rebel commanders are tricky to use or might not be reliable tournament contenders (see: Sato), I don't think you've got any Rebel commanders worse than Tarkin. Nothing at all on the same "oh god why?"(other than jank) level as Tagge or Konstantine.

5 hours ago, xanderf said:

As to @Baltanok's data - I guess I read that a bit differently. She's priced the same as Motti, but she isn't performing the same as Motti - he wins regionals, she doesn't. So while she's not far out of the curve (she's making it into elimination rounds, she just fails to perform there), she's definitely underperforming her point value.

There have been about half a dozen regionals since she came out. *Any* statement about winning regionals in wave 6 is not supported due to small sample size. Doesn't mean it's not a true statement, but we can't know yet. When we get around 10 regionals, we may be able to say something about factions winning regionals, and we can start making assertions about common admirals winning around 20 tournaments. Hypotheses aimed at top/bottom quarter brackets or overall population are probably testable at this point.

I always thought the Gunboat was pretty much the X-Wing. I'd probably do:

3 Speed

5 Hull

4 blue Anti-squad

2 blue Ship

bomber

grit

14 points?

I think the Gunboats would need to be put in that sweet spot between 13-15 points to really make Sloane work well with them. Otherwise they're too good if they're cheaper or it's going to be better to field 2 TIE Fighters once you hit 16+ points.