I’ve also done the math on the new vs old ATC, and it’s not great. Old ATC did more damage and was cheaper than New ATC + FCS.
The simple fact is that a native three die attack is stronger than a native two die attack with ATC. The action requirements are just murder on the generics.
That said I love the ability, it gives the Advanced a lot of personality, I just want it priced accordingly.
19 hours ago, Sasajak said:X1 “problem” is it needs a target lock for 3 attack. This is difficult for generics. 1.0 x1 generics with ATC we’re pretty useless; they thrived on Accuracy Corrector (even so I’m NOT advocating a return of AC!). On this basis I think generics are overpriced. Named pilots should be OK. Luckily points can be changed now. We shall see!
You seem to think that everything is going to be a high Initiative in 2.0. Remember, it's not 1.0. You don't have to pick the high Init guys. There is a premium on the costs for them. I think we will see more lower end guys. The TL won't be a problem.
37 minutes ago, heychadwick said:You seem to think that everything is going to be a high Initiative in 2.0. Remember, it's not 1.0. You don't have to pick the high Init guys. There is a premium on the costs for them. I think we will see more lower end guys. The TL won't be a problem.
Given how many high ini Aces are fairly cheap (not I6, but I4 and I5), I don't think this will be the case.
I don't think I will be running many lower IN ships. Patrol leader is just 8 points cheaper than RAC. Black Sqd. Ace is just 3 points more expensive than academy pilot.. That 1.5 in old money for 2 points higher IN and a talent.
Gamma sqd and Scimitar has a difference of 2 pts (1) and for that they get an IN increase and a Talent.
Yeah... I6 aces are fairly expensive. Defender aces are ridiculously expensive.
Most higher cost generics are fairly cheap, and if you have a couple points to spare, you can upgrade 3-4 ships for the price of 1 upgrade.
On 7/27/2018 at 9:46 PM, heychadwick said:Blue Squadron Escort
- 41pts
- +6 for R2 droid
- Total 47 pts
Tempest Squadron Pilot
- 41 pts
- +3 for FCS
- Total 44 pts
Are they really the same cost?
4 vs 4 is an interesting one to try and price up. Neither ship has an obvious 50 point build along these lines, because regen astromechs are expensive (note; expensive does not mean 'not good') and the tempest pays top dollar for mods at agility 3.
Works, but if we're complaining about target locks on one ship the same argument applies to the other, especially since this one has range 1 blind spot.
That's a big whack of range 1 firepower, and a bit of nice action economy/overkill failsafe (because if the whole squad locks one target, something should be dead after two-to-three advanced torp shots....)
AKA Baby Blues, Too. 3 Shields, 4 Hull, green turns out of talon rolls. nice.
Thoughts for equivalent/competitor 50 point generic advanced builds?
Edited by Magnus Grendel
You know, if you want to talk about fair, how about this:
Blue Squadron Escort
Tempest Squadron Pilot
That puts them at the same points. It gives the X1 1 Shield over 1 Hull. I'd say that's pretty even now.
Mistakes were made...
Edited by heychadwick4 minutes ago, heychadwick said:You know, if you want to talk about fair, how about this:
Blue Squadron Escort
- 41pts
- +6 for R2 droid
- Total 47 pts
Tempest Squadron Pilot
- 41 pts
- +3 for FCS
- +3 for Shield Upgrade
- Total 47 pt
That puts them at the same points. It gives the X1 1 Shield over 1 Hull. I'd say that's pretty even now.
A shield upgrade would cost 8 points on a TIE Advanced.
1 hour ago, nexttwelveexits said:A shield upgrade would cost 8 points on a TIE Advanced.
OH, I understand it now. I didn't look close enough. Duh.
Homing Missile instead? Or...upgrade to a Storm and get a 1 pt Talent?
