23 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

You only need to get locks once with the X1s unless the opponent is shedding locks somehow.

I think this is an important part that many people miss. Unless you spend the TL, you can use it again and again. That's why FCS is good on the X1 because it gives you the modification for one die. If you can get the TL and next turns have the Focus token each turn, it works out better in your favor.

FCS is good for ships with higher Init or your lower Init ships will just take a Focus on the first round. Passive Sensors is excellent for these guys, though. Perhaps a mix between FCS and Passive for the different ships. Passive is good because each round, when it's time to shoot, you can decide to grab a new TL on a new target, or go for the Calculate token.

Wasn't there a FAQ that stated you could use the TL to re-roll the dice and still get the effects? Sounds like you can't, but I think there was something. Or maybe it was getting the extra die.

Another benefit of my list above: I already have 3 X1s and RAC, but not 5 X1s. Lol 😝

3 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

Another benefit of my list above: I already have 3 X1s and RAC, but not 5 X1s. Lol 😝

I actually have 5 X1's.

37 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Wasn't there a FAQ that stated you could use the TL to re-roll the dice and still get the effects? Sounds like you can't, but I think there was something. Or maybe it was getting the extra die.

Yep. You roll 3 (or 4) attack dice against a target you have locked. Then you flip a hit to a crit, then you can spend TL to re-roll any remaining dice. Now say you blank out and roll no hits, if you re-roll everything and get a hit, you cannot change that to a crit since you no longer meet the TL requirement of Advanced Targeting Computer.

3 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

In Hyperspace, I believe this is the answer. There is enough low initiative ships in Hyperspace Maarek and I2 Tempest all with FCS should be decent. You get a 1 point bid against other I2's (like 5X) so you can guarantee your locks against them. I'd imagine they'd be decent against droids, as the ATC crit factory would be pretty harmful against their lack of shields until the scrum denies lock actions.

I'm very interested in the potential of generic FCS x1s. Obviously in a head-on engagement you'll struggle for the lock. But if you manage to flank (or better yet, pursue) with them, it actually turns out for your benefit. Saving the lock actions so you can focus all the time seems really good, especially with passive reroll, crit, and 3 green dice.

The problem is that flanking with a boost-less I2 isn't really a winning proposition. I wonder what a really good deployment/engage with this list is? You want the killbox but there's no particular need for a formation at all. Seems like it flies a lot like 5x Kihraxz with DMS or something similar – you want space between them to punish all moves effectively, but you need the flexibility to converge or spread your arcs at the drop of a hat...

Edit: Also, those 1-5 straight options can play some really interesting range-control mindgames. If your opponent really wants to deny you the lock, they'll have to rush into your R3. But if you also rush them, you can lock them and they're actually in your R1. OR you slow-roll them and they're still beyond R3...

34 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

The problem is that flanking with a boost-less I2 isn't really a winning proposition. I wonder what a really good deployment/engage with this list is? You want the killbox but there's no particular need for a formation at all. Seems like it flies a lot like 5x Kihraxz with DMS or something similar – you want space between them to punish all moves effectively, but you need the flexibility to converge or spread your arcs at the drop of a hat...

I think you go with a very loose grouping to create a killbox for the enemy. I believe formation flying will be the worst for them (in most cases). Someone wrote a blog article (that I can't remember) that talks about this. I think it is the best thing for the X1 to go for. Their range of speed makes it pretty significant. It allows you to decide who goes for which target.

Running my 3 x1, 2 v1, I loose grouped the x's and flanked with the v's. Baiting with a couple x1s into the box, even just 1 of them, if I can yank the other out onto an angle.

Ideally, pursuit is not necessary, because the chosen targets just die. In that circumstance, the onus is on them to engage you, since you're up on points. Then you have numbers to simply open up and killbox. Basic, focussed support fire is enough then for just 1 or 2 to lock and hammer as they squirrel around. 1 locked x1 at R1 of a thing can achieve plenty and a lock kept on a fleeing ship gives them something to fear as they attempt to reengage.

