So, I was thinking: What is the order of Ship Survivability?

Way I see it, we can break the ships into 3 categories, based on their evasion dice.

3 Dice:Tie Fighter, Interceptor, Advanced, and A-Wing

2 Dice: Firespray-31, Bomber, X-Wing, and HWK-290

1 Die: Lambda Class Shuttle, B-Wing, Y-wing and YT-1300

On the 3 Dice stats, the Advanced has the most HP, with 2 shields on top of the 3 hull, followed by the A-Wing, with 2 and 2. Now, for a tie-breaker for the Fighter and Interceptor, we'll have to look at the actions. The Interceptor's got all of the Fighter's abilities, but also a Boost, which can cause a collision or get out of a firing arc, so it gets the win.

On the 2 Dice stats, we've got our first Large Base ship. The Firespray-31 has 4 shields and 6 hull, and is also the only ship in the list with Evade. The other three gives us a philosophic quandry: How much better are shields than hull? I'm fairly certain we can all agree that both the Bomber and X-Wing are more survivable than the HWK-290, even with its potential for unlimited focuses. However, as an answer to the quandry, I will note that the X-Wing can take Astromech Droids (R2-D2 and friends), which potentially give it infinite HP. Naked, however, I'd hand it to the Bomber, with the 1 more hp and the ability to barrel roll pushing it ahead of the X-Wing.

On the 1 Dice stats, we've got the YT-1300 that can pick up the Evade ability with a title...and with the most HP in the game. It definitely wins this race. The Lambda's horrendous maneuver dial actually cuts its HP lead down from its competitors, as it can't really do anything about folks behind it. I will put the B-Wing ahead of the Y-Wing, as it ignores Critical Hits for most of its lifespan, can barrel roll, and can equip a Systems upgrade (Advanced Sensors and/or Radar Jammer for survivability). Its huge maneuverability advantages over the other two convince me that it is also more survivable than the Lambda as well. The Y-Wing, unfortunately, also suffers from poor maneuverability, and it doesn't get nearly the utility out of R2-D2 as the X-wing does, so the Lambda, with its better health, Systems and dual Co-Pilot upgrade slots win out. It is still a point of contention, though.

Therefore,
3 Dice: Advanced, A-Wing, Interceptor, Fighter

2 Dice: Firespray-31, X-Wing, Bomber, HWK-290

1 Die: YT-1300, B-Wing, Lambda Class Shuttle, Y-Wing.

Now, for the other point of debate: How do we blend the 3 lists into 1?

*Edit: Accidentally called the Bomber a B-Wing once.

Why did you compare the x-wing and b-wing under the 2 dice ships?

Theorist recently wrote an article for Team Covenant that goes into this question in a lot of detail. I would really suggest that you check it out:

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/2013/10/30/side-by-side-x-wing-vs-b-wing/

It starts in on the X vs the B, but goes into detail on the survivability of different ships based on hull, shields and evade dice.

Theorist recently wrote an article for Team Covenant that goes into this question in a lot of detail. I would really suggest that you check it out:

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/2013/10/30/side-by-side-x-wing-vs-b-wing/

It starts in on the X vs the B, but goes into detail on the survivability of different ships based on hull, shields and evade dice.

It lost me when it started going on about the X-Wing Tandem, a ship that only appeared in one comic, and wasn't in production until long after the period of the game....

But I find the B-Wing is a bit more survivable in the games I've played against it. but I think that is largely down to the fact I go after the X-Wing first a lot of the time.

Why did you compare the x-wing and b-wing under the 2 dice ships?

Typo. Meant the Bomber. Now fixed!

I usually get to edit these things before posting, but had a sudden attack of halloween friends.

The TeamCovenant list puts the Lambda in front of the B-Wing, which I would agree with if all the ships were immobile. In actual gameplay, I find the B-Wing will last way longer.

I would put the interceptor in front of the advanced and maybe even the Awing. Swings seem to survive more because they lose so much less of a threat. Advanced are much the same. I would put the number of shots fired vs awings at half the number fired at interceptors and advanced are just easy points (besides Vader, but who runs anything else?).

Survive I guess the swings do survive because they are often never shot down. And advanced survive better than anyone because they seldom even make the field.

I would put the interceptor in front of the advanced and maybe even the Awing. Swings seem to survive more because they lose so much less of a threat. Advanced are much the same. I would put the number of shots fired vs awings at half the number fired at interceptors and advanced are just easy points (besides Vader, but who runs anything else?).

