The YT-1300 still needs to hit the interceptors though, which isn't as easy as you might think with 3 agility and an evade action.

This is true, but as far as a YT-1300 is concerned they are as easy to kill as standard ties, but you have to kill half as many.

If you just use evade every turn with your squint, you'll find yourself hitting like nothing. You are better off with 2 TIE/ln focussing instead.

The biggest issue with the Falcon is when it is combined with Gunner. That has a way of really starting to eat into you HP. I like to take Evades vs a Falcon with gunner, to keep hits down to 1. If you can do that, you will really, really slow down a Falcon enough to kill it. The issue is, it doesn't always work.

Which again, doesn't change the fact that the falcon completely negates most of the maneuver options where the Interceptor has it's true strength.

If you just use evade every turn with your squint, you'll find yourself hitting like nothing. You are better off with 2 TIE/ln focussing instead.

Not necessarily. At range 1-2 the need to focus isn't as necessary with 3-4 attack dice available (vs the standard TIE), especially when going up against the 1 agility of the falcon, which has to be really lucky to roll that one evade - so not really hitting "nothing". You can't miss!

Meanwhile with 2 evading squints, the odds are heavily in your favour that the one being targeted will survive.

Not to mention the options for the INTs to move into and out of range 1 more easily with boost and barrel roll.

A 'like' for your efford. Good analysis.

Like your solution approach of the 'more balanced' rules - this would make the unique pilots see more action in competitive play. I would even go for 17 points for the Alphas, because you can't really use boost and barrel roll as a first mover, you'll stick with using focus or evade all the time instead.

Thanks.

Reducing the cost of only the PS1 TIE Interceptor by 1 point, while well intentioned, strikes me as a bit "off". 3 points to go from two pilot skill levels certainly has no precedent. It's an interesting idea, but I think it is too specific of a fix.

I think you are correct on the point cost, with the exception on Turr, his ability is just so incredible abusive versus non swarm lists.

Altough I do not think the PS1 and PS3 A-wings should recieve a point, I am intrigued what you make of the current 2 a-wing characters, my guess they drop by a lot. (20-21 for Arvel and Tycho 23-24?)

Yeah, Turr is pretty good. But Jax and Fel are also amazing too, so those three relative to each other are arguably all about the same. If anything, Cowall becomes the relatively underpowered outlier at PS 7 @ 24 points, but that's not a bad thing. Currently as the points stand now, he's probably the best bang for the buck.

I detailed my opinion on the A-wings in the A-wing thread. Basically I would only change Arvel.

you've also appeared to ignore the huge impact that agility has on the game.

Conversely, their attack makes absolute mincemeat out the low agility rebel ships in a way that doesn't occur quite so much the other way around.

As for the glass cannon argument, well yes theoretically, an Interceptor could be killed in one go by a rebel ship. But theoretically, an X-wing with a life of just 2 more hitpoints could be killed in one volley from 2 academy pilots. You have to be lucky with X-wings to avoid taking any damage, usually you might just roll 1 evade out of the 2 dice. Not so much with TIEs.

And that's even without accounting for an evade token, which is absolutely amazing when going up against the probable single rebel ship attacking it.

The Interceptor is a very formidable ship, and lowering the costs and potentially allowing for a swarm of these would tip the balance to the Imperials even more than it already is.

Uh.... no. I not only considered the affect of agility and attack dice, but I comprehensively calculated every possible scenario. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the statistical analysis works. Please reread my post. The square root law is based on Lanchester's Laws, please also read those as well. Having a background in calculus helps, but is not necessary, you can simply jump to the "square root law" conclusion instead.

The TIE Interceptor should not be compared to the X-wing. It needs to be compared to the TIE Fighter.

As for lowering the points of Interceptors by 1 across the board and therefore enabling overpowered (or better upgraded) Interceptor swarms: yes, that is a potential concern, and is why I am on the fence about it for house rules.

The Advanced is not overcosted. It has the same hitpoints as an X-wing and is given the valuable target lock, whilst retaining the high agility of a TIE including it's barrel roll and evade actions. They shouldn't be less than an X-wing.

You are wrong. Agility is worth less than attack dice. See my analysis here:

For questions concerning the Advanced consult this discussion: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94711-fixing-the-tie-advanced/

What does match the model mean though? Game balancing is about trade offs. You simply cannot have a ship which has no weaknesses, even a 50 pt ship. You say you don't want a super TIE, but that's precisely what the TIE Advanced will be if its stats are increased or its cost decreased - they're both the same effect. The Advanced's weakness is that it's attack is only 2 (and I hardly call this a weakness since it can be increased at range 1 and it's a fair roll against 2 agility at range 2).