Rather than pursue, I'd maybe hang one with a lock on it to keep the damaged ship on the run and just select a new target to try and kill.

Mostly why I like FCS is the freedom it gives you to t-roll/k-turn and maintain the box. The slow move with focus into roll is a handy tool for keeping the other elements in position as you spread. The advantage of being loose is that they won't all need to flip and odd ones can take a focus while staying on target.

Clearly, 2 v1s in the mix means it plays quite differently. Their mobility is incredibly useful. Sadly not HS though

How about 4 TIE X1 instead of 5? I've been doing pretty good with this. Flown in 2 groups of 2.

Vader with Storm Ace wingman. Maarek Stele and Zertik Strom wingman.

The Maarek/ Zertik combo can be surprisingly dangerous on the flank while your opponent concentrates on removing Vader.

Darth Vader (67)
Fire-Control System (2)

Maarek Stele (45)
Fire-Control System (2)

Zertik Strom (41)
Fire-Control System (2)

Storm Squadron Ace (39)
Fire-Control System (2)
Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0

44 minutes ago, stootchmaster said:

How about 4 TIE X1 instead of 5? I've been doing pretty good with this. Flown in 2 groups of 2.

Vader with Storm Ace wingman. Maarek Stele and Zertik Strom wingman.

The Maarek/ Zertik combo can be surprisingly dangerous on the flank while your opponent concentrates on removing Vader.

Darth Vader (67)
Fire-Control System (2)

Maarek Stele (45)
Fire-Control System (2)

Zertik Strom (41)
Fire-Control System (2)

Storm Squadron Ace (39)
Fire-Control System (2)
Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0

Would definetely downgrade the Storm to a Tempest so i can upgrade Zertik to Ved

1 hour ago, stootchmaster said:

The Maarek/ Zertik combo can be surprisingly dangerous on the flank while your opponent concentrates on removing Vader.

This is a real thing. I had a list back in 1st Ed that was Vader with 5 Tie Fighters. Vader had that one EPT that gave him extra red dice for using other ship's tokens. I would go in and nail someone hard with Vader, and then peel off. All Vader would do is circle out of enemy's arcs while the Tie Fighters would cause bump storms and get a ton of R1 shots on people. It was a good strategy as everyone focuses on Vader. Tie Fighters did the real work in the list.

If you find the Sith Takers channel on Twitch the last video is Tim’s 5 TIE x1 ripping through Rebel Beef.

23 hours ago, LeMightyASP said:

Would definetely downgrade the Storm to a Tempest so i can upgrade Zertik to Ved

Thanks for that! With Ved's movement being a bit unpredictable on the flank it does work better that way.

This table shows how agility affects efficiency of ships when you flip from facing 3 dice ships to twice as many 2-dice ships.

The B-Wing rolls 50% less hits when it switches to facing 8 TIEs instead of 4 T-65s. The T-65 loses 20% offense, but the TIE Advanced pretty much holds flat.

Its still not raw-statewise more efficient than the T-65 until you get to extremes of 7/8 ships firing at the TIE, but the gap that was there vs 3 dice opponents closes tremendously and this isn’t factoring the value of crits at all.

13 minutes ago, Stay OT Leader said:

This table shows how agility affects efficiency of ships when you flip from facing 3 dice ships to twice as many 2-dice ships.

The B-Wing rolls 50% less hits when it switches to facing 8 TIEs instead of 4 T-65s. The T-65 loses 20% offense, but the TIE Advanced pretty much holds flat.

Its still not raw-statewise more efficient than the T-65 until you get to extremes of 7/8 ships firing at the TIE, but the gap that was there vs 3 dice opponents closes tremendously and this isn’t factoring the value of crits at all.

unfortunately that math isnt really applicable as it cant account for user choices, dials, positioning, abilities, etc.

13 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

unfortunately that math isnt really applicable as it cant account for user choices, dials, positioning, abilities, etc.

That’s the most stupid thing you’ve ever said, which is going some from you.

