So, I'm thinking about the Ginivex as my next target for a homebrew post. The main idea I have involves its deflector shields, and I need someone who can calculate the expected damage (or rather, damage mitigation) of a certain effect.

While you defend, before you roll defense dice, you may lose one shield. If you do, you may reroll two attack dice. After the attack is resolved, regain one shield.

I'm certainly open to adjusting this ability quite significantly. This is basically a first draft.

Also I'll admit that I saw 'deflector shield' on the wiki and totally forgot that it basically just refers to a bog-standard shield, as opposed to a 'shield that deflects projectiles as opposed to absorbing them'. Nevertheless, when the fanblade is fanned out, its target silhouette obviously gets bigger, but this is apparently a benefit to its survival in space combat. This is my interpretation of that benefit. You can read about it here .

Even without the math I can tell that ability is insanely strong, literally every time the ship defends until it is destroyed it gets to reroll 2 of the attackers dice if it wants, that’s extremely powerful as a passive defensive modifier.

Any ships without any attacking mods would struggle to scratch the paint unless this ability was limited to ships with 1 or less agility.

Basic math would dictate that if used on 2 dice showing hits or crits and your opponent has no mod they are only going to reroll into 1 damage mitigating 1 damage, or 1.5 damage mitigating 0.5 damage if the attacker has attacking mods. The only negative is you are potentially more likely to suffer a critical damage that you would have normally depending on how many shields you had at the time. the massive positive is that you are far more likely to suffer less damage overall as a result of using the ability.

M9-G8 has a limiting restriction to only 1 ship that you have a lock on, only affects one dice and costs 7 points, this effect would need to cost more 20+ points if it had no limitations.

Really strange ability, IMHO. Incredibly complicated, with spending shields, rerolling attack dice (always complicated as an ability, since it stops an opponent from using their locks effectively), gaining back shields. Does it reroll up to 2 dice, or reroll exactly two dice? There's a huge difference. Dice-****-ing is also a really annoying mechanic to play against. Dice can be so fickle in this game, having your good results removed is always a FeelsBadMan moment, even if it isn't mathematically much stronger than something else, and I think it's best to avoid it.

It's also kind of thematically a mess. Spending shields to reroll dice also means that you'll take crits on the chin, which doesn't seem fitting with a ship design that's supposed to represent "stronger deflector shields." Also, is the ship flapping open and closed like a bird when it faces some attacks, but not other attacks? Spending shields somewhat gives the ship a switching feeling that doesn't feel right in this sense. I just don't like it. If you want to thematically capture flapping, do a configuration like an X-Wing. Maybe make "Stealth Mode" essentially a closed S-Foils like a T-70--extra movement actions, but reduced attack dice outside of Bullseye.

However the combat mode works (whether the ship is on a flip configuration like an X-Wing, or just always in combat mode), I'd have it be a permanent rather than triggered ability. The theme of larger target profile, but stronger shields seems like it'd be worth exploring lower agility but consistent defenses. If it's a flip-config, be sure to reduce the agility in Combat Mode, otherwise just start with a low agility for a ship like this. There's a lot of ways to go. Reroll your own defense dice, add a result, turn a die, whatever.

If it's an Always-Combat-Mode ship, maybe do something wild like give it Reinforce tokens really easily. After executing a maneuver, like Full Throttle, or linked white Reinforce actions after everything like how the TIE/sf can link to a rotate after any normal action, but give it an absolutely trash defensive statline. 1-agility and 4 -health with a reinforce is about as tough as a 2-agility, 5-health ship. 1-agility and 5-health would be roughly comparable in toughness to an X-Wing or a TIE/x1 in durability, which would be kinda reasonable. There's no real potential to high-roll, and you'll be extra-vulnerable from the flank (which makes sense: that's when the fan is biggest), but it'd have a really different feel to any other ship like it.

//

I know you came here for math stuff for your own ship concept, but it got me thinking about my own.

Statline: 3 red dice (standard V arc... or a full 180 degree arc? that'd also be spicy), 1 agility, 2 hull, 3 shields.

Actions: Focus > White Reinforce, Evade > White Reinforce, Lock > White Reinforce, Boost > White Reinforce (this thing seems more like a booster than a roller).

Upgrades: Maybe just Talent when applicable. Mods seem inappropriate, due to low agility leading to radically under-priced Hull and Shield Upgrades for the toughness they'd provide. Lore-wise it doesn't really seem to have secondary weapons or crew/gunners. Maybe a System slot, so they don't get too boring, but maybe not.

