In a perfect game, our tough ships would joust the opposing squad, our punchy ships would flank, and they would all converge on the same target on the same turn. Life is not perfect, of course. The opponent gets a vote, we plan imperfectly, and distance estimation can be incorrect. Consequently, we often have to prioritize either getting ships in an ideal position or getting all guns on the same target at the same time.

What makes you decide to prioritize one way or another?

Is this a decision you make during preparation for a game (squad building and theorizing openings)?

Is this a decision you make depending on what squad you have lined up against you on the table?

Generally I'll prioritise getting all guns pointing at a single target first, and other factors second. A strong opening offensive can dictate the shape of the rest of the game in a major way.

This isn't to say that positioning isn't important, and I got a lot of mileage out of my generic TIE Silencers in 1st Edition by sweeping them round and behind my opponent, but each shot you don't take in the opening exchange is a missed opportunity generally speaking. Obviously, there are some lists this works better for than others, that said!

For me it really depends on what I'm flying, and what I'm flying against. I've been flying Rexler Whisper and Soontir, all with Juke recently, so I need both positioning and coordination. Juke is mostly effective when it strips tokens early, so the evade can be used in defense, and the more guns on target the better... My overall strategy is to use whisper and fel on the flanks while I joust with Brath. If I fly gud, then they've all got guns on whatever I want to melt, but only Sexler is taking incoming shots. Starting setup is usually Whisper far left facing far right, Rexler dead center facing a roid alley, and Fel far right facing far left. Depending on how the opponent moves the first few turns, I can stall Brath by k-turning twice, bringing one ace in to support him, and running the other ace up the side and around the back. If they go after the flanker, then I hit them broadside with the other two. Having Brath shoot last is also so fun for collecting salty tears.

So yeah.

tl;dr - both? Seems fine.

I tend to lean into "attrition lists". Basically highly efficient lists with the goal of wearing you down and removing more points from the table than you can remove from me. I don't plan for an alpha strike nor do I have any closers. With that in mind my list is built going into any tournament/match. That thinking is done. When I see what is across the table from me I have to figure out what is my greatest threat and what has to die first. Sometimes that's a quad jumper that I don't want messing with my 3 health ships. Sometimes that is Redline that I don't want jamming proton torps down my throat more than once. Sometimes it's Fenn or Vader that think they can get behind me. I have to decide on how to deploy my squad and then the first 1-2 turns are critical for feeling out engagement lanes.

I put a majority of my planning and thought into that first real engagement. After that scrum, see what is left alive and figure it out from there.

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

If I have to pick one, it's positioning because I tend to fly stuff with at least one ace-like closer.

What makes you decide to prioritize one way or another? - I feel it's relatively easy to get all guns on one target. It can be hard to do that and not be hosed after the initial engagement.

Is this a decision you make during preparation for a game (squad building and theorizing openings)? - Not while squad building, just in general.

Is this a decision you make depending on what squad you have lined up against you on the table? - Yes. Speed of opposing ships often helps dictate my setup and my plan for the first 2 turns. After turn 2, I figure all plans are useless. If I'm allowed to execute a plan after turn 2, I'm probably already ahead.

But surely a lot of the time ideal positioning IS to get all your guns on the same target as the same time?

49 minutes ago, SOTL said:

But surely a lot of the time ideal positioning IS to get all your guns on the same target as the same time?

*While not being fired upon in return.

58 minutes ago, SOTL said:

But surely a lot of the time ideal positioning IS to get all your guns on the same target as the same time?

That's obviously not the primary goal, as it is typically much easier to have all your attacks on the same target by movong your ships together. The primary goal of positioning seems to be controlling which of your ships is getting shot by the opponent's squad.

For me it depends on what my list is and is trying to do. Also goes to what my opponents list appears to want to do. While I prefer to focus fire, it may come down to the lesser of evils, preferring minimizing incoming fire instead. Usually I get a point where part of my list does focused fire while another element is avoiding or coordinating as needed.

I've been flying very mobile lists lately (TIE Interceptors/Phantoms mainly), so more than anything I'm working towards having good positioning. My squads tend to run in two separate pairs of wingmen that gives me the ability to flank with one pair while the other jousts/distracts. This means that I'm usually not working towards a coordinated attack on one ship- I try to give my ships the best combination of offensive striking and defensive mods that I can, while taking potshots at available targets. This does lead to slightly less effective attacking, as I switch each pair of wingman to the best target for them.

