4 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:Okay. Let's talk naked 2.0 Vader compared with Naked 1.0 Vader.
Still worse. Still more expensive.
Nah, naked 1.0 Vader doesn't have ATC. Comparing naked 2.0 Vader with 1.0 ATC Vader really comes down to what force points are able to do. They might go beyond pure efficiency just by virtue of flexibility.
It’s about what Vader people are going to fly, not about a Vader min/maxed to pass an arbitrary benchmark. Predator was standard loadout on Vader for most of the game and is what I personally use. I compared a standard Vader build from first edition to what will likely be a standard build in second edition. Old Vader does more damage, can boost, and can evade. New Vader has force tokens he can spend for mods and actions, including premove rolls. He also has limited access to free restricted boosts.
Which is better? I’m not sure yet, but I know that the 19 point difference is sizable and will result in lower offensive powers for the list overall. Those force tokens have a lot of weight to carry.
13 minutes ago, punkUser said: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.
http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwsAIAAABAA
Are you sure?
These are the ships naked, with 1.0 having access to ATC.
I know this is shocking, but adding a crit is better than changing a hit to a crit. Weird that, huh?
But I don't need no fancy program to calculate this for me. The 2.0 ATC can roll a blank, which is not great. 1.0 ATC cannot.
6 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:Which is better? I’m not sure yet, but I know that the 19 point difference is sizable and will result in lower offensive powers for the list overall. Those force tokens have a lot of weight to carry.
Well give it a try 
I've played a few dozen games with 2.0 vader and 1.0 vader doesn't even compare frankly. He's a god at i6 with supernatural (and a bid!). You don't really even need autothrusters, that's just gravy. If you're moving last with supernatural vader you probably aren't getting shot very much as there's any number of disgusting things you can do with supernatural + his ability, unlike 1.0 where you can just get straight blocked and lose all your actions and your mods.
Everyone seems to be missing that damage output in general is much lower in 2.0. This is in turn balanced by decreased defensive stacking.
When 1.0 Vader did a red or got blocked, he got a puny unmodified 2-die attack that couldn’t put a damage on a zero-agility ship.
When 2.0 Vader gets blocked or does a red (assuming he DOESN’T have supernatural reflexes or afterburners), he has a 2-die attack with AT LEAST one mini-focus (likely more). And that 2-die attack is guaranteed to punch through reinforced large ships and can likely hit all but the most agile small ships half the time.
8 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=AAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MwsAIAAABAA
Are you sure?
These are the ships naked, with 1.0 having access to ATC.
Uhh... wtf? Even if I assume you think that ATC = "naked", why does the 1.0 version have a reroll? Naked = no predator, literally the entire point in my posts... (Minor aside if vader takes focus+TL in 2.0 that costs 1 of his force, but that's of course irrelevant here since he has a focus in the first place...)
Hey look, without a reroll is quite a bit worse than 2.0 (vs. basically equivalent): http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
To mirror your condescension... shockingly having an extra die *and* getting to reroll stuff is better than adding a result 
7 minutes ago, punkUser said:Uhh... wtf? Even if I assume you think that ATC = "naked", why does the 1.0 version have a reroll? Naked = no predator, literally the entire point in my posts... (Minor aside if vader takes focus+TL in 2.0 that costs 1 of his force, but that's of course irrelevant here since he has a focus in the first place...)
Hey look, without a reroll is quite a bit worse than 2.0 (vs. basically equivalent): http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/1/advanced/?q=AAAAAAAAAAAgARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAA
To mirror your condescension... shockingly having an extra die *and* getting to reroll stuff is better than adding a result
I clicked it. It didn't register. ****.
Okay. I was wrong.
The point about Predator still stands however, as the all time most common upgrade for Vader. Plus, 2.0 Vader will be ran with FCS, giving him only 1 re-roll.
16 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:The point about Predator still stands however, as the all time most common upgrade for Vader. Plus, 2.0 Vader will be ran with FCS, giving him only 1 re-roll.
FCS doesn't "give you one reroll" - think of it more as "it lets you keep your target lock in 85% of the cases". You absolutely still spend your lock if you need to reroll more than one, *especially* on Vader who has actions for days.
Aside: I did a quick search on list juggler (p=Vader AND type=Regional) because I didn't remember so much predator vader in the early days that you guys have been implying (particularly after ATC). There's some amount of predator, but it's dwarfed by the amount of VI and adaptability, so I'm not sure I'd say it's the "all time most common".
