This isn't super super constructive, and other people have alluded to it, but you can't mathhammer stuff out by looking at the other faction like people have been doing.

The exact same squadron would be much stronger or weaker given to one faction over the other, because of what they have to complement it. The Rebellion has Toryn Farr, so a squadron with something like 3 blue / 1 blue w/ Bomber / Counter 1 would be super strong for Rebels. In contrast, the Empire has much better Flight Controllers platforms and Dengar, but lacks access to the blue bomber die modification, so the same squadron given to the Empire would be a weaker bomber but a stronger fighter/interceptor. But the Empire is lousy with strong fighters, while weak on strong bombers, so even though you've given the same statline to both squadrons, it's probably stronger on the Rebel's side.

Or considering Escort, the Rebellion has Jan/Biggs. And the Rebels have two choices of generic Escorts, the multirole X-Wing or the tanky porcupine YT-1300. The Empire has just the TIE Advanced. Giving Rogue to one isn't perfectly symmetrical to giving Rogue to the other.

Furthermore, uniqueness (in Rogue Squadron) isn't just a matter of holding points down. Many unique squadrons made generic would dominate the game even with a price hike. Because of the way he would stack with himself to decimate balls of low-hull squadrons, release a pricier but generic Mauler Mithel, and you'd never see TIE Fighters fielded again.

Some of the Star Wings in the thread looked nice, don't get me wrong.

Personally, I'd start from a perspective of "what if we made a Decimator or YV-666 that actually saw tables". Some of the ideas have been making a faster Imperial B-Wing or a better Imperial Scurrg, which would outshine the humble workhorse TIE Bomber.

Sloane does very well, if you want to give her a little boost, why not a unique non rogue firespray and a unique blue dice tie bomber. Neither are game breaking, but just give Sloane a little something different.

With that said I think the entire justification for this thread is flawed, I think Sloane is fine.

9 hours 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?

Weirdly, my memory of @Baltanok's data was that Sloane was in top 2 for a significant number of store championships. I realize top 2 isn't winning, but i personally feel that top 4 is almost as good as a Regional win and it comes down to individual games more than anything and how you did on them all. So, in my mind Sloane was dominant. With all that added together, I saw several different Sloane squadron builds at MI Regionals, with various levels of results. I know we all have the fabled Phantom build somewhere, but I didn't see any of them.

8 hours ago, Snipafist 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?

This too, yeah.

17 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Weirdly, my memory of @Baltanok's data was that Sloane was in top 2 for a significant number of store championships. I realize top 2 isn't winning, but i personally feel that top 4 is almost as good as a Regional win and it comes down to individual games more than anything and how you did on them all. So, in my mind Sloane was dominant. With all that added together, I saw several different Sloane squadron builds at MI Regionals, with various levels of results. I know we all have the fabled Phantom build somewhere, but I didn't see any of them.

This too, yeah.

Let me remind you that you were extremely fussy about other people interpreted data. Namely, undeadguy and myself. To an exceedingly specific point. In this case, it seems you remembered wrong. I see no reason why any of what you said here is anywhere near the same as what you want it to mean. I could even say that the "in my mind Sloane was dominant" statement is "local meta", which is a thing that a lot of people accuse me, cactus and norse about for Rieekan. I'm not particularly enjoying the difference in standards that are being applied to different people to prove a point.

Also, generally, I'm finding you tend to have very negative responses to anything meant to add or change the game, where its all optional. Perhaps this type of discussion isn't really meant for you?

As for Tarkin, yes, he really does need some help.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I get the impression that you tend to try and bend the small sample of data we have to different interpretation rules and requirements of your choosing ("oh, we should only look at top4." "oh, let's compare top25 to mid , but not mid to bot25 to look for similar trend" "oh, squadrons are averaging over 100pts when winning, but that's not a problem because squadrons should win").

Crazy enough also, you tend to always be on the side of "the game is utterly fine and totally balanced", "no, this suggestion is bad", "activations aren't a problem", squadrons aren't a problem". This is the common trend I see when I put together the things you say. We're all going to have our data biases and our way of interpreting to match our agendas, but let's not use that to shut people down alright? (Even in this case, I've stated a few times where the data did NOT support my point.)

@geek19, this is about as best as I can start to implore you in a nice manner. Frankly though, this is becoming a constant and discouraging discussion.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I get the impression that you tend to try and bend the small sample of data we have to different interpretation rules and requirements of your choosing ("oh, we should only look at top4." "oh, let's compare top25 to mid , but not mid to bot25 to look for similar trend" "oh, squadrons are averaging over 100pts when winning, but that's not a problem because squadrons should win").

