On another thread ( here ) it was suggested that 'hard priority choices' as a list building strategy 'doesn't work.'

I wanted to engage on that subject, but rather than taking that thread off its original topic (Nora + 3PO odds) I thought it better to start a new topic.

One way to look at it is in reverse. If a list has a very obvious targeting priority, does that matter? It certainly can do. If there's some synergy that requires a specific ship to survive for instance.

Another way of looking at it is that 'hard priority choices' often means multiple significant threats - and that's hardly a bad thing.

@Blail Blerg - what is it that you see / mean when you say 'hard priority choices' as a way of thinking about lists 'doesn't work'?

I think it is.

It is down the list of things I think about, but once I have a list written I do consider who my opponant would go for, and who I wouldn't mind 'sacrificing' to keep the others safe.

Also sometimes card combos make for fun, hard choices. For example if you fly Quickdraw and Phasma together. Will they shoot at Phasma, not do as much damage, and trigger Quickdraw. Or do they shoot at Quickdraw anyway, trigger her ability, and leave Phasma untouched to do as she pleases?

It's not something you'd hinge your list on (and shouldn't) but it's an extra level of making your opponant make decisions. The more decisions they have to make, the more oppertunities for mistakes/bad choices.

If you are not considering who your opponent will consider top priority in a competitive game, then you are leaving out a major component of what makes some lists work and others fail.

I just had a prime example of this is building a couple lists for the Seperatists. I wanted to try out the Nantex ships in hyperspace with Gravitic Deflection, just because "why not?" My first thought was to have Maul fly alongside a mini GD Nantex swarm, which worked ok, but had some room for improvement. I switched Maul out for a couple Hyena bombers and the list utterly failed. The bombers became the highest target priority over the mini-swarm and were unable to maintain that threat for long. The bombers lacked the health and maneuverability to survive long enough for the Nantex to come around and pressure from the flank. I then switched the bombers out for Dooku and the list all of a sudden gained some teeth. Dooku became the big threat on the board so the Nantex had the ability to take advantage of the distraction and swing around for flanking and blocking which helped Dooku become even more effective in his attacks. Having them all at the same initiative also helped how the list interacted with each other. I'm not saying this list is competitive, but I have enjoyed flying it and had some success with it (and it makes a good example).

List building is all about trying to find a good synergy between your ships and how your ships will work against a variety of opponents. Considering who your opponent will target first, or who you will feed first to your opponent to attack, is all part of a strategy you should take into consideration when preparing what ships and upgrades to put into a list. It is impossible to prepare for every outcome, but I consider preparing for the initial engagement to be a big part of list building.

I forget who wrote the article Turn 0, but it laid out the fundamental preparation needed to win a game before it even starts.

https://midwestscrub.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/before-setting-dials-a-turn-zero-guide-part-i/

I think it's a big factor in list building, but not weighted in any general direction.

As in, when you build a list, you have to understand your opponents target priority very clearly. Making it a hard decision for them is only one of the ways you can go.

Harder does not equal better. You can play into whatever balance you like. The effectiveness of whatever tactic you choose is down to how well you understand the decisions your opponent may make and how you then position yourself to take advantage.

Ultimately, if you position something badly, it will likely become priority no.1, no matter how valuable.

I don’t know if it’s a priority, but if I can I like to make it tough on my opponent where whoever they go after it’s a tough choice they get punished for. Which may be why my list type gravitates to “Ace plus spammy friends”. You go after the ace, the spam waltzes up unopposed. You go after the spam, and the ace flanks.

21 minutes ago, dunhop said:

I forget who wrote the article Turn 0

That's a Matt Cary article (says so in the intro )

21 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

You can play into whatever balance you like.

I think this is right. Sloan lists for example. The carrier is obviously a targeting priority so you fly it to make it hard for them to get to and take down whatever is carrying Sloan.

4 minutes ago, eljms said:

I think this is right. Sloan lists for example. The carrier is obviously a targeting priority so you fly it to make it hard for them to get to and take down whatever is carrying Sloan.

This. I think if you have "hard targeting priority" then it should affect the way YOU fly the list, not how your opponent flies against you. If your stuff appears more like targets of opportunity, likely you are spreading out damage and not losing ships as fast as they are.