Yes of course maths doesn’t include any of those things but it doesn’t make maths ‘not applicable’. It’s an important part of the game that can (and should) be used to inform decision making.

if you're attacking and choosing to hold the lock so you can focus later, FCS or not your first round of attacks will be weaker than the X-Wings on acreage, and you're still relying on naked green dice whereas the X has a focus and an extra hull, and when your original target dies or arc dodges you and all your locks are broken/useless, you can't switch targets mid engagement as effectively as a T-65 can. If T-65s are focused, they don't care who ends up in their killbox, and that flexibility is so important.

I do agree that you probably want to spread out and flank from as many angles as possible so as to reduce your need to kturn, though this is something the Xs are also better at by having access to round 1 boost.

@Stay OT Leader : not sure how to read your table.

Are you saying that a B-wing has -12% chance of survival versus 8 ties?

15 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

When your original target dies or arc dodges you and all your locks are broken/useless, you can't switch targets mid engagement as effectively as a T-65 can. If T-65s are focused, they don't care who ends up in their killbox, and that flexibility is so important.

This is very true, but I think it actually just means X Wings are easier

6 minutes ago, Icareane said:

@Stay OT Leader : not sure how to read your table.

Are you saying that a B-wing has -12% chance of survival versus 8 ties?

It’s a bit out of context from an upcoming blog. But basically, the B-Wing is 6% MORE LIKELY to survive 4 incoming 3 dice shots than a T-65 is. When you flip to 8 incoming 2 dice shots the B-Wing is 12% less likely to survive than a T-65 would be.

12 minutes ago, Stay OT Leader said:

It’s a bit out of context from an upcoming blog. But basically, the B-Wing is 6% MORE LIKELY to survive 4 incoming 3 dice shots than a T-65 is. When you flip to 8 incoming 2 dice shots the B-Wing is 12% less likely to survive than a T-65 would be.

1 hour ago, Stay OT Leader said:

That’s the most stupid thing you’ve ever said, which is going some from you.

Yes of course maths doesn’t include any of those things but it doesn’t make maths ‘not applicable’. It’s an important part of the game that can (and should) be used to inform decision making.

unfortunately probability isnt as clean as you want it to be. you cant make a chart and whats going to happen with dice, let alone player choice. people with a great deal more resources at their disposal have dedicated their lives to predicting much simpler games and rarely come close.

Ok. Bye.

37 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

unfortunately probability isnt as clean as you want it to be. you cant make a chart and whats going to happen with dice, let alone player choice. people with a great deal more resources at their disposal have dedicated their lives to predicting much simpler games and rarely come close.

Of course it isn't wicked clean.

However, doesn't mean it's useless. The basic application of probability shows us that B-Wings are tougher than X-Wings against a smaller number of harder-hitting attacks, and but not against a larger number of 2-dice attacks. In that same way, having 3 agility like a TIE/x1 can make them more resilient to 2-dice attacks than a 2-agility ship. It'll depend somewhat on whether an X-Wing is willing to save focus for defense. That does not invalidate the broad project of using probabilities to compare relative toughness.

The goal isn't to predict entire games. The goal is to have some sense of the relative toughness of ships with different agility values under a few not-unrealistic game situations. We've got that, and that alone is useful as part of a broader understanding of X-Wing. Even knowing that on-table choices will decide games, that how a player positions will be key, we don't gain anything by being ignorant about the capacity of X-Wings and x1 to take punishment.

Besides, it's not like there's an alternative to statistics for finding out these things. Do you have some other way to address whether an X-Wing or a TIE/x1 is more likely to survive a string of attacks?

6 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

unfortunately probability isnt as clean as you want it to be. you cant make a chart and whats going to happen with dice, let alone player choice. people with a great deal more resources at their disposal have dedicated their lives to predicting much simpler games and rarely come close.

Like blackjack? A game where, if you know how to properly play, you can make a living off of?

You make it seem like 20% of the time happens 80% of the time.

On 2/26/2020 at 6:01 PM, Smikies02 said:

Like blackjack? A game where, if you know how to properly play, you can make a living off of?

You make it seem like 20% of the time happens 80% of the time.

He's probably making the mistake that most people make and only remembering the outliers.