Dial: Something kinda like an X-Wing or TIE Bomber, with no hard 1 (this thing doesn't look hard-1, and CIS already have the Belbullab which does it) but hard 2 and 3, all the banks, straights from 1 to 4, with nothing exceptional in the blues.

Configuration/Ship Ability: A config doesn't make sense in this version of a Ginivex Concept, and I don't think it needs a ship ability.

Just to clarify, this effect was intended for an s-foil-like card, where the side that this appeared on would reduce the ship's agility by 1 (from 3).

I ain't ever been of the receiving end of M9-G8 so I didn't quite see the issue of screwing with people's post-modified dice (and boy does writing it out make it seem obvious). Yeah that doesn't sound like a good time.

My thought was that it would reduce the damage of the attack by 1 on average, and while I did mean 'up to' 2 attack dice, perhaps 'exactly' 2 would be fairer in some circumstances? Or even better, only 1?

Regardless, perhaps I'll ditch the attack dice angle in favor of a reinforce interaction proposed by theBitterFig.

The other awkward thing about rerolling your opponent's attack dice: every so often, you'll reroll their hits into crits. And then the crits will go through. It's never fun.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

The other awkward thing about rerolling your opponent's attack dice: every so often, you'll reroll their hits into crits. And then the crits will go through. It's never fun.

Well that was one aspect I was hoping would help balance it out; the risk/reward factor. Regardless, making the hull vulnerable to damage still doesn't exactly make sense for a deflector shield ability so yeah, it's best to scrap the attack dice interaction.

15 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Dial: Something kinda like an X-Wing or TIE Bomber, with no hard 1 (this thing doesn't look hard-1, and CIS already have the Belbullab which does it) but hard 2 and 3, all the banks, straights from 1 to 4, with nothing exceptional in the blues.

Also I really can't imagine this ship with a dial like that. It very much comes off like an interceptor to me, and has similar technology to Dooku's solar sailor which is known for its agility.

19 hours ago, Prosk_019 said:

While you defend, before you roll defense dice, you may lose one shield. If you do, you may reroll two attack dice. After you defend, regain one shield.

Careful of the language here... Because there is a period separating the two sentences, you don't have to resolve the first effect to trigger the second. So, as it stands, this is absurdly powerful as you gain a shield every time you defend... even if the attacker misses...

1 hour ago, Samriis said:

Careful of the language here... Because there is a period separating the two sentences, you don't have to resolve the first effect to trigger the second. So, as it stands, this is absurdly powerful as you gain a shield every time you defend... even if the attacker misses...

Ah dang, youve caught me. The ability is actually intended for use by my OC, Zacch Blitzfyre. Cyborg pilot with initiative 8.5 that recharges his shields every time he is attacked. Then he can perform an attack but it doesnt count as an attack for the purpose of other effects

(Thanks for pointing that out, will make sure to change)

I've got another effect I'd like to trial with people. If anyone knows how to calculate the outcome and see if it's worth using, I'd appreciate the info!

Fire-linked cannons: While you perform a primary attack, you may roll one fewer die. If you do, you may perform another primary attack against the same target, rolling one fewer die. (Attack value is 3)

Unique pilot: While attacking, if the defender rolled more defense dice than you rolled attack dice, they cannot modify one focus result of your choosing.

17 hours ago, Prosk_019 said:

Fire-linked cannons: While you perform a primary attack, you may roll one fewer die. If you do, you may perform another primary attack against the same target, rolling one fewer die. (Attack value is 3)

Needs rewording for a variety of reasons ('bonus' attack and the timing of when the second attack is made) but it's basically swapping one 3-dice attack for a pair of 2-dice attacks, much like you often get from a dorsal turret-armed Y-wing. The rules are slightly awkward because it requires you to 'remember' that you rolled less dice from the beginning of the attack to (presumably) the end of the attack, as opposed to the normal "if X then immediately Y" approach that X-wing rules normally to achieve.

As to cost:

Hard to say for definite, because there's no exact precedent to use. But I'd argue the difference in value is actually pretty small. For the sake of argument, look at Special Forces Gunner versus veteran turret Gunner - the TIE/sf can't actually equip the latter but that's purely because all its rotate actions are linked, not 'normal' actions.

If it could equip both, SF gunner would turn its 2-dice attack into a 3-dice attack when the mobile arc was forward, whilst veteran gunner would turn its 2-dice attack into a double-tap attack when the mobile arc was forward. They're identical if the arc was backwards.