3 hours ago, Biophysical said:

In a perfect game, our tough ships would joust the opposing squad, our punchy ships would flank, and they would all converge on the same target on the same turn. Life is not perfect, of course. The opponent gets a vote, we plan imperfectly, and distance estimation can be incorrect. Consequently, we often have to prioritize either getting ships in an ideal position or getting all guns on the same target at the same time.

What makes you decide to prioritize one way or another?

Is this a decision you make during preparation for a game (squad building and theorizing openings)?

Is this a decision you make depending on what squad you have lined up against you on the table?

I find that they feed each other and the planning for both happens before turn 0 (before obstacles are placed). Obstacles help you achieve both position and coordination by forcing your opponent to move where you want them - give them two clear choices for movement and plan for each path accordingly.

I like having a flanker so I typically time my movement of my jousters to work with my faster moving flanker (roll in slow with jousters so they hit at the same time as my flanker for maximum effect and some hard decisions for my opponent). It's really just my standard "hammer and anvil" arrangement. This can easily be modified for peculiar moves from my opponent. Recently, 4-lom puling barrel rolls constantly caused me some fits as I kept forgetting he could do that, so it threw off my position game, which, in turn, through off my coordination game. It really pays to understand what your opponent can do so you leave yourself options to make up for their tactics.

32 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

That's obviously not the primary goal, as it is typically much easier to have all your attacks on the same target by movong your ships together. The primary goal of positioning seems to be controlling which of your ships is getting shot by the opponent's squad.

Disagree entirely.

Positioning. Swarms and alpha strikes are the theme of my store. I've learned to divide and conquer: keep the rocks tight, stay in them, don't let my ships cluster together, but close enough to support each other.

Elusive is also a fantastic ability for X-wings and really any sub-3 agility ship.

In principle there are four ways how your troops can converge on the opponent, but in X-wing they overlap so strongly that it makes no differently think about all four.

1. Mass: Your own ships can be physically massed together with respect to positioning - think of the TIE swarm moving as block.
2. Firepower: Your firing arcs can converge but the ships are not necessarily together - think of the rebel/scum swarms.
3. Tempo: Your ships can be at entirely different places and all reach the same spot (with firing arc OR their own position) at the same time.
4. Maneuver: Your ships can converge from different points to a single position, again firing arc or poisiton wise - think of the flanker.

Obviously firing arcs should always overlap. The only reason to use a block formation for TIE swarms without Howlrunner (something that was done, the 8 TIE swarm) is that it makes the other three trivial - they will always converge in position, time and firing arcs if they are at almost the same spot.

The question what to prioritize depends on the type of ship/list.

50 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The question what to prioritize depends on the type of ship/list.

True. It also depends upon who you are facing in combat. An important question that I ask myself at the start of the game is: Which squad has the bigger D**k? (who wins in a straight up joust)

If you can't match the firepower of your opponent's full squad, you need to be the mouse for a bit and run from the cat. You have to break up the formation or try for hit and run attacks. One of the reasons that I like ionization is that it lets you break up squads of alpha strikers. If your squad can't beat the enemy's firepower AND it can't rely on mobility, then your only option is to have enough numbers such that you can sacrifice a ship or two to enemy fire and still come out on top.

5 hours ago, Jarval said:

Generally I'll prioritise getting all guns pointing at a single target first, and other factors second. A strong opening offensive can dictate the shape of the rest of the game in a major way.

That's me, too. I cannot stand to have shots at me without me having shots back. Part of that is psychological -- who cares if your 2-die attack against my 3-AGI guy with Focus+Evade goes unanswered? I do! -- but part of it is just good sense. Forcing opponents to make decisions is a big part of the game, and no decision is easier than whether to spend a Focus token when you're not taking any return fire.

6 hours ago, Biophysical said:

In a perfect game, our tough ships would joust the opposing squad, our punchy ships would flank, and they would all converge on the same target on the same turn. Life is not perfect, of course. The opponent gets a vote, we plan imperfectly, and distance estimation can be incorrect. Consequently, we often have to prioritize either getting ships in an ideal position or getting all guns on the same target at the same time.

What makes you decide to prioritize one way or another?

Is this a decision you make during preparation for a game (squad building and theorizing openings)?

Is this a decision you make depending on what squad you have lined up against you on the table?