Edited by heychadwickOnly real advantage the x1 has now that it's not cheaper than the Xwing is its linked action (which doesn't link to TL, so eh) and a systems slot
ADVANCED sensors seem pretty good here, though a certainly wouldn't take it over a Juke Sigma
9 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:Only real advantage the x1 has now that it's not cheaper than the Xwing is its linked action (which doesn't link to TL, so eh) and a systems slot
ADVANCED sensors seem pretty good here, though a certainly wouldn't take it over a Juke Sigma
The X-wing gets focus linked to boost via servomotor s-foils. Both the X-wing and TIE advanced x1 will roll 2 attack dice on rounds where they use their linked action. That's not really an advantage to the TIE advanced; especially since the X-wing has an easier time clearing the stress from the linked action with 6 blue maneuvers vs. the TIE advanced x1's 4.
Edited by kraedin1 hour ago, kraedin said:The X-wing gets focus linked to boost via servomotor s-foils. Both the X-wing and TIE advanced x1 will roll 2 attack dice on rounds where they use their linked action. That's not really an advantage to the TIE advanced; especially since the X-wing has an easier time clearing the stress from the linked action with 6 blue maneuvers vs. the TIE advanced x1's 4.
2e TIE/ad has 6 greens: 1 banks, 2 banks, 2 and 3 straight.
On 7/27/2018 at 9:40 PM, HolySorcerer said:I’ve also done the math on the new vs old ATC, and it’s not great. Old ATC did more damage and was cheaper than New ATC + FCS.
Not sure I understand what you're saying here...
If you already have a TL+focus on a ship...
- In 1.0 you average 2.5 damage (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA). Fairly intuitive: 2 dice + focus = 1.5, add crit = 2.5.
- In 2.0 if you are unwilling to spend the lock (just the one FCS reroll), you average 2.684 damage (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAEAAA - extra crit isn't represented here, just using howl as a proxy for not being willing to spend the lock).
- In 2.0 if you are willing to rarely spend the lock, you average 2.813 (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwgAIAAEBAA) - i.e. a full double-modded 3 die attack with lots of crits. And you only have to spend the lock ~15% of the time for that.
Without focus it's 2.0 avg in first edition and 2.25 avg in second, so in all cases the 2.0 version is better. This should not come as a surprise since the ability to spend the lock is generally more valuable.
Comparing costs across 1.0 and 2.0 doesn't make a ton of sense since the whole power curve has shifted somewhat, but for the sake of argument a tempest with title and ATC in 1.0 is 22 points, while a tempest with built-in ATC and FCS in 2.0 is 44 points... so the same.
On 7/27/2018 at 9:40 PM, HolySorcerer said:The simple fact is that a native three die attack is stronger than a native two die attack with ATC. The action requirements are just murder on the generics.
You seem to be saying the opposite here...? Indeed the 3 dice of the new ATC is strong as per the above. Yes you need a TL but that's the same as in 1.0. In all cases with the same mods the 2.0 version is better.
19 minutes ago, punkUser said:Not sure I understand what you're saying here...
If you already have a TL+focus on a ship...
- In 1.0 you average 2.5 damage (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA). Fairly intuitive: 2 dice + focus = 1.5, add crit = 2.5.
- In 2.0 if you are unwilling to spend the lock (just the one FCS reroll), you average 2.684 damage (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAEAAA - extra crit isn't represented here, just using howl as a proxy for not being willing to spend the lock).
- In 2.0 if you are willing to rarely spend the lock, you average 2.813 (http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwgAIAAEBAA) - i.e. a full double-modded 3 die attack with lots of crits. And you only have to spend the lock ~15% of the time for that.Without focus it's 2.0 avg in first edition and 2.25 avg in second, so in all cases the 2.0 version is better. This should not come as a surprise since the ability to spend the lock is generally more valuable.
Comparing costs across 1.0 and 2.0 doesn't make a ton of sense since the whole power curve has shifted somewhat, but for the sake of argument a tempest with title and ATC in 1.0 is 22 points, while a tempest with built-in ATC and FCS in 2.0 is 44 points... so the same.
You seem to be saying the opposite here...? Indeed the 3 dice of the new ATC is strong as per the above. Yes you need a TL but that's the same as in 1.0. In all cases with the same mods the 2.0 version is better.
The generics are going to struggle with just a lock, let alone lock + focus, and just like in first edition, they are so overpriced that you'll never see them in play.