Survive I guess the swings do survive because they are often never shot down. And advanced survive better than anyone because they seldom even make the field.

Stats-wise, the only thing that the Interceptor's got that the A-Wing doesn't is Barrel Roll, and an inability to get one-shotted by a Proton Bomb. It's got a little more maneuverability than the Tie Advanced, but beyond the Boost action, the difference between the Great maneuver dial of the Interceptor vs the merely Good maneuver dial of the Advanced is a null value. Particularly when you realize that the A-Wing's maneuver dial has the Interceptor beaten, hands down.

And neither awings or advanced are priority targets. They will survive longer regardless of stats because they won't be targeted. Interceptors last longer because despite being targeted heavily they are just not able to be shot at more often than any other ship. Get some of the named pillows and upgrades and this happens all game despite being priority targets.

*facepalm*
Look, here's the deal. The numbers don't lie. Every single way that the interceptor can dodge damage, the A-Wings and the Advanceds can also do.

I am not factoring in what gets focused and what doesn't, as that is subjective, irrelevant, and varies from fleet to fleet.

Yes, Soontir Fel with Push the Limit can get 2 focus tokens and an evade token, or some other combination of defensive actions. If neither of your Push the Limit actions are a Focus, Vader with Push the Limit can do the same thing. The A-Wing pilots even use Push the Limit to greater effect, as they have more green maneuvers than any ship in the game.

Until the "Royal Guard Interceptor" title comes out, every possible upgrade combination you can give to an Interceptor is also an upgrade combination you can give to an A-Wing or an Advanced.

You see the Interceptor surviving many more fights than you would expect, and don't see the A or the Advanced in similar scenarios. The Interceptor is a more popular ship than either the Advanced or the A-Wing. This is because it has 3 attack dice instead of their 2, and they are both considered overcosted for their actual utility.

If you want to measure survivability you need to measure against the same criteria. The thing is that survivability and "how long something will last in the game" are two entirely different concepts.

I mean if you had a satellite with no movement, 0 defense dice, 1 hull, no attack of its own but the special ability of "any opponent that collides with this (as an asteroid) suffers a 1 die attack" and priced at 5 points would anyone shoot at it assuming they had ANYTHING else to shoot at assuming the points aren't going to win the game? Just because a ship is no "threat" does not mean it gets a pass when it comes to survivability.

Lets also not forget that how total hp is broke up makes a difference, It really wasn't taken into account in the original post. For example: sure the TIE bomber has 6 hull points vs the X-Wing's 5. But the X wing's shield have the potential to bump crits out of the way, while the bomber will be eating any uncanceled crits, When you take that into account, the A-Wing is actually superior in most situations to the TIE Interceptor. Proton Bombs would be one situation that puts the Interceptor ahead.

If you want to measure survivability you need to measure against the same criteria. The thing is that survivability and "how long something will last in the game" are two entirely different concepts.

I mean if you had a satellite with no movement, 0 defense dice, 1 hull, no attack of its own but the special ability of "any opponent that collides with this (as an asteroid) suffers a 1 die attack" and priced at 5 points would anyone shoot at it assuming they had ANYTHING else to shoot at assuming the points aren't going to win the game? Just because a ship is no "threat" does not mean it gets a pass when it comes to survivability.

There is nothing in any of my posts that factors in whether something is a large or a minor threat.

My criteria are the stats of the ship, which include maneuverability, but do not include the cost of the pilot, or any decision making that my opponent would take.

The Tie Advanced is more survivable than the Interceptor because it takes 2 more hits have to get through the same number of evasion dice to kill the Tie Advanced than the Tie Interceptor. Additionally, those 2 extra hits treat Crits as though they were regular Hits, which adds to the Tie Advanced's survivability even more.

Theorist recently wrote an article for Team Covenant that goes into this question in a lot of detail. I would really suggest that you check it out:

http://teamcovenant.com/theorist/2013/10/30/side-by-side-x-wing-vs-b-wing/

It starts in on the X vs the B, but goes into detail on the survivability of different ships based on hull, shields and evade dice.

It's great. Adds a little to think about too. I love taking r2-f2 and push the limit. It turns the x wing into a beast. Especially on wedge.

