@Blail Blerg - appreciate you taking time to lay out your thoughts. Don't disagree with anything you wrote.

One thought that I'm still mulling over is whether some ships are costed based on the assumption that they will die early.

It's a fairly non-contentious thing to say that whatever list you're building you're trying to get the most from the points that you're spending. Variable point costs have been introduced to try and help balance the obvious ways to exploit that (shield upgrades on 3 agi ships costing more than 1 agi ships for instance), but the principle is still there. A shield upgrade on an Inquisitor (if you could take one), backed by force and evade, would be a better buy than a shield upgrade on a Baron of the Empire because the force/evade combo makes them harder to hit, making their HP more valuable. I know @Cuz05 likes his Inquisitors. Who knows? Maybe one day they'll get a modification slot and we can test it out

I guess this is just an example of 'synergy', which is a core list building principle. Again - I assume non-contentious.

So back to the thought that some ships might be costed based on the assumption that they will be number one target priority and die early. I'm by no means sure on this, just throwing out the thought. Examples might be Howlrunner, Jonus and Pure Sabacc. The value of Pure Sabacc's ability goes up the longer he stays un-damaged. The value of Jonus re-rolls goes up the more double-modded shots you take. So if you're taking a ship like that you're thinking about how to get as many shots with Jonus re-rolls as possible. Swarm tactics? How to keep Jonus from being initiative killed etc. etc.

It seems to me that this is where the 'hard choices' comes in. You're right in your assertion that there's going to be a right call, so maybe 'hard choices' is the wrong way of phrasing it. The premise is that your list contains more than one thing that would ordinarily be targeted first, and that this is a way of keeping at least one of those things alive longer, and getting better value from them.

I think that's what I understand when people talk about lists presenting you with 'hard priority choices'.

3 hours ago, eljms said:

@Blail Blerg - appreciate you taking time to lay out your thoughts. Don't disagree with anything you wrote.

One thought that I'm still mulling over is whether some ships are costed based on the assumption that they will die early.

It's a fairly non-contentious thing to say that whatever list you're building you're trying to get the most from the points that you're spending. Variable point costs have been introduced to try and help balance the obvious ways to exploit that (shield upgrades on 3 agi ships costing more than 1 agi ships for instance), but the principle is still there. A shield upgrade on an Inquisitor (if you could take one), backed by force and evade, would be a better buy than a shield upgrade on a Baron of the Empire because the force/evade combo makes them harder to hit, making their HP more valuable. I know @Cuz05 likes his Inquisitors. Who knows? Maybe one day they'll get a modification slot and we can test it out

I guess this is just an example of 'synergy', which is a core list building principle. Again - I assume non-contentious.

So back to the thought that some ships might be costed based on the assumption that they will be number one target priority and die early. I'm by no means sure on this, just throwing out the thought. Examples might be Howlrunner, Jonus and Pure Sabacc. The value of Pure Sabacc's ability goes up the longer he stays un-damaged. The value of Jonus re-rolls goes up the more double-modded shots you take. So if you're taking a ship like that you're thinking about how to get as many shots with Jonus re-rolls as possible. Swarm tactics? How to keep Jonus from being initiative killed etc. etc.

It seems to me that this is where the 'hard choices' comes in. You're right in your assertion that there's going to be a right call, so maybe 'hard choices' is the wrong way of phrasing it. The premise is that your list contains more than one thing that would ordinarily be targeted first, and that this is a way of keeping at least one of those things alive longer, and getting better value from them.

I think that's what I understand when people talk about lists presenting you with 'hard priority choices'.

You’ve mostly got it right. But the better way to look at it is macro scale I think. Let’s say at least 20 games total perspective.

Have you heard of mathwing? It shows that there’s rarely a sense of ability to overcome the continuous churn to death.

Stuff dies. Generally over a large number of games right when they’re supposed to.

Yes of course. You should have two things in your list that can be picked to die. That is definitely a part of list building. (More basic than advanced imo)

but this should be considered not agency but regression. Your ships will follow the general behavioral model of math. You’re really unlikely over 20 games to truly overcome that inertia.

Those examples arent right:

jonus and howl value go down as the rest of the swarm dies or get separated.

Things like Sabacc die whenever people finally decide to point guns at them. They don’t really magically stay alive.

No they aren’t costed for their lifespan. Their lifespan is a definitive feature of their cost. (Other way around)

49 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Have you heard of mathwing?

Yes

50 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Those examples arent right:

jonus and howl value go down as the rest of the swarm dies or get separated.

Their value does decrease the fewer shots they're helping - but surely the quickest way of decreasing the shots they help is to kill them rather than their wingmates? I must be misunderstanding you, in a howl swarm you surely target howl?

53 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Things like Sabacc die whenever people finally decide to point guns at them. They don’t really magically stay alive.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. I've picked these examples as ships that you can choose to point guns at (as opposed to an aces list where it's much more likely to be a case of taking the opportunities). The point I'm trying to make is that some ships have very significant damage threat that you would typically mitigate by taking them out first. I think the costs of these ships reflect the fact that they are hard to protect and keep alive. I'm not sure whether or not you play epic but the new wing mechanic demonstrates quite how nasty these guys are if you can't kill them first.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

No they aren’t costed for their lifespan. Their lifespan is a definitive feature of their cost.

I'm sorry, I obviously need more coffee.

I probably didn't express this well but, as above, trying to articulate that some ships have a disproportionate effect on the game if they're allowed to live but are not costed as high as they might be on the assumption that they won't be allowed to survive.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

this should be considered not agency but regression. Your ships will follow the general behavioral model of math. You’re really unlikely over 20 games to truly overcome that inertia.

