Welcome to MathyWing! Version 1.0 spreadsheet has been updated to version 2.33 for X-wing 2.0. Methodology for estimating generic ship cost does involved a good deal of guesstimation, especially for non-basic ships & the new turrets. Ship efficiency is baselined by the generic T-65 X-wing at 100%. Also, it has been assumed that developers used the Academy Pilot TIE Fighter at 24 points for their baseline. I may release the actual spreadsheet once the X-wing 2.0 app is available. Here are some results for generic pilot ship costs .

You'll notice that 43 point X-wings mean only 4 in a list. 42 point X-wings would also be fine, but X-wings at 40 points would completely outclass TIE fighters. Their cost would need to drop to 23 or 22 points!

Ships of note are the E-wing, TIE Defender, & IG-88. Defender stats & abilities mean it should be costed so only 2 can fly in a list. Indications are that 3 IG-88's can run in a list & the calculations concur with this assessment.

Calculations for the mobile arc turrets definitely have more inaccuracies. I find it likely that the YT-2400 is the big winner. Duel YT-2400 could be very powerful, especially if Dash is cheap enough. Jumpmasters could be even cheaper than they are now. Ghosts will remain strong. Shadow Caster is the big loser. I don't predict it's cost being lowered to where it needs to be.

Calculation Notes :: With TLT & autothrusters gone from 2.0, calculating attack and defense values is much easier now. TLT was strong against 3-agility ships. With TLT & full turrets gone, it is likely that 3-agility ships are going to fair well. The E-wing & Defender could be top tier. Bombs are less powerful. I think it's unlikely that auto-blaster turret still exists. If it still does exist, it will surely be used often.

5 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

Welcome to MathyWing! Version 1.0 spreadsheet has been updated to version 2.33 for X-wing 2.0. Methodology for estimating generic ship cost does involved a good deal of guesstimation, especially for non-basic ships & the new turrets. Ship efficiency is baselined by the generic T-65 X-wing at 100%. Also, it has been assumed that developers used the Academy Pilot TIE Fighter at 24 points for their baseline. I may release the actual spreadsheet once the X-wing 2.0 app is available. Here are some results for generic pilot ship costs .

Ship	Cost	% Efficiency
TIE Fighter	24	100.0
X-wing T-65	43	100.0

You'll notice that 43 point X-wings mean only 4 in a list. 42 point X-wings would also be fine, but X-wings at 40 points would completely outclass TIE fighters. Their cost would need to drop to 23 or 22 points!

Ship	Cost	% Efficiency
A-wing	30	99.8
Y-wing	31	99.7
B-wing	43	99.5
Auzituck	46	99.3
E-wing	60	101.6
TIE Bomber	31	99.9
TIE Punisher	34	98.7
StarWing	34	99.9
TIE Striker	33	98.2
TIE Interceptor	33	99.9
TIE Advanced ATC	43	99.4
TIE Phantom	43	98.6
TIE Defender	68	102.1
Kihraxz	42	100.3
Scyk w/Mangler	40	99.2
Kimogila	45	99.4
Scurrg	48	97.8
YV-666	52	97.7
Firespray	62	99.8
IG-88	65	101.3

Ships of note are the E-wing, TIE Defender, & IG-88. Defender stats & abilities mean it should be costed so only 2 can fly in a list. Indications are that 3 IG-88's can run in a list & the calculations concur with this assessment.

Turret Ship	Cost	% Efficiency
HWK-290	31	99.0
K-wing	41	98.2
Jumpmaster	45	98.0
Shadow Caster	60	92.2
YT-1300 w/title	76	97.0
Decimator	74	97.8
Ghost	70	100.9
YT-2400	80	101.6

Calculations for the mobile arc turrets definitely have more inaccuracies. I find it likely that the YT-2400 is the big winner. Duel YT-2400 could be very powerful, especially if Dash is cheap enough. Jumpmasters could be even cheaper than they are now. Ghosts will remain strong. Shadow Caster is the big loser. I don't predict it's cost being lowered to where it needs to be.