We can argue all day about the merits of certain ships versus other ships. But the fact of the matter is that the X-wing and TIE Advanced are costed the same and are practically equal - 1 attack dice = barrel roll, evade and 1 agility in my book.

I provided concrete numbers in the TIE-Advanced thread which have already disproved almost everything you said here. Please discuss he merits of those particular points rather than generalized hand waving. I appreciate your intent but I think you simply lack some understanding in the specifics.

And regarding the comparison to the A-wing, as said above the game clearly believes that 1 hull point is equal to 3 pts.

Actually, that's not true. As an upgrade, it costs 3 points. As a built-in ship cost, the square root law needs to get applied. If you costed the A-wing based on the TIE Fighter as a baseline and using upgrade costs to account for the difference, you would end up with a PS1 A-wing costing about 25 points. See my recent post in the A-wing thread for the breakdown.

What about two squints and four eyeballs? An up-gunned swarm.

As a base to work from, you can have 3x Academy Pilots, Howlrunner, and 2x Alpha Pilots for 90 pts.

Yeah, I had messed around with this myself in some mock games. I threw a stealth device on the squints and kept them in the back to make them very unappealing targets. It's not horrible, but it still suffers from the "shoot me first" sign that gets painted on the back of those 2 Interceptors.

In the "real world" and history, not everything is fair. Not all comparisons are fair. The "in universe" designers of the TIE Advanced were attempting to create a quality fighter, that one-on-one could go toe-to-toe with the Rebel Alliances (then) top fighter, the X-wing, with a good chance of coming out on top. Is it perfect? No, it is still just a prototype. Is it expensive? Hell yes, limited production items usually are!

In the end, I doubt that FFG will change anything.

Chris

All true. The discussion, at least from my perspective, is simply for house rules, so you can simply take them or leave them. If FFG decides to revisit and re balance then great, but I'm not planning on it.

Falcon (especially Han) + Gunner may be devastating to TIEs but that is really because you are finally looking at a place where Gunner is good. I explained this in the Bounty Hunter + Gunner thread but in that case you have a meaningful attack that could hit or miss taking place against a target that wants to avoid any hit. Of course Gunner is good there because that is right where it should be.

If you just use evade every turn with your squint, you'll find yourself hitting like nothing. You are better off with 2 TIE/ln focussing instead.

Not necessarily. At range 1-2 the need to focus isn't as necessary with 3-4 attack dice available (vs the standard TIE), especially when going up against the 1 agility of the falcon, which has to be really lucky to roll that one evade - so not really hitting "nothing". You can't miss!

Meanwhile with 2 evading squints, the odds are heavily in your favour that the one being targeted will survive.

Not to mention the options for the INTs to move into and out of range 1 more easily with boost and barrel roll.

I'm bookmarking this to run the numbers later. I'm on the way out the door at the moment.

Uh.... no. I not only considered the affect of agility and attack dice, but I comprehensively calculated every possible scenario. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the statistical analysis works. Please reread my post. The square root law is based on Lanchester's Laws, please also read those as well. Having a background in calculus helps, but is not necessary, you can simply jump to the "square root law" conclusion instead.

It seemed to be that your conclusion was about the damage output of the Interceptor, not it's survivability, which is what I was referring to.

I don't think any discussion about ships can be had without taking into account how much it can avoid being hit.

You are right that agility dice aren't as powerful in terms of success rate, but that does not mean that agility is worth less. It's a far more valuable commodity.

redxavier,

The X-Wing being one shot by two Ties is far less likely than an Interceptor being one shot, even assuming range 1 for the Ties. 6 attack versus 4 evade that needs five hits is unlikely to get five hits. Further, Direct Hit or other critical effects are less likely due to the shields. Lastly, this assumes that we have two Tie Fights at range one that are able to shoot without being shot first. This is possible, but it is far less likely than 3 attack dice fired at range 2-3 at the Interceptor.

I wonder how Rebel plays would feel if the Imperials had a 50 point ship that ignored shields... It would certainly limit the B-Wing's competitiveness.

redxavier,

The X-Wing being one shot by two Ties is far less likely than an Interceptor being one shot, even assuming range 1 for the Ties. 6 attack versus 4 evade that needs five hits is unlikely to get five hits. Further, Direct Hit or other critical effects are less likely due to the shields. Lastly, this assumes that we have two Tie Fights at range one that are able to shoot without being shot first. This is possible, but it is far less likely than 3 attack dice fired at range 2-3 at the Interceptor.

I wonder how Rebel plays would feel if the Imperials had a 50 point ship that ignored shields... It would certainly limit the B-Wing's competitiveness.