Crazy enough also, you tend to always be on the side of "the game is utterly fine and totally balanced", "no, this suggestion is bad", "activations aren't a problem", squadrons aren't a problem". This is the common trend I see when I put together the things you say. We're all going to have our data biases and our way of interpreting to match our agendas, but let's not use that to shut people down alright? (Even in this case, I've stated a few times where the data did NOT support my point.)

@geek19, this is about as best as I can start to implore you in a nice manner. Frankly though, this is becoming a constant and discouraging discussion.

To respond as nicely as I can, I will admit disliking a lot of people's suggestions for new things on the forums here. This is because (and I'm not calling out @xanderf as the OP here) those suggestions are bad. "I want a squadron that rolls 8 black dice with rerolls every time with a free accuracy and this should only cost 12 points. I am not a crackpot." Or "I want a Commander who makes it so my opponent doesn't get to choose his first 3 command dials or his deployment speed or how his ships even show up, because Thrawn is a military genius." (Seriously, the numerous Thrawn threads were a nightmare for bad ideas). Or the people wanting to change how last-first happens slash wanting a pass mechanic without any consideration past "I want a thing."

It's not so much that I believe the game is balanced completely so much as that I know I am NOT a game designer, and it isn't worth my time to design new cards/ideas for them. Most(?) of the people on here aren't as well, and I naysay largely because I don't need another dumb "Thrawn should get a free Star Destroyer when he shows up" thread to spiral down. I can admit that I've attempted to shut down a lot of people's complaint posts, but at what point do you tell someone to get good because it ISN'T a problem? If a new guy shows up with like 4 posts shows up and says "I've played one game and here's the ship that side X needs to be competitive!" I attempt to shut them down because we don't need REAL new people showing up and agreeing with their bad statement and thinking a side isn't competitive without some new, untested ship.

With regards to "THE DATA" here is what I was thinking of:

Apologies for throwing up the @Baltanok signal when the @Tokra chime was needed. With 4/5 Imperial wins under Sloane, I maintain that I was right, however. Sloane has WON competitively. She hasn't won Regionals, though, sure, I'll admit I'm wrong in that regard though.

I will do my best to stay out of the design threads for a while now, though, but the summary opinion is that I'll probably hate whatever it is that's designed, haha. Playtest it however you want in your own games, but I don't expect to try it out in mine.

I mentioned something similar in a prior thread* about looking at statistical data: it is analytically backwards to look at the Top 4 winners and count the number of instances of Sloane. Instead, if we want to know how good she is, we should look at all of the Sloane lists and count the number of instances of Top 4.

That is all. Carry on.

* In that thread the discussion was centered on number of activations.

Sloane is good enough that she can win multiple Nationals, using several fleet archetypes.

Is further proof really needed?

Just now, Green Knight said:

Sloane is good enough that she can win multiple Nationals, using several fleet archetypes.

Is further proof really needed?

This. It's much easier to prove that an element or archetype isn't too bad than that it is too good. For the former, all you really need is a few counterexamples, of which there are actually numerous.

4 hours ago, geek19 said:

what point do you tell someone to get good because it ISN'T a problem? If a new guy shows up with like 4 posts shows up and says "I've played one game and here's the ship that side X needs to be competitive!"

Let me tell you that I think almost everything you say everyone including me who has 8k posts is basically "git gud". Let me remind you that while it certainly is noble to note that people can improve, sometimes you can still be missing the point. Do you really want to know how many times I was insinuated by you or other people with the same mindset that I was a garbage who didn't know anything at all player? None of you have ever even met me. After that, stopped working, I was called stupid and crazy directly. After that, admiral nelson. After that, the remove squadrons from the game job. You know, thank you helping with the abuse.

You know, these what if threads are meant to be just for fun. And when you argue data, there's no black and white. Its just generally the impression that you think you're right, and that's it. Let me remind you that statistically, if you actually care about actual data at all, you're going to be wrong some of the time. So, here's a dig that I don't agree at all numerically with your analysis of the OP's suggestion at all in the first place.

You're also using the strawman argument here. That's a no no. Make your differentiations better, all you do now with that comparison is try and make all counter opinions to yourself seem ludicrous. And that is no way to win a logical argument.