Calculation Notes :: With TLT & autothrusters gone from 2.0, calculating attack and defense values is much easier now. TLT was strong against 3-agility ships. With TLT & full turrets gone, it is likely that 3-agility ships are going to fair well. The E-wing & Defender could be top tier. Bombs are less powerful. I think it's unlikely that auto-blaster turret still exists. If it still does exist, it will surely be used often.

@Rat of Vengence you only need to ask, see?

Are the costs based on the initiatives we saw for the generics for the baseline cost for a ps1 of the ship? If it's for the initiative values we saw, would be helpful to have that included in the list somewhere. Especially since we generally only saw 1 generic per ship. For the defender, for instance, if the cost is for the PS4 version, and if there were to be another PS1 pilot when we get the pack, it could possibly be below 67 points to run 3. I don't expect it, but it could affect things like how many work in a list.

17 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Are the costs based on the initiatives we saw for the generics for the baseline cost for a ps1 of the ship? If it's for the initiative values we saw, would be helpful to have that included in the list somewhere. Especially since we generally only saw 1 generic per ship. For the defender, for instance, if the cost is for the PS4 version, and if there were to be another PS1 pilot when we get the pack, it could possibly be below 67 points to run 3. I don't expect it, but it could affect things like how many work in a list.

I don't take into account initiative for most ships because I1 & I2 has historically been effectively the same. For ships with generics at I3, that will affect the numbers slightly. TIE Phantom & Kimogila have I3 generics I believe. TIE Phantom cost is less certain because cloaking. 43-46 is a reasonable range. Whether the cheapest Defender is I1 or I4 it better be >67 points cause that thing is scary. In fact, I1 is scarier than I4 because only I1 pilots would be able to block it.

38 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

@Rat of Vengence you only need to ask, see?

" Methodology for estimating generic ship cost does involved a good deal of guesstimation"

Yeah, still not worth tying knickers into knots before we know the details. All the whining in the world isn't going to change things that are already locked in, and I'd be real disappointed if it did.

54 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

Welcome to MathyWing! Version 1.0 spreadsheet has been updated to version 2.33 for X-wing 2.0. Methodology for estimating generic ship cost does involved a good deal of guesstimation, especially for non-basic ships & the new turrets. Ship efficiency is baselined by the generic T-65 X-wing at 100%. Also, it has been assumed that developers used the Academy Pilot TIE Fighter at 24 points for their baseline. I may release the actual spreadsheet once the X-wing 2.0 app is available. Here are some results for generic pilot ship costs .

Ship	Cost	% Efficiency
TIE Fighter	24	100.0
X-wing T-65	43	100.0

You'll notice that 43 point X-wings mean only 4 in a list. 42 point X-wings would also be fine, but X-wings at 40 points would completely outclass TIE fighters. Their cost would need to drop to 23 or 22 points!

Ship	Cost	% Efficiency
A-wing	30	99.8
Y-wing	31	99.7
B-wing	43	99.5
Auzituck	46	99.3
E-wing	60	101.6
TIE Bomber	31	99.9
TIE Punisher	34	98.7
StarWing	34	99.9
TIE Striker	33	98.2
TIE Interceptor	33	99.9
TIE Advanced ATC	43	99.4
TIE Phantom	43	98.6
TIE Defender	68	102.1
Kihraxz	42	100.3

So no FIVE.CARTEL.MARAUDERS.?

5*42= 210

20 minutes ago, RedHotDice said:

So no FIVE.CARTEL.MARAUDERS.?

5*42= 210

His numbers are as he admits "based on a great deal of estimation"

I like the work @Dengar5 has done and am very appreciative he admits fully that his numbers are a bit up in the air.

6 hours ago, RedHotDice said:

So no FIVE.CARTEL.MARAUDERS.?

5*42= 210

I believe they intentionally gave the kihraxz another hull so it would be costed 1 point below the X-wing at 42. It sets it apart from the mangler scyk, which very much should be 39-40 points for 5x in a list. I find it likely that mangler canons will only change to crit in the bullseye arc. Canons now getting range bonuses really helps the mangler scyk.