There are a number of words here where it's not clear to me how you're using them. I think by 'not agency but regression' you're saying it's not so much to do with your choices, but more to do with the math (or maths if you happen to be in the UK!) Per your earlier post, we assume that our opponent always makes the best targeting priority choice and then it's just a case of crunching the numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'inertia' here either. My assumption is that you mean that over many games the truth of your first assertion will always become apparent.

Hopefully I have your meaning right.

But imagine a hypothetical ship with no agility and one hull, initiative zero, poor dial, but a primary weapon value of one hundred. How would you cost it?

If it were a unique ship, I'd say the costing could be quite low because no-one in their right mind will let it live to shoot. If it's not unique it's cost has to increase dramatically because the odds of actually using it to perform an attack are much higher.

This is obviously an extreme example and easy for you to pick holes in, I'm sure. There are ships in the game though that sit in this kind of mold - really dangerous but hard to keep alive. The thought is that if there's more than one, you're more likely to get to use at least one of their abilities for longer.

17 hours ago, eljms said:

So back to the thought that some ships might be costed based on the assumption that they will be number one target priority and die early. I'm by no means sure on this, just throwing out the thought. Examples might be Howlrunner, Jonus and Pure Sabacc. The value of Pure Sabacc's ability goes up the longer he stays un-damaged. The value of Jonus re-rolls goes up the more double-modded shots you take. So if you're taking a ship like that you're thinking about how to get as many shots with Jonus re-rolls as possible. Swarm tactics? How to keep Jonus from being initiative killed etc. etc.

Hey, great response.

I think the issue is that in some cases, target priority is NOT the primary factor: Ex. 3 aces vs Howl swarm. My goal as aces isn't to kill Howl asap. Its simply to deal damage to anything that happens to be an exposed target while avoiding being shot. My game is here can be simple as hit a tie or two, keep dodging out of the Howl kill box. And i never kill Howl, but take 3/8 ties while losing half on an ace.

So... is Howl truly costed to die first all the time? Heck no.

12 hours ago, eljms said:

Their value does decrease the fewer shots they're helping - but surely the quickest way of decreasing the shots they help is to kill them rather than their wingmates? I must be misunderstanding you, in a howl swarm you surely target howl?

-----

12 hours ago, eljms said:

There are a number of words here where it's not clear to me how you're using them. I think by 'not agency but regression' you're saying it's not so much to do with your choices, but more to do with the math (or maths if you happen to be in the UK!) Per your earlier post, we assume that our opponent always makes the best targeting priority choice and then it's just a case of crunching the numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'inertia' here either. My assumption is that you mean that over many games the truth of your first assertion will always become apparent.

Hopefully I have your meaning right.

I think that's what I mean too. 😃

--

I'm going to think about your post for a bit.

I think I'm pretty much just asking to refute some of the examples, but you're really got the cleaner fundamental understanding.

Howl and Sabaac generally die when people want them to.

Aces like Anakin can survive much longer than they're supposed to due to the relationship of magic/positioning to sheer mathematical value.

Back to the original thought: I disagree that simple hard priority targeting (as a mind game) is enough to overcome the lack of attack and defense in a 3 small/med rebel ship list without 3 green dice.
- Is building in tough choices, or two capable parts of your list a fundamental skill of list building? yes. But its not an intermediate level secret that will propel you to success.
- Again, generally one should avoid using pure mind games to beat players that are likely just worse than you are at target selection. And this is the case where "hard priority choices" does not work as a list building strategy.

----

How about this, let's look at the issue from a different standpoint:

Given - Sometimes games go as planned by a player. Sometimes they don't.

Problem - How do I appropriately give a static cost for a pilot knowing this info?

A good example of this is Howlrunner. I make a lot of statements on what I think certain ships should be worth. I make no comment on Howlrunner. Its harder math than I'm capable of in theory, and I hate setting up 7-8 Ties to get the table experience to really speak from experience lol.

Listbuilding with a fixed idea - e.g., make ship XY work - won't lead to the best list. Of course not. Same for targeting priority as factor. However...

On 2/2/2020 at 5:28 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Using "hard priority choices" as a theory and concept for building a good list is like building a fortress on sand.

I would agree, if it was the only factor considered. But if it is not, and rather informs the choice for another or the last piece then that's a different matter. And clearly "a factor" as per the question of this topic.

On 2/1/2020 at 11:28 PM, Blail Blerg said:

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.

I thought of another way to frame this whole thing:

• Trying to get an opponent to attack a bad target is kind of a mugs game . It's never really going to win.
• However, having a list that can punish an opponent making the correct decision and attacking the right target is wise.

Over-committing to this can be bad (Outmaneuver on a great many ships... possibly on any ship...), but making sure that your low-priority stuff can contribute meaningfully when correctly ignored is, generally speaking, good.

I think that gets at why something like a super-defensive Norra probably isn't great. If ignored, she can't punish anyone. Getting something like K-2SO on there, allowing her to punch a bit harder, maybe that's worth.

36 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I think that gets at why something like a super-defensive Norra probably isn't great. If ignored, she can't punish anyone. Getting something like K-2SO on there, allowing her to punch a bit harder, maybe that's worth.

I fully agree with all you said, I just want to point out:

adjusting the list with the target priority in mind is exactly what the topic is about, and you just demonstrated how it is - and should be! - a factor in list building.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I fully agree with all you said, I just want to point out:

adjusting the list with the target priority in mind is exactly what the topic is about, and you just demonstrated how it is - and should be! - a factor in list building.

I just feel like the inverted framing helps illuminate what's really important. It's better for me to figure out what my list can do proactively, than to fixate on what choices an opponent could make.

No, target priority is intrinsically transient as it will vary dramatically based on the capabilities of the enemy list and board state. This will prevent efforts to incorporate target priority into a core strategy at the list building phase devoid of previously stated factors from finding more than marginal success.