1 hour ago, stonestokes said:

I mentioned something similar in a prior thread* about looking at statistical data: it is analytically backwards to look at the Top 4 winners and count the number of instances of Sloane. Instead, if we want to know how good she is, we should look at all of the Sloane lists and count the number of instances of Top 4.

That is all. Carry on.

* In that thread the discussion was centered on number of activations.

Yes, you are correct. I may not have expressed that well upthread. Sloane top4/all-imp top4 and sloane all/all imp-all-fleets are pretty similar ratios. I can give numbers after work tomorrow if you like.

It would be nice to see the ratio of SloaneTop4 : AllSloane. But for true insight we would also want to see MottiTop4 : AllMotti, MoffJJTop4 : AllMoffJJ, etc.

11 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

It would be nice to see the ratio of SloaneTop4 : AllSloane. But for true insight we would also want to see MottiTop4 : AllMotti, MoffJJTop4 : AllMoffJJ, etc.

Will do. All that will get into the regionals data sheet, but I have to get the pages formatted correctly first.

I find many suggestions from players on new content to be OP.

Not everything can have 2 anti ship and 3 anti fighter or large front arc dice pools and large side dice pools.

I also feel FFG went to bounty hunter fighters way to early. This also curbed where does Empire fighters go from here.

Many people forget about balance and what they want to make the easier for them rather then adapting to the tools available.

Do FFG balance well, no. But it is better than broken fan content.

FWIW:

https://armadashipyards.com/2015/09/28/xg-1-star-wing-assault-gunboat/

18 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

FWIW:

https://armadashipyards.com/2015/09/28/xg-1-star-wing-assault-gunboat/

Thats Fake Maarek

2 hours ago, Jabby said:

Thats Fake Maarek

It's 2015 Maarek

15 hours ago, Jabby said:

Thats Fake Maarek

Yea he needs to be showing off his ripped muscular abs!

On 12/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, dominosfleet said:

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

*facepalm*

Phantoms are Sloane’s bombers. Consider a faster X-wing that does 1.2 damage per shot against ships, lacking the liability of Escort, and the ability to reposition after every other squad has finished its move. Pair a group of them with an alpha strike-capable group and they are pretty far from terrible.

40 minutes ago, RobertK said:

Phantoms are Sloane’s bombers. Consider a faster X-wing that does 1.2 damage per shot against ships, lacking the liability of Escort, and the ability to reposition after every other squad has finished its move. Pair a group of them with an alpha strike-capable group and they are pretty far from terrible.

The issue comes from the fact that you have no way of modifying your dice-anti squad (no swarm) OR your anti-ship (no bomber). The only chance you get for a reroll is if you roll a crit which correct me if I’m wrong but there’s 1/8 crit faces on each die vs 2/8 blanks. The few times I’ve taken phantoms they’ve just been terribly unreliable, rolling mostly blanks vs ships and being just kinda “meh” vs other squads...

Why spend 14 points for a meh fighter that will die pretty much just as quickly vs an interceptor that is cheaper, hits harder, has rerolls and can be boosted by howl, and has counter? Or an ace and its defense and special ability for 1 or 2 points more?

40 minutes ago, MandalorianMoose said:

The issue comes from the fact that you have no way of modifying your dice-anti squad (no swarm) OR your anti-ship (no bomber). The only chance you get for a reroll is if you roll a crit which correct me if I’m wrong but there’s 1/8 crit faces on each die vs 2/8 blanks. The few times I’ve taken phantoms they’ve just been terribly unreliable, rolling mostly blanks vs ships and being just kinda “meh” vs other squads...

You are wrong. There are 2 crit sides on every color of dice, including red.

You're otherwise not incorrect that they don't get dice modification (other than with Sloane against ships when rolling a crit), but then again neither do TIE Defenders (barring Bomber Command Center, which isn't frequently used with Sloane) and they're not-uncommonly seen with Sloane.

Quote

Why spend 14 points for a meh fighter that will die pretty much just as quickly vs an interceptor that is cheaper, hits harder, has rerolls and can be boosted by howl, and has counter? Or an ace and its defense and special ability for 1 or 2 points more?

The problem is the Phantom isn't a pure interceptor in terms of its role so comparing it to something that is more specialized is going to inherently be unfair to the Phantom. I don't dispute that Phantoms can be tricky to use well and it's worth considering if an ace or other generic can do the job you want done better for its cost (depending on the nature of that job), but by the very nature of your comparison you're setting the Phantom up to fail. The Phantom is a mixed-role fighter bomber relying on tech (Cloak) to get positional and alpha strike advantages and the interceptor is a dedicated interceptor fighter relying on speed and Counter to pour on the pain against enemy squadrons (especially overextended squadrons left vulnerable on the outskirts of a squadron group) before it's destroyed.