Edit: Here's meta-wing's version: http://meta-wing.com/pilots/22?ranking_start=2010-01-01&ranking_end=2018-07-29&large_tournament_multiplier=true&widespread_use_multiplier=true&use_ranking_data=all&tournament_type=&
In any case the comparison is fine as long as you make it clear what you're comparing, as you now have.
39 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:Nah, naked 1.0 Vader doesn't have ATC. Comparing naked 2.0 Vader with 1.0 ATC Vader really comes down to what force points are able to do. They might go beyond pure efficiency just by virtue of flexibility.
Yeah, 2e Vader is by FAR better than 1e, he has a better dial, he can do 3 actions a round if he wants to, and perhaps most importantly, he's much, much less threatened by bumps. Not to mention ATC being built in.
15 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:Okay. I was wrong.
The point about Predator still stands however, as the all time most common upgrade for Vader. Plus, 2.0 Vader will be ran with FCS, giving him only 1 re-roll.
That's not true - Predator is not the most used upgrade for Vader, or even close. There are more than double the occurrences of Veteran Instincts on Vader in tournaments since it was released - and more adaptability Vaders than Predator Vaders, which was released a full four waves after Predator.
Or, for more clarity, if we skip to after ATC was released, here's the vader talents:
Total: 1391
Veteran Instincts: 692 (49.7%)
Adaptability: 307 (22.1%)
Predator: 261 (18.8%)
Juke: 103 (7.04%)
Lone Wolf: 91 (6.5%)
So yeah, Predator is not anywhere near the most common EPT for Vader, much less the most common upgrade.
So what will be the “standard” loadout for Vader?
I for one am a bit underwhelmed by the available Force upgrades apart from reflexes... but at 12 pts on top of 70 I begin to wonder if Vader will be worth the points, esp. when the “obligatory” FCS and possibly afterburners are added to the mix.
4 hours ago, sgs said:So what will be the “standard” loadout for Vader?
I for one am a bit underwhelmed by the available Force upgrades apart from reflexes... but at 12 pts on top of 70 I begin to wonder if Vader will be worth the points, esp. when the “obligatory” FCS and possibly afterburners are added to the mix.
Vader seems underwhelming because he is in the **** Adv., what kept Vader alive in 1.0 was token stacking on the approach and then arc dodging once your close, since in 2.0 he can't token stack the Dark Lord will be ripped to shreds on the way in
15 minutes ago, Darth evil said:Vader seems underwhelming because he is in the **** Adv., what kept Vader alive in 1.0 was token stacking on the approach and then arc dodging once your close, since in 2.0 he can't token stack the Dark Lord will be ripped to shreds on the way in
If Vader is getting ripped to shreds on the way in, either he decided to joust and/or didn't bring Supernatural and/or his wingmen aren't applying enough pressure. That's player error in all 3 cases; nothing to do with Vader.
my instinct tells me they made vader a little underpowerered on purpose as the force mechanic is a work in progress and will likely get a bit more of a power boost in future 2.0 expansions.
1.0 vader went thru several incarnations as various buffs for the tie-advanced arrived, namely the tie-advanced title.
FFG will see how much play vader gets first and recost him if needed.
What's the point of comparing Vader 1.0 to 2.0? 1st Ed was broken with OP power levels. 2.0 has taken the power levels down a few notches. It makes sense that Vader 2.0 is not as powerful. That's the GOOD thing about 2.0!!!
What I don't get is the idea that generics are not good. First, we don't know the meta at all. Next, even if we think there will be lots of high Init pilots, they can just go defensive for a round with a Focus. It's not like 1.0 where you kill a ship a turn.
16 minutes ago, heychadwick said:What's the point of comparing Vader 1.0 to 2.0? 1st Ed was broken with OP power levels. 2.0 has taken the power levels down a few notches. It makes sense that Vader 2.0 is not as powerful. That's the GOOD thing about 2.0!!!
What I don't get is the idea that generics are not good. First, we don't know the meta at all. Next, even if we think there will be lots of high Init pilots, they can just go defensive for a round with a Focus. It's not like 1.0 where you kill a ship a turn.
We get the diea that generic TE/ads are not good because they cost the same as an x wing and lose a hit point and an attack die for a defence die, which is a BAD trade.
47 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:We get the diea that generic TE/ads are not good because they cost the same as an x wing and lose a hit point and an attack die for a defence die, which is a BAD trade.