Have you tried Proton Bombs on a high PS Firespray?

Uh.... no. I not only considered the affect of agility and attack dice, but I comprehensively calculated every possible scenario. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the statistical analysis works. Please reread my post. The square root law is based on Lanchester's Laws, please also read those as well. Having a background in calculus helps, but is not necessary, you can simply jump to the "square root law" conclusion instead.

It seemed to be that your conclusion was about the damage output of the Interceptor, not it's survivability, which is what I was referring to.

I don't think any discussion about ships can be had without taking into account how much it can avoid being hit.

You are right that agility dice aren't as powerful in terms of success rate, but that does not mean that agility is worth less. It's a far more valuable commodity.

The Interceptor has the same exact durability as the TIE Fighter, so you account for points difference by using the square root of the ratio of their damage outputs, and then add in more points for the maneuverability / boost. Please read up on Lanchester's Law.

Lanchester's Law ... hm?

Interesting. I go with the Honecker's Law, which goes: "Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!"

Which means like: 'Forward ever, backward never!'

If you just use evade every turn with your squint, you'll find yourself hitting like nothing. You are better off with 2 TIE/ln focussing instead.

Not necessarily. At range 1-2 the need to focus isn't as necessary with 3-4 attack dice available (vs the standard TIE), especially when going up against the 1 agility of the falcon, which has to be really lucky to roll that one evade - so not really hitting "nothing". You can't miss!

Meanwhile with 2 evading squints, the odds are heavily in your favour that the one being targeted will survive.

Not to mention the options for the INTs to move into and out of range 1 more easily with boost and barrel roll.

I'm bookmarking this to run the numbers later. I'm on the way out the door at the moment.

So, this is an interesting scenario, so I ran the numbers.

Scenario: 1 YT-1300 with focus is attacking either:

• Three Academy TIE Fighters (36 points), each who focus.
• Two Alpha Squadron Pilots, who each use evade.

All attacks are at range 1, and for simplicity I will assume no focus on defense for anyone.

TIE Fighters first:

Average Expected damage given to the YT-1300: 5.64.

Average damage received from the YT-1300: 1.91

TIE hull / average damage received: 4.72

Figure of Merit: 5.64*4.72 = 26.6

TIE Interceptors with Evade:

Average Expected damage given to the YT-1300: 3.3.

Average damage received from the YT-1300: 1.04

TIE hull / average damage received: 5.79

Figure of Merit: 3.3*5.79 = 19.1

TIE Interceptors with focus:

Average Expected damage given to the YT-1300: 5.25.

Average damage received from the YT-1300: 1.91

TIE hull / average damage received: 3.14

Figure of Merit: 5.25*3.14 = 16.5

Now lets compare 1x Saber with PtL vs 2x Academies

2x Academies:

Average Expected damage given to the YT-1300: 3.76.

Average damage received from the YT-1300: 1.91

TIE hull / average damage received: 3.14

Figure of Merit: 3.76*3.14 = 11.8

Average Expected damage given to the YT-1300: 2.63.

Average damage received from the YT-1300: 1.04

TIE hull / average damage received: 2.88

Figure of Merit: 2.63*2.88 = 7.57

Conclusion: TIE Fighters are around 30% more combat effective than TIE Interceptors against the Falcon at range 1. This doesn't take into account lower PS ships eventually getting "sniped" by the YT-1300 before they can shoot, which will negatively impact the Interceptors more than the Fighters.

i think your math is wrong. Interceptors at range 1 even without focus roll almost the same as ties because they roll four dice. Interceptors at range one with evade also survive better and do more damage than ties who take evade because same evasion chances but the int has one more shot. Either way interceptors are from a purely numbers game superior in every way to the fighter. As for going against a YT. Its one of the rebels best ships but its big and costs alot. and generally doesnt have many friends.

The extra damage makes very little difference to survivability due to the huge amount of Hull and Shields the YT has. It doesn't matter how much damage a ship does until that magic number is reached as the YTs combat effectiveness does not go down as it takes damage

i think your math is wrong. Interceptors at range 1 even without focus roll almost the same as ties because they roll four dice. Interceptors at range one with evade also survive better and do more damage than ties who take evade because same evasion chances but the int has one more shot. Either way interceptors are from a purely numbers game superior in every way to the fighter. As for going against a YT. Its one of the rebels best ships but its big and costs alot. and generally doesnt have many friends.

In a purely numbers game, they are only superior in their dial and their attack. Both are HUGE advantages, but they roll the same number of agility die and have the same number of Hull Points.

They do not survive any better than regular ties at range one, although they do do more damage if they survive.