7 hours ago, Dengar5 said:

I don't take into account initiative for most ships because I1 & I2 has historically been effectively the same. For ships with generics at I3, that will affect the numbers slightly. TIE Phantom & Kimogila have I3 generics I believe. TIE Phantom cost is less certain because cloaking. 43-46 is a reasonable range. Whether the cheapest Defender is I1 or I4 it better be >67 points cause that thing is scary. In fact, I1 is scarier than I4 because only I1 pilots would be able to block it.

Haven’t paid too close attention but are I1 and I2 encompassing the same ships that were just PS 1 and 2? It seems like it would more likely be 1-3 and those haven’t really been costed the same and there’s also likely to be more variation in the new system at 200 points. Just a thought and there’s a lot of unknowns still, obviously.

I'm not publishing full results of my 2e analysis, but I will say that I am getting very different numbers. ? A 3/2/4/2 statline is not worth 43 points, even if it is IN2 and gets an efficiency bump over the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter.

3 hours ago, Dengar5 said:

I believe they intentionally gave the kihraxz another hull so it would be costed 1 point below the X-wing at 42. It sets it apart from the mangler scyk, which very much should be 39-40 points for 5x in a list. I find it likely that mangler canons will only change to crit in the bullseye arc. Canons now getting range bonuses really helps the mangler scyk.

Assuming mangler even comes back. Seems likely, but never know ?

4 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I'm not publishing full results of my 2e analysis, but I will say that I am getting very different numbers. ? A 3/2/4/2 statline is not worth 43 points, even if it is IN2 and gets an efficiency bump over the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter.

According to your "based on a great deal of estimation" math....

4 minutes ago, Icelom said:

According to your "based on a great deal of estimation"  math....  

Now you're just making stuff up. :-)

6 strikers or interceptors? Yikes.

Wat u mean I can only have 2 defenders?????!!!!!!!

ffs forum I only pressed the thing once, settle down

15 minutes ago, Hobojebus said:

Wat u mean I can only have 2 defenders?????!!!!!!!

Based on guessy math....

Take it all with a grain of salt, its a cool thing to think about but does not reflect what will actually be.

48 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I'm not publishing full results of my 2e analysis, but I will say that I am getting very different numbers. ? A 3/2/4/2 statline is not worth 43 points, even if it is IN2 and gets an efficiency bump over the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter.

If you dont publish numbers, then why write anything?

33 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I'm not publishing full results of my 2e analysis, but I will say that I am getting very different numbers. ? A 3/2/4/2 statline is not worth 43 points, even if it is IN2 and gets an efficiency bump over the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter.

Now that is useful feedback. Thanks! With my model, if I reduce X-wing cost to 40 points, TIE Fighter efficiency at 24 points becomes 94.6%. That's even with scaling back my early death variable. This may be okay if TIE Fighters are exclusively flown with Howlrunner. TIE Figher efficiency with Howlrunner is around 107%-110%. Plus Imperials have that other TIE pilot to keep Howlrunner from being one shotted now.

As you know, X-wings were bad even with integrated mostly because no repositioning. Now they have native barrel roll or boost & a linked boost into focus. Their dial is now near top tier for generics. X-wing dial > TIE Fighter dial. 5x X-wings with flight assist astromech in the final months of 1.0 should be solidly good. Even against a Ghost, Miranda, Quickdraw meta. None of the other 1.0 generics come close to Renegade X-wings. I would wager that FFG is experimenting with 5x X-wings to narrow done their final cost in 2.0. X-wings at 40 points could be fine as I really want average ship count to go up, but of course this would vastly change these ship cost estimates. If you don't release your cost estimates, I will control the narrative.

45 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Based on guessy math....

Take it all with a grain of salt, its a cool thing to think about but does not reflect what will actually be.

I’m not a math winger, but I fully expect the cheapest defender to be at least 67 points. The delta with x7 in 1e is 28 points. New defender keeps x7, gains blue turns and a (red) 2kx native evade action, native boost action. I could easily see a 1e delta being 34 points with the upgrades (if you just added the mods, shield is 4, engine is 4, tie mk2 is 1, which would be 37 points, though you don’t pay as much for built in stuff compared to upgrades).