I don't necessarily know what the benefit is. Is it to be mentally taxing? I think it'd be easy to just not overthink things. Like, if I can't figure out whether I should attack Norra or Luke, I'll just attach whoever I've got a better shot on. Not sure where to approach? Just approach from the most flexible, safest vector. It isn't as if it's going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

On the other hand, having a list which can punish an enemy for committing to going after one ship or another seems handy. I've been getting more and more interested in Advanced Optics on 3-red dice generics. Go after them, and you're committing to fighting generics, and like Rey or Kylo gets free reign. Those are ships which can punish. However, ignore the Optics buddies, and they'll hit about as hard as ships with Outmaneuver would.

I dunno. Just fly good ships. That seems like the place to start.

Absolutely

Without a doubt. Knowing who your highest value target/unit is, is absolutely a fundamental aspect of list building. It's, frankly, why I've been so keen on generics as of late.

I like to play a Deci with Admiral Sloane and 4 TIEs in casual games. Obviously, if the Deci dies quickly, that list will not be dangerous at all. So I thought about how to work around that and came up with the idea of flying the Deci along the edge of the board and the TIES beside them so my opponents would have a hard time flanking and getting into R1 from the side where reinforce doesn't work and I performed a lot better. Killing the Deci was more difficult that way and killing the TIEs first would result in Sloane triggering, which was often far worse than the TIE surviving.

So I would say hard target priority could work depending on the ships and the possibility to force poor decisions by flying accordingly. Just having lots of ships of similar cost and effectiveness certainly doesn't work, because hard target priority often means that there is no priority target, which makes flying easier for your opponent.

It also helps to have an idea how each ship in your list would handle the endgame. Soontir Fel and Fenn Rau are stronger endgame ships than someone like Cassian Andor.

59 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I'll just attack whoever I've got a better shot on.

Most shot priority is exactly this. There's no point shooting at the biggest, baddest thing if you're not likely to hurt it, when a schmuck is just sitting there waiting to die.

So whether you build priorities into your list or not, you gotta put them in places where they can force awkward decisions, or it's pointless.

It's totally dependent on manoeuvring. There's the bait, there's the trap, etc. Remembering that the actual bait is still going to be whoever looks like they'll be easiest to damage. I think this is where it becomes slightly redundant to focus too hard on the build/theory.

I vaguely favour clearer target choices. I like to know who my opponent would prefer to go for. Not too clear though, indecision is a useful ally....

The same general effect can be achieved with identical ships across the list. Here is the easier target.... etc. It's just a little more binary and doesn't play on indecision a great deal.

7 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

I think this is where it becomes slightly redundant to focus too hard on the build/theory.

In general I agree with this, with at least one caveat. There are some lists that simply won't work because they depend on a ship that a good opponent will prioritize and take off the board. Or at the very least, are not as effective as maybe you think it should be. Ships where the ability requires you to be in formation etc. So, something like Howlrunner or Jonus (and hear me right, I'm not trying to say these are bad pilots), are obvious targeting priorities, that are hard to use as bait, and will be targeted first. You have to be thinking about that when you're theorizing. I.e. are my bombers ever going to get those rerolls or will Jonus be initiative killed. Ditto academy ties with Howlrunner.

Just extending this thought, does including something like Pure Sabacc in a list with Jonus + Bombers, or Howlrunner + TIEs qualify as 'hard targeting priority' because ordinarily there's multiple things you probably want to shoot first? And if so, does that help make it good?

18 minutes ago, eljms said:

In general I agree with this, with at least one caveat. There are some lists that simply won't work because they depend on a ship that a good opponent will prioritize and take off the board. Or at the very least, are not as effective as maybe you think it should be. Ships where the ability requires you to be in formation etc. So, something like Howlrunner or Jonus (and hear me right, I'm not trying to say these are bad pilots), are obvious targeting priorities, that are hard to use as bait, and will be targeted first. You have to be thinking about that when you're theorizing. I.e. are my bombers ever going to get those rerolls or will Jonus be initiative killed. Ditto academy ties with Howlrunner.

Oh I agree, I just mean it's worth pulling up short of the 'Can this priority pickle swing me the game?' rabbit hole.