As I went over before, comparing fully loaded Vader 1.0 vs Vader 2.0 (the only pilot who ever saw play and the only pilot likely to see play), the first edition had more damage output in every scenario but lock + focus at range one where first edition would not spend the lock but second edition would, and even then it was nearly identical.
Edited by HolySorcerer
5 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:As I went over before, comparing fully loaded Vader 1.0 vs Vader 2.0, the first edition had more damage output in every scenario but lock + focus at range one where first edition would not spend the lock but second edition would, and even then it was nearly identical.
You happen to have a link to this work and related assumptions? Your claim seems counter to the math I posted above...
26 minutes ago, punkUser said:You happen to have a link to this work and related assumptions? Your claim seems counter to the math I posted above...
1.0 Predator EU ATC Vader (74 pts)- http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
2.0 Supernatural Reflexes Afterburner FCS Vader (93 pts) ( - http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwsAIAAABAA
The second edition Vader costs 19 more points and does a tiny bit less damage per round. He also loses evade and access to the real boost action.
edit: Honestly, at 20 points less than Vader, Stele might be the most useful Advanced pilot. The ship just isn't durable or evasive enough to warrant sinking half your points into.
Edited by HolySorcerer5 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:1.0 Predator EU ATC Vader (74 pts)- http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
2.0 Supernatural Reflexes Afterburner FCS Vader (93 pts) ( - http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwsAIAAABAA
The second edition Vader costs 19 more points and does a tiny bit less damage per round. He also loses evade and access to the real boost action.
This is still fine, before people accuse us of saying things we don't...
But don't say that 2.0 Vader deals more damage than 1.0, because that is not true.
Also, that 19 point premium hurts a lot. As amazing as Vader is, the advanced was gimped in order to accommodate him. Which FFG said they wouldn't do.
Although, I guess they also said that TIE-s cost 24 points and that you can fit 3 Brobots in a list.
18 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:1.0 Predator EU ATC Vader (74 pts)- http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
2.0 Supernatural Reflexes Afterburner FCS Vader (93 pts) ( - http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwsAIAAABAA
Uhh... you're comparing *Predator* vader (of all thing)s in 1.0 to supernatural vader in 2.0 and giving zero value to supernatural itself? Okay I guess...
No offense, but there's really no interesting comparison to be made if you're not comparing similar tokens/mods. By the exact same logic, why would I ever take Vader over an HLC linked gunboat in 1.0? For a mere 28 points I can consistently throw far more damage than puny vader ever could! 
In general comparing absolute costs between 1.0 and 2.0 is not terribly useful. If you believe the power curve has shifted at all (and it clearly has in a number of areas), you can only really compare the relative costs of ships across the same edition (i.e. this used to cost less than an x-wing in 1.0, now in 2.0 it costs more than a 2.0 xwing and so on).
6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:This is still fine, before people accuse us of saying things we don't...
But don't say that 2.0 Vader deals more damage than 1.0, because that is not true.
Also, that 19 point premium hurts a lot. As amazing as Vader is, the advanced was gimped in order to accommodate him. Which FFG said they wouldn't do.
Although, I guess they also said that TIE-s cost 24 points and that you can fit 3 Brobots in a list.
Yeah, I don't think Vader or Stele will be DOA, though I do think that about the generics, but I do think that they might be priced a bit to high. On the flip side, Luke and Wedge seem to be priced very aggressively, and could probably go up a few points.
20 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:But don't say that 2.0 Vader deals more damage than 1.0, because that is not true.
But he *does* deal more damage than regular (VI) vader... if you're throwing out broad statements about 1.0 vs. 2.0 you need to be clear about what your comparison is. I'm not sure too many people care about the comparison to predator vader with ATC 
2 minutes ago, punkUser said:Uhh... you're comparing *Predator* vader (of all thing)s in 1.0 to supernatural vader in 2.0 and giving zero value to supernatural itself? Okay I guess...
No offense, but there's really no interesting comparison to be made if you're not comparing similar tokens/mods. By the exact same logic, why would I ever take Vader over an HLC linked gunboat in 1.0? For a mere 28 points I can consistently throw far more damage than puny vader ever could!