Edit: This said, running interceptors into range one against the YT-1300 is a mistake. They can afford to snipe at range--3 attack die is fine. Keep the extra green die. Regular ties, on the other hand, need the extra red and are best when swarming in.

The extra damage makes very little difference to survivability due to the huge amount of Hull and Shields the YT has. It doesn't matter how much damage a ship does until that magic number is reached as the YTs combat effectiveness does not go down as it takes damage

The YT doesn't fit in with the dog fighting gamplay format. It just plows through the table destroying everything in its path. It takes minimal skill and strategy to play. Broken.

Redxavier... you won't convince them... I agree with you though.. I dont put much stock in statistics myself.. they don't work, in my opinion, in a one night gaming session.. it's about the skill of the player and the mercy of the dice.. (and here's where everyone junps me for my heresy)

Also.. Rodent.. "Chalk Heffalump" ... Awesome... hahaha

Interesting analysis (on paper at least), thanks for that. I'm not so sure about that conclusion though, that 30% more "combat effective" rating comes entirely from the 3 additional attack dice of the additional ship so it's not exactly that the eyeball is better in that regard vs the squint when taken alone. Probably just your wording.

Sorry if I missed this before, but has there been any updates on their timeline for release?

... The YT doesn't fit in with the dog fighting gamplay format. It just plows through the table destroying everything in its path. It takes minimal skill and strategy to play. Broken.

Broken? Just because it's easy to play? Personally I think it is a wonderful addition, giving everyone a little more to think about when they build their squads. And, it's a great introductory ship for those that are new to the game. Irritating? Perhaps. Especially since only the Rebel Scum get to wield it. But not broken.

i think your math is wrong.

I wrote scripts to brute force the calculation. You are free to do the math yourself and check my results. If you think the math is wrong, then please provide your numbers and how you arrived at them. If you can't do that, then no offense intended, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Also: we're not comparing one Interceptor vs one Fighter. As stated in my post, you have to compare two Interceptors vs three Fighters because they cost the same points. So it's 9 dice with focus vs 8 dice without focus. The 8 dice get a slight advantage because YT-1300 gets an extra defense roll against the three Fighters, but the 3 fighters still come out ahead. Against higher agility targets that are harder to hit, the Interceptors would become relatively more effective.

I dont put much stock in statistics myself.. they don't work, in my opinion, in a one night gaming session.. it's about the skill of the player and the mercy of the dice..

You don't have to believe in gravity either, but if you drop a rock it will fall anyway.

The difference between one night gaming sessions vs the long term statistical averages is called "standard deviation".

The Probability Density Functions are more informative than just the averages, since you can see exactly how likely particular events are. I could have computed those too, but averages were sufficient to reach a reasonable conclusion for the above case.

No, I get that, but every time I hear some statistic or another, they just never seem to hold water.. I guess the standard deviation is the only thing I have ever seen..

Oh, and it's not that I don't believe in gravity, it's that I just know it works... and it works all the time... stats.. I'll need more convincing.. lol

Another advantage the Interceptor has over the Fighter against a YT is that extra attack die gives one more chance for a crit, and against big ships, crits mean a lot. That's one more chance every turn to cause a Direct Hit, or Blinded Pilot, or something else to drop his combat effectiveness. Statistics can't account for everything .

Interesting analysis (on paper at least), thanks for that. I'm not so sure about that conclusion though, that 30% more "combat effective" rating comes entirely from the 3 additional attack dice of the additional ship so it's not exactly that the eyeball is better in that regard vs the squint when taken alone. Probably just your wording.

The Figure of Merit is 30% higher, that's all. How that translates to how many ships will be left after everything is said and done... well, that depends on some differential equations (see Lanchesters Laws). Short summary, 30% improvement in a figure of merit is not trivial. On the other hand, combat effectiveness also goes as the square of the number of (identical) ships present, so running just 1 or 2 more ships will very quickly allow you to overwhelm your opponent.

The extra damage makes very little difference to survivability due to the huge amount of Hull and Shields the YT has. It doesn't matter how much damage a ship does until that magic number is reached as the YTs combat effectiveness does not go down as it takes damage

This. If you do a continuous time battle simulation using the above attack / defense values (where each ship continually fires until something is dead, then you change the net attack values, and repeat until only one side is left), then you end up with....

TIE Fighters beat YT-1300 with 3.9 total hull remaining.

TIE Interceptors beat the YT-1300 with 0.76 hull remaining.

Sorry if I missed this before, but has there been any updates on their timeline for release?

Sadly no. I think someone mentioned that they are "at the printers". That probably means another couple weeks for the production run, and then another 4-6 weeks of shipping time to the distributors. So we are probably looking at March-ish.