Because that's not how the force works

51 minutes ago, eljms said:

Just extending this thought, does including something like Pure Sabacc in a list with Jonus + Bombers, or Howlrunner + TIEs qualify as 'hard targeting priority' because ordinarily there's multiple things you probably want to shoot first? And if so, does that help make it good?

Yes? Honestly, i find it a bit difficult to think about as an abstract concept in terms of specific lists. It's throwing me off a little

In practically all of my lists, there's a blend of threats. I think of it more in terms of squad balance at that point. Which ties in to what each part is capable of, how I can position them relative to each other and where their combined strengths are. How does the list stand up with this piece, or this piece gone.... and so on.

My opponents will vary greatly, their priorities and decisions will not all be the same. I assess priorities more fully when the squad is finished, on the table and looking at hostile fire. My own target priorities will then interact with theirs and become 'the game'.

When list building, I consider if I'm creating a big bullseye on something, and then how I can make use of it in the rest of the list. And if I can't do that easily with the things I want to use, I jiggle a few parts to make the bullseye smaller. Or maybe I fancy TRIPLE THREAT. It's as simple as that really, just a choice. On the table, it deepens .

If you move into things I don't generally use or really understand, like Jonas in a much a*sekick blob, you maybe just have a single massive threat that intends to plow all before it and DGAF about priority. Yeah, Jonas is dead, so is all your stuff.

5 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Most shot priority is exactly this. There's no point shooting at the biggest, baddest thing if you're not likely to hurt it, when a schmuck is just sitting there waiting to die.

So whether you build priorities into your list or not, you gotta put them in places where they can force awkward decisions, or it's pointless.

It's totally dependent on manoeuvring. There's the bait, there's the trap, etc. Remembering that the actual bait is still going to be whoever looks like they'll be easiest to damage. I think this is where it becomes slightly redundant to focus too hard on the build/theory.

I vaguely favour clearer target choices. I like to know who my opponent would prefer to go for. Not too clear though, indecision is a useful ally....

The same general effect can be achieved with identical ships across the list. Here is the easier target.... etc. It's just a little more binary and doesn't play on indecision a great deal.

Hi @eljms thanks for asking. It’s a long conversation. Lemme prepare.

Shorthand it looks a little like what cuz said above.

—

its kind of interesting also to let other people talk first here. As I’m going to note that my opinion is going to be nearly opposite most already stated. I’ll provide reasoning best I can. And people who want to change their mind will have the knowledge to do so if they feel it’s right.

Absolutely

Edit:

Okay, to elaborate a bit...

There are certain ships in this game whose value can widely swing depending on how longs they last, how many rounds they get shots on target, how many shots it takes to remove them from the board and so forth.

A few examples that I have a great deal of experience with is 7th Sister and RAC.

7th Sister is in a fragile (4hp) 2 Die attack ship, middling Pilot skill ship which is reliant on maneuvering, actiona and force points to keep alive. She is actually very tanky with a 2 Force, 1 Evade, and 3 Evade dice. However, if your opponent chooses to ignore her (target priority), she suddenly becomes very lethal, as she can commit her Force points to Offense via her pilot ability and remove offensive variance or remove evade results.

If she is ignored or not is a great factor in how much value you get from her before she is destroyed.

On the other end of the spectrum is RAC. He is a high HP target that depends on Reinforce or some maneuvering skill (Jerjerrod) to keep alive, but honestly, if your opponent wants to focus on 2E RAC, they will. 2E RAC is not 1E RAC, and people claiming he is an arc-dodger are not caught up.

However! RAC is an absolute beast of a closer. If you focus on RAC early in the game when you have your full offensive capability, he melts fairly easily. If you wait until we are 1 v 1, and you are facing my full health RAC with a single Ace, I have won the game, already .

This is why target priority is so important. If you choose to focus on RAC, then I get so much more value than the points I spend on 7th Sister inflicting damage on your ships. If you choose to not focus on RAC, then he makes it to the endgame with so much more health and you are falling into a trap.

13 hours ago, eljms said:

One way to look at it is in reverse. If a list has a very obvious targeting priority, does that matter? It certainly can do. If there's some synergy that requires a specific ship to survive for instance.

Another way of looking at it is that 'hard priority choices' often means multiple significant threats - and that's hardly a bad thing.

@Blail Blerg - what is it that you see / mean when you say 'hard priority choices' as a way of thinking about lists 'doesn't work'?