They have the situational 3 Attack dice and the bonus Crit. I don't think it's that bad a trade. Also, comparing cross faction is also not the best, but that's another story. I think 4 of the lowest generics of each against each other would be an even match.
1 minute ago, heychadwick said:They have the situational 3 Attack dice and the bonus Crit. I don't think it's that bad a trade. Also, comparing cross faction is also not the best, but that's another story. I think 4 of the lowest generics of each against each other would be an even match.
it would be a bit of a crapshoot tbh.
I suspect TIE/Ads are WAY better if you bring Jendon, for instance.
18 hours ago, punkUser said:
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.
I might be misinterpreting your message above but mathematically ATC in 2.0 is materially worse than ATC 1.0 regardless of mods.
ATC 1.0 + 2 dice is better than ATC 2.0 converting 3 dice from a hit to a crit.
ATC 1.0 unmodded yielded on average 1 hit + 1 crit
ATC 2.0 unmodded yields 1.5 hits/crits
ATC 1.0 focused yields average 1.5 hits + 1 crit = 2.5
ATC 2.0 focused yields 2.25 hit/crit
1 hour ago, chico2323 said:I might be misinterpreting your message above but mathematically ATC in 2.0 is materially worse than ATC 1.0 regardless of mods.
ATC 1.0 + 2 dice is better than ATC 2.0 converting 3 dice from a hit to a crit.
ATC 1.0 unmodded yielded on average 1 hit + 1 crit
ATC 2.0 unmodded yields 1.5 hits/crits
ATC 1.0 focused yields average 1.5 hits + 1 crit = 2.5
ATC 2.0 focused yields 2.25 hit/crit
You're missing something very important.
Both 1e and 2e ATC require you to have a target lock. There is no 'regardless of mods'. If no mods are on the table, then neither version of ATC can trigger and both have the exact same two dice attack
But 1e explicitly does not allow you to spend that target lock on your attack if you add the crit.
2e does.
3 attack dice with a target lock to spend on re-rolling all 3, and one hit to a crit is mathematically better than a guaranteed crit and two dice you cannot re-roll.
In other words, using a target lock to add a crit is worse than using a target lock to re-roll 3 dice.
If you wanted to talk about the action requirements for this, and how it leaves generics in 2e slightly worse off because they're constantly needing to reacquire locks, which is harder for low initiative pilots then that's a different argument. It doesn't affect the maths of an individual roll. (Also, it's still not directly comparable because in 1e ATC took up the system slot, now in 2e generics have access to FCS as well which brings them much closer to 1e level with the same action economy).
Not to mention the obvious: generics struggle in the /x1 because they have trouble getting locks. In 1.0, a focused 2-primary does exactly nothing ever. In 2.0, this attack will be significantly better than nothing, and honestly will hit as often as not!
21 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:You're missing something very important.
Both 1e and 2e ATC require you to have a target lock. There is no 'regardless of mods'. If no mods are on the table, then neither version of ATC can trigger and both have the exact same two dice attack
But 1e explicitly does not allow you to spend that target lock on your attack if you add the crit.
2e does.
3 attack dice with a target lock to spend on re-rolling all 3, and one hit to a crit is mathematically better than a guaranteed crit and two dice you cannot re-roll.
In other words, using a target lock to add a crit is worse than using a target lock to re-roll 3 dice.
If you wanted to talk about the action requirements for this, and how it leaves generics in 2e slightly worse off because they're constantly needing to reacquire locks, which is harder for low initiative pilots then that's a different argument. It doesn't affect the maths of an individual roll. (Also, it's still not directly comparable because in 1e ATC took up the system slot, now in 2e generics have access to FCS as well which brings them much closer to 1e level with the same action economy).
Gotcha, I missed the part about being able to reroll dice in 2.0 ATC. Agreed it is better for a single attack.
The issue that I see is that ATC was bad on the 1.0 Tempest, and 2.0 didn't fix that problem. What's annoying is that there actually were good Tempest Squadron Pilot builds in 1.0... they just used accuracy corrector.
13 hours ago, Squark said:The issue that I see is that ATC was bad on the 1.0 Tempest, and 2.0 didn't fix that problem. What's annoying is that there actually were good Tempest Squadron Pilot builds in 1.0... they just used accuracy corrector.
Yeah, I loved them. I was running Soontir and three AC Tempests for the month or so that three lots of flat two damage was enough to scare most enemies.