The cost of the two is basically the same (10 for SpecFor gunner, 8 for Veteran gunner).

Ultimately, I'm not sure if the difference in effectiveness between a 2-dice double-tap and a 3-dice single attack is enough to make it a particularly worthwhile upgrade.

17 hours ago, Prosk_019 said:

Unique pilot: While attacking, if the defender rolled more defense dice than you rolled attack dice, they cannot modify one focus result of your choosing.

Um...This seems like a weird rule. Since a focus result you can't modify basically just sits there, choosing a die and saying you can't modify it seems like the long way round to achieve an effect (and again, why do I need to remember that this die is the one I can't touch?). A simpler rule in practice might be:

"Whilst attacking, after rolling defence dice, if there are more defence dice than attack dice, you may cancel one of the defender's focus results."

Double-taps like this are generally a pretty decent improvement. Presuming a focused attacker against an unfocused defender, 2-dice double attacks are worse against 3+ green dice, the same against 2 green dice, and significantly better against 1 or 0 green dice. It's also significantly better at range 1, where two 3-dice attacks are far better than 4 dice--and even a little better against 4 green dice rolled.

As an upgrade or ship ability, I don't really like it, however. The choice between rolling 3 dice once or 2 dice twice seems superfluous and adds complication. I'd just make it a 2 red dice ship or weapon, and give it the ability to perform a bonus attack after attacking. That'd be a lot cleaner language, and while there are some edge cases where the weapon is worse, I think that's fine.

• As a ship ability: "After you perform a primary attack, you may perform a bonus primary attack."
• As a cannon upgrade: "ATTACK : After this attack, you may perform this attack as bonus attack."
  • I'd probably expect at least an 8 point cost as a cannon. It's generally a benefit even to a 3-dice ship, so it'd be a MASSIVE improvement to an M3-A/Scyk or any other 2-dice ship with a cannon. Dang... thinking about it also on an Upsilon Shuttle, that's nasty. Two 3-dice shots are already better than one 4-dice shot mostly, and two 4-dice range 1 shots are going to be a lot better than one 5-dice attack.
    • Edit* And absolutely sickening on an XG-1 Gunboat...
  • Actually, I think such a thing as a cannon probably just shouldn't be printed in X-Wing. Maybe as a chassis-locked cannon upgrade, but not open to everything.

Anyhow, the preset attack calculators at Gate of Storms can handle the bonus attack stuff pretty well.

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=AQAAAAAAAAAA&a1=AAsAAA

//

I'm with @Magnus Grendel on the Unique Pilot front. Preventing one specific die from being modified is awkward, and it might be better for the attacker to modify a die directly. I'd probably turn an Eye to a Blank rather than cancel--nearly the same, but allows rerolls or Evade results, so there's a bit more counter-play.

Thank you very much for the feedback! In case it wasn't obvious, this effect is intended for use by the rogue-class fighter, and pretty much its only distinguishing feature chassis-wise is the fire-linked cannons. I was struggling with how to represent a fire-linked cannon effect in the game and this is one of the only ways I can think to do it.

On 9/11/2019 at 6:35 PM, theBitterFig said:

The choice between rolling 3 dice once or 2 dice twice seems superfluous and adds complication. I'd just make it a 2 red dice ship or weapon, and give it the ability to perform a bonus attack after attacking. That'd be a lot cleaner language, and while there are some edge cases where the weapon is worse, I think that's fine.

I actually thought about the extra layer of complexity added to attacks and how you'd need to know which is the most effective for each engagement could be a problem. This one is much better, thanks.

On 9/11/2019 at 3:17 PM, Magnus Grendel said:

Um...This seems like a weird rule. Since a focus result you can't modify basically just sits there, choosing a die and saying you can't modify it seems like the long way round to achieve an effect (and again, why do I need to remember that this die is the one I can't touch?).

Didn't really think the wording through, pretty sure part of me thought it would help to future-proof in some way. It's meant to aid the reduced attack dice of the fire-linked cannons against high agility ships in a way that's slanted against force users (cause Magnaguards). Your wording still absolutely nails that so, much appreciated.

On 9/11/2019 at 6:35 PM, theBitterFig said:

I'd probably turn an Eye to a Blank rather than cancel--nearly the same, but allows rerolls or Evade results, so there's a bit more counter-play.

I like counter play. Will consider.

I may as well turn this thread into a a 'gimme feedback on homebrew ideas please'. Think I'll do that if I need help again.