So for me personally, I don’t consider target priorities until a list is finished. Sure some ships are a bit more obvious, but often a player is using said ship as a distraction to a different key threat or component. Some list are intentionally set up so there is no priority target such as 4/5 X-wings all kitted out the same. Often in games a key component is me looking at what a key threat is, is different than what my opponent sees.

If you plan for say Luke to be the threat that opponents go after and want to use another ship as your true threat and your opponent says Luke is tough but that other ship actually is the threat to their list and they take that out first what changes for you?

Tough choices is really only a thing if you get your ideal matchup. In bigger tournament settings that can often go out the window.

11 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Shorthand it looks a little like what cuz said above.

Yep - I think I'm following. Where targeting priorities exist in your list that isn't a bad thing, it can even be a good thing where it helps you understand what your opponent is going to do. Understanding what you have, and what your opponent has, and flying it well are the keys.

On 1/31/2020 at 11:36 AM, eljms said:

'hard priority choices' as a list building strategy 'doesn't work.'

Ok. Let's do this. This is a long topic with many layers of strategy, but I'll try and keep it brief/relevant.

Sorry to the people who thought I was rude. Yeah, I was. Sorry. The severity of my opinion though I think its useful to you readers. Especially since its opposite to most people's thoughts.

What I meant: Using "hard priority choices" as a theory and concept for building a good list is like building a fortress on sand. Its almost a given that most lists have some hard choices for opponents. But that's usually not a strong enough cover for flimsy defense in a list to get out of Tier 3 (strictly non-competitive).

The main issue is this: There's usually a correct answer. "Hard priority choices" are usually simply a mind game trap for worse players than oneself who cannot do the math/future-sight in their heads at the moment of play. You don't want to be planning to beat players who make mistakes. Yes they happen, but you should be wanting to be able to beat players who never make any truly obvious errors. You should want to beat players better than you, not players who are worse than you. You should not need your opponent to make a silly mistake in target priority for you to win your games. You definitely CAN benefit from it, you can definitely try and force more mistakes, and you will need them to make mistakes if you're behind like 120-200, but you shouldn't PLAN to play a list that nearly requires them to make a poor choice in targeting.

This is why I said a 3 small/med rebel list without 3 green dice has neither the firepower nor the mobility nor the defense to stay alive on its own, and that's why generally they're not good.

The good players I know LOVE to tell me about how silly their opponents were in tournaments when they have to make tough choices and sometimes guess wrong. Knowing where some of these players are, I'm very sure many of you dear readers have lost to these literal people. The other important insight here is that their opponents "guessed wrong", meaning that they generally know what would have been the right choice. there IS a right answer, even if sometimes it doesn't matter when you're getting slaughtered.

Reason #2: Generally, priority choices are more about how you fly your own list to mitigate them, and less about shifting how your opponent flies. In the "randomness" of battle, often things are not so clean and easy, and the opponents just go for whatever they can get without suffering a lot of damage in return, and generally that answer is sufficient. Positioning and flying mucks up priority targeting on the board considerably.

Yes, sometimes you NEED something to die, this is true. Against better players, that can happen often, but its really quite an advanced level o play.

These are considerations I would teach under the Intermediate branch of my academy school (perhaps in the future I'll post it, and those who are interested can join up in the learning). All of Beginner level is simply removing the overwhelming influence of luck and random variance of player skill vs player skill. So if you're not there yet, you rage about dice, you hit ANY rocks at all over 5 games in a row, you don't fully understand the focus rule, you're not even past the point of removing random luck as a primary factor in your win rate.

Reason #3: Time constraints of modern 2.0 xwing - it seems like we live in a meta where things go to time rather often, and in these cases, the true endgame isn't reached for long enough for people to truly leverage a lot of the hardest min-maxing of priority targeting.

Also I suspect 2.0 is better than 1.0 in this targeting necessity.

---

Also if your opponent does guess correctly, then correctly takes those pieces of the board in that order, does your list lose all its teeth? Then obviously you were shoring up its weaknesses with theory of "hard priority choices", and your opponent is smarter than that.

the game is definitely all about target priority. in fact if I had to rank the importance of game decisions, then its:

1) list building

2) target priority

3) manuevering

yikes