4 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

You are wrong. There are 2 crit sides on every color of dice, including red.

You're otherwise not incorrect that they don't get dice modification (other than with Sloane against ships when rolling a crit), but then again neither do TIE Defenders (barring Bomber Command Center, which isn't frequently used with Sloane) and they're not-uncommonly seen with Sloane.

The problem is the Phantom isn't a pure interceptor in terms of its role so comparing it to something that is more specialized is going to inherently be unfair to the Phantom. I don't dispute that Phantoms can be tricky to use well and it's worth considering if an ace or other generic can do the job you want done better for its cost (depending on the nature of that job), but by the very nature of your comparison you're setting the Phantom up to fail.

Ya I had been speaking of red dice- I thought they only had 1/8 and I knew the others had 2.

I think the reason you don’t see BCC with defenders is that they throw a blue die- every result is either usable or rerollable- whereas red dice have those blanks that seem to be 7/8 of their faces instead of the supposed 2/8.

And tbh I think the phantom set itself up to fail. What role would you put it in that you’d rather have it than an interceptor + 3 more points? I mean if it had a way of modifying those reds yes, I could see a place for them. But as it is I don’t think the lure of the mythical 4 anti-ship damage is worth the unreliability in both the anti ship and anti squad game. Much better to just blow through all the enemy fighters with 134 pts in interceptors and Aces and then go to town on the ships rather than lose a more expensive squad that didn’t do nearly as much damage (imho)

Just now, MandalorianMoose said:

Ya I had been speaking of red dice- I thought they only had 1/8 and I knew the others had 2.

I think the reason you don’t see BCC with defenders is that they throw a blue die- every result is either usable or rerollable- whereas red dice have those blanks that seem to be 7/8 of their faces instead of the supposed 2/8.

And tbh I think the phantom set itself up to fail. What role would you put it in that you’d rather have it than an interceptor + 3 more points? I mean if it had a way of modifying those reds yes, I could see a place for them. But as it is I don’t think the lure of the mythical 4 anti-ship damage is worth the unreliability in both the anti ship and anti squad game. Much better to just blow through all the enemy fighters with 134 pts in interceptors and Aces and then go to town on the ships rather than lose a more expensive squad that didn’t do nearly as much damage (imho)

I've used Phantoms in the past and they've usually done better than expected. You're getting slightly better anti-squadron damage than a TIE Fighter (0.5 better if you aren't using Swarm) and equivalent anti-ship damage of a TIE Bomber in a 14 point package that's got durability issues for its cost but positional advantages from Cloak. You're effectively going against the Imperial grain in a fashion by using the same squadron to both remove enemy squadrons and then go on to bomb ships. The main problem is their durability, which is why they work best with a robust TIE Advanced presence to deliver them to the end game reasonably intact. I also recommend running them with Flight Controllers to get their anti-squad up to 5 and if you still feel like they want a bit of extra anti-squad muscle, there's nothing stopping you from bringing Saber Squadron, Mauler Mithel, Interceptors, etc., as your anti-squad sidekicks.

24 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

I've used Phantoms in the past and they've usually done better than expected. You're getting slightly better anti-squadron damage than a TIE Fighter (0.5 better if you aren't using Swarm) and equivalent anti-ship damage of a TIE Bomber in a 14 point package that's got durability issues for its cost but positional advantages from Cloak. You're effectively going against the Imperial grain in a fashion by using the same squadron to both remove enemy squadrons and then go on to bomb ships. The main problem is their durability, which is why they work best with a robust TIE Advanced presence to deliver them to the end game reasonably intact. I also recommend running them with Flight Controllers to get their anti-squad up to 5 and if you still feel like they want a bit of extra anti-squad muscle, there's nothing stopping you from bringing Saber Squadron, Mauler Mithel, Interceptors, etc., as your anti-squad sidekicks.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I’d almost always rather have interceptors that can throw 6 blues with a reroll, and then some dedicated bombers on the side to bomb ships. Then again I rarely take max squads and am frequently going squadronless or 4 ties so I’m by no means an expert on the subject.

the only time I’ve enjoyed a phantom is when I took the unkillable Whisper