Barring some over-powered mechanic that creates a linear game, position is everything. I refuse to give my opponent a better shot than he's giving up. Obviously, that doesn't work against something like Ghost Fenn where the games break down into very linear decisions. I've flown around all game, never shooting, to get better shots than I'd give up, just to kill an isolated Y-Wing in the end.

4 hours ago, Biophysical said:

That's obviously not the primary goal, as it is typically much easier to have all your attacks on the same target by movong your ships together. The primary goal of positioning seems to be controlling which of your ships is getting shot by the opponent's squad.

I disagree. Their best target remains their best target whether you make it ideal for them to shoot at or not. If they're good, they'll know what to prioritize. That means if you can engage the right ship, they're making sure they can engage the right ship, regardless of which one you make easier to hit.

1 minute ago, AceWing said:

I disagree. Their best target remains their best target whether you make it ideal for them to shoot at or not.

You think so? In 1.0 terms, is it smart for someone to shoot at tokened up Fel at Range 3 when a Lambda is at Range 2? Fel is the ship that wins the game, typically, but shot a against him in a lot of contexts are effectively nothing.

6 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

You think so? In 1.0 terms, is it smart for someone to shoot at tokened up Fel at Range 3 when a Lambda is at Range 2? Fel is the ship that wins the game, typically, but shot a against him in a lot of contexts are effectively nothing.

Against old Palp Aces, the ideal ship to target was the shuttle because your chances of hitting anything before Palpatine died was very small. I would often ignore attacking Fel completely because I wasn't gaining enough for my efforts. You can keep your Fel as long as I've killed more points in the end. Fel's a wet noodle. It's easy to ignore attacking him.

Much of the time, it was smarter to keep the shuttle back so you could guarantee more shots and protect your virtual point fortress, Palpatine, longer. If the shuttle would be a good blocker, it made more sense to bring him up earlier. Let them shoot at Fel early. It's a waste of time. You might steal a HP or two while they're wasting their time.

I think speaking in 1.0 terms might be a trap nowadays. Half points has too much of an impact.

5 hours ago, SOTL said:

But surely a lot of the time ideal positioning IS to get all your guns on the same target as the same time?

I think ideal positioning is creating an advantage in an engagement. That doesn't always mean all guns on the same target. For example, if I'm playing Boba/Fenn and my opponent goes for Fenn, who jets out of all arcs while Boba has a shot with no return fire, then I've created an advantage. Ideally, I wanted both Boba and Fenn to fire with better shots than my opponent, but my opponent has a say in that matter.

I guess my real disagreement is the differentiation between positioning and coordination. If you're not positioning in a coordinated effort to gain an advantage, your just flying around aimlessly.

If you're coordinating an attack without good positioning, you're opening yourself up to getting blindsided.

I think they're two sides of the same coin, flying well. All your maneuvers should be both at the same time.

This is more of a wave two question, "What's the best way to joust?" I would say don't joust unless you're a heavy ordnance list.

9 minutes ago, AceWing said:

I guess my real disagreement is the differentiation between positioning and coordination. If you're not positioning in a coordinated effort to gain an advantage, your just flying around aimlessly.

If you're coordinating an attack without good positioning, you're opening yourself up to getting blindsided.

I think they're two sides of the same coin, flying well. All your maneuvers should be both at the same time.

I think the first paragraph from @Biophysical 's original post clarifies that some. Sometimes one does have to make a decision to either:

1. Concentrate on a target, but at greater risk than you might prefer
2. Err on the side of caution, which means less convergence on a target.

We all know this still a dice game and bad things happen. Should I dive in with Boba/Fenn and assume variance will be at least average, which would give me an advantage after a PS kill, or do I slowroll/bug out, which is less risky?

1) You take the risk if the likelihood of the payoff is greater than the likelihood of the risk going south, not whether it's comfortable. That's easy to figure out.

2) I don't think it's smart to make decisions based on aggression/caution. You should determine them all by risk assessment. You should ask if you're getting more than you're giving up.

When I make maneuver decisions, I wonder if they're going to make a certain maneuver over another and I just break it down. If their list is doing such and such, how can I move my ships so it's better for me? There's usually only 1-3 real moves to consider for a ship. The rest are ridiculous. If it's too hard for me to figure out which of their moves is more likely, I say **** it and bail in a way to set up another set of moves where I can get an advantage. So, to me, all good maneuvers are simultaneously positional and coordinated.

Okay.