And we don’t know if the delta is returning. We’ve only seen a i4 generic so far (closest equivalent would be the ps6 now, which is 32 after x7, before all the extra stuff). Wouldn’t be surprised if there was no i1 anymore since the defenders are supposed to be elite pulots

10 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

I’m not a math winger, but I fully expect the cheapest defender to be at least 67 points. The delta with x7 in 1e is 28 points. New defender keeps x7, gains blue turns and a (red) 2kx native evade action, native boost action. I could easily see a 1e delta being 34 points with the upgrades (if you just added the mods, shield is 4, engine is 4, tie mk2 is 1, which would be 37 points, though you don’t pay as much for built in stuff compared to upgrades).

And we don’t know if the delta is returning. We’ve only seen a i4 generic so far (closest equivalent would be the ps6 now, which is 32 after x7, before all the extra stuff). Wouldn’t be surprised if there was no i1 anymore since the defenders are supposed to be elite pulots

At its current ability in relation to the power level we've seen so far, I'd be pretty surprised to see 3 base Defenders fitting intova squad. 21 token stacked hit points with that kind of speed it crazy good. Offense is not outstanding, but defense across the board seems go be dropping.

If X-wings are at 40 points, 2.0 will be a very different game, which I'm totally okay with. Here are generic ship efficiencies with X-wings at 40.

Multiple 3-attack ships cross the threshold into 5x per list territory. (TIE Advanced, Kihraxz, Protectorate.) TIE Interceptor solidly crosses into 6x per list territory. 3x TIE Defenders would be okay with X-wings this cheap.

1 hour ago, Dengar5 said:

Now that is useful feedback. Thanks! With my model, if I reduce X-wing cost to 40 points, TIE Fighter efficiency at 24 points becomes 94.6%. That's even with scaling back my early death variable. This may be okay if TIE Fighters are exclusively flown with Howlrunner. TIE Figher efficiency with Howlrunner is around 107%-110%. Plus Imperials have that other TIE pilot to keep Howlrunner from being one shotted now.

As you know, X-wings were bad even with integrated mostly because no repositioning. Now they have native barrel roll or boost & a linked boost into focus. Their dial is now near top tier for generics. X-wing dial > TIE Fighter dial. 5x X-wings with flight assist astromech in the final months of 1.0 should be solidly good. Even against a Ghost, Miranda, Quickdraw meta. None of the other 1.0 generics come close to Renegade X-wings. I would wager that FFG is experimenting with 5x X-wings to narrow done their final cost in 2.0. X-wings at 40 points could be fine as I really want average ship count to go up, but of course this would vastly change these ship cost estimates. If you don't release your cost estimates, I will control the narrative  .  

I'm using the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter as the 100% efficient baseline, and pivoting everything around that. I'm not sure how your calculations are being done; the basic approach for mine is here . (It's been updated with a more robust action economy among other things, but you get the idea.)

X-wings with I.A. were bad because they weren't cost efficient enough, not because they lacked reposition. If you get access to single reposition it marginally decreases the target efficiency required to be "good", but not by much. Think around 5% for a single reposition; dual reposition arc dodgers are another story.

1 hour ago, RedHotDice said:

If you dont publish numbers, then why write anything? 

If his numbers are that far off then his approach is probably fundamentally wrong. I don't know what his approach is though, so I can only see his outputs.

Edit / P.S.: This isn't to say that his numbers won't be what FFG initially prices them at. I honestly have no idea how FFG determines their pricing.

8 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

I'm using the IN1 2/3/3/0 TIE Fighter as the 100% efficient baseline, and pivoting everything around that. I'm not sure how your calculations are being done; the basic approach for mine is here . 

I use a different simpler approach. Plus I disagree with some of the results of your ancient outdated Mathwing numbers. They have been a useful point of reference to confirm that my model is providing useful results. Here are some factors where I suspect our models differ:

• I discount 2-attack below 3-attack by a wider margin. The ratio between these two is highly subjective & open to interpretation.
• I use 3-attack ships as the baseline because it is the most common attack profile.
• With TLT gone, 3-agility is more valuable than ever. 1-agility is overvalued in original Mathwing.
• I apply an 'early death factor' to account for 1-shotted TIE fighters. This was a helpful breakthrough. It's a curve to devalue ships that die faster.

It would be interesting to know a cost estimate you have for one of the new mobile arc turrets. Your model is likely better at costing those.