In general comparing absolute costs between 1.0 and 2.0 is not terribly useful. If you believe the power curve has shifted at all (and it clearly has in a number of areas), you can only really compare the relative costs of ships across the same edition (i.e. this used to cost less than an x-wing in 1.0, now in 2.0 it costs more than a 2.0 xwing and so on).
I'm comparing the most Offensive 1.0 Vader (which is the version I fly) to the most offensive 2.0 Vader (which is what most people will probably fly). Supernatural Reflexes will certainly add a lot of value, but it won't help his damage numbers, so it doesn't affect the math.
3 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:I'm comparing the most Offensive 1.0 Vader (which is the version I fly) to the most offensive 2.0 Vader (which is what most people will probably fly). Supernatural Reflexes will certainly add a lot of value, but it won't help his damage numbers, so it doesn't affect the math.
Sure, but that's just not a generally useful comparison. As I noted, there are zillion ships that can throw out more damage than Vader... that's not exactly his primary point/attribute 
I mean fly what you want to fly, but comparing to a fairly below-the-power-curve 1.0 vader build to a 2.0 build that prices in supernatural and afterburners to no benefit in your actual comparison is a bit disingenuous is all.
1 minute ago, punkUser said:Sure, but that's just not a generally useful comparison. As I noted, there are zillion ships that can throw out more damage than Vader... that's not exactly his primary point/attribute
I mean fly what you want to fly, but comparing to a fairly below-the-power-curve 1.0 vader build to a 2.0 build that prices in supernatural and afterburners to no benefit in your actual comparison is a bit disingenuous is all.
Well I'm comparing fully loaded Vader to fully loaded Vader. You almost always took EU in 1.0, which is why it is included, and you will likely always take Afterburners in 2.0, which is why that is also included.
3 minutes ago, punkUser said:But he *does* deal more damage than regular (VI) vader... if you're throwing out broad statements about 1.0 vs. 2.0 you need to be clear about what your comparison is. I'm not sure too many people care about the comparison to predator vader with ATC
Why is VI Vader the regular? For most of 1.0, nobody played VI Vader.
Nobody put VI on Vader because it makes him more efficient. They put it on because you had to, due to the meta. It is not relevant to the conversation, especially since VI doesn't exist in 2.0
1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:Nobody put VI on Vader because it makes him more efficient. They put it on because you had to, due to the meta. It is not relevant to the conversation, especially since VI doesn't exist in 2.0
Sure but he's not an *efficient* jousting piece in the first place. His *entire deal* is moving last. Without that he's objectively terrible.
You're cherry picking to fit some sort of 2.0 vader is bad agenda based on poor comparisons. Why price supernatural and afterburners (and fcs) into your comparison if they provide no offensive value? Clearly 2.0 supernatural vader does a million more things than 1.0 vader, but again if your goal is to just throw raw damage, they are both exceptionally inefficient choices. Vader is not a jouster and you should not be flying him as such.
1 minute ago, punkUser said:Sure but he's not an *efficient* jousting piece in the first place. His *entire deal* is moving last. Without that he's objectively terrible.
You're cherry picking to fit some sort of 2.0 vader is bad agenda based on poor comparisons. Why price supernatural and afterburners (and fcs) into your comparison if they provide no offensive value? Clearly 2.0 supernatural vader does a million more things than 1.0 vader, but again if your goal is to just throw raw damage, they are both exceptionally inefficient choices. Vader is not a jouster and you should not be flying him as such.
Okay. Let's talk naked 2.0 Vader compared with Naked 1.0 Vader.
Still worse. Still more expensive.
2 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:Still worse. Still more expensive.
Except... not, which is why I posted in the first place. Only in this weird world of predator 1.0 vader does he ever throw microscopically more damage.
Naked 2.0 vader (hawt :P) vastly outperforms 1.0 vader in all comparisons obviously. Even if you meant to include ATC the 2.0 version is still better with any equivalent set of mods (and vastly so without focus due to force) - see my numbers a few posts up. And these differences are far greater than the tiny differences with predator vader.
Edited by punkUser