Lets also not forget that how total hp is broke up makes a difference, It really wasn't taken into account in the original post. For example: sure the TIE bomber has 6 hull points vs the X-Wing's 5. But the X wing's shield have the potential to bump crits out of the way, while the bomber will be eating any uncanceled crits, When you take that into account, the A-Wing is actually superior in most situations to the TIE Interceptor. Proton Bombs would be one situation that puts the Interceptor ahead.

I did take these into consideration when I made my final judgements, but I didn't call any special attention to it. It is why, for example, that I stated that the HWK-290 was clearly worse than the X-Wing and the Bomber. Well, that and it's maneuver dial.

The distance between 2 shields (+3 Hull) and 3 hull (+3 Hull) for the X-Wing and Bomber respectively I judged to be too-close-to-call, and the fact that the X-Wing has an upgrade slot that can give regeneration was the clincher in my decision.

I put the A-Wing in front of the Interceptor as well (shield strength vs hull strength is irrelevant when the one with Shields is also the one with more total HP), and though I noted the proton bomb issue to myself, I did not make a note of it in my original post. Thanks for catching it!

Stop hitting yourself.

If hits to kill are all that matter why are we even discussing this? Those numbers are clear and unchanging unless we also discuss actions, upgrades, and tactics.

Are we looking at stats only?

Discussing the difference between Hull and Sheild?

Are we discussing toughness to take down?

Or are we going to consider actions, upgrades, dials, tactics, and even points?

The core factor of survivability is, regardless of how much you want to kill something, how much effort will it take when you finally do. In that matter the Advance clearly takes the cake when compared to all other small base ships with it's high agility, above par dial, and health that is only topped by Bombers and large base ships, counting large base ships the Firespray with one less defense die but a lot more Health is the only thing that you can really consider close. Least survivable is probably the HWK, due more to it's poor maneuver dial and lack of evade than poor stats.

To truly merge the lists you have to prioritize Agility, Maneuver, Shield and Hull, most likely in that order, and compare. Hull isn't as good as shield, at least not until they give more weapons a bypass effect like proton bombs, Maneuver (counting boost and barrel roll) is next, because not being there is always a good plan, Agility edges it out because you can never avoid the enemies sights the entire game so you need insurance for when you are. There are some outliers of course, a 5 hull Y-wing with the droid that can repair hull damage might be much higher on the list than an otherwise better B-wing for example.

And this is all "in a vaccum" stuff, once on the field things get much murkier with obstacles and ion weapons.

The core factor of survivability is, regardless of how much you want to kill something, how much effort will it take when you finally do. In that matter the Advance clearly takes the cake when compared to all other small base ships with it's high agility, above par dial, and health that is only topped by Bombers and large base ships, counting large base ships the Firespray with one less defense die but a lot more Health is the only thing that you can really consider close. Least survivable is probably the HWK, due more to it's poor maneuver dial and lack of evade than poor stats.

To truly merge the lists you have to prioritize Agility, Maneuver, Shield and Hull, most likely in that order, and compare. Hull isn't as good as shield, at least not until they give more weapons a bypass effect like proton bombs, Maneuver (counting boost and barrel roll) is next, because not being there is always a good plan, Agility edges it out because you can never avoid the enemies sights the entire game so you need insurance for when you are. There are some outliers of course, a 5 hull Y-wing with the droid that can repair hull damage might be much higher on the list than an otherwise better B-wing for example.

And this is all "in a vaccum" stuff, once on the field things get much murkier with obstacles and ion weapons.

Basically, you're saying

Agility, because they can't damage you if they can't hit you.

Maneuverability, because they can't hit you if they can't shoot at you.

Shields, because Crits hurt.

Hull, because this is what is required to actually die.

I will agree with your assessment, with the caveat that most of the Maneuverability is close enough not to matter. However, its what makes a B-Wing (particularly a Hypermobile one with Advanced Sensors and an Engine Upgrade) more survivable than the Lambda.

I would also add "Potential Upgrades" as a 5th entry, as they allow some ships to regenerate (R2-D2, R5-D8), some to ignore some crits (Determination, R5 Astromech), and some to boost other important stats (Chewbacca [co-pilot], R2-F2, "Millennium Falcon" Title).

What I've figured out is that the conversion rate from one category to the next is determined by the ship doing the shooting. Maneuverability isn't as good against a YT-1300 as it is against an X-Wing, for instance.