Are 3 ship rebel builds really that bad now?

Everyone seems to think 4 ship builds for rebels are the only way competitively?

I prefer to run 3 ships over 4 ( I like shiny upgrades and named pilots)

The problem with 3 ship builds vs 4 ship builds is that your total HP and damage output is drastically reduced once one of your ships is downed (and, arguably, before that happens).

The issue with running a three ship rebel list is how well you can deal with your polar opposite, the Tie swarm. If you have enough shield and hull points to thin their numbers sufficiently before they pull you down, then fine. Otherwise odds are you will lose.

A three ship build made top 8 at Worlds. A lot of it comes down to dice rolls and player ability, but I would say that personal preference and having fun are far more important.

yep well I quite like having a expensive b-wing, x-wing and y-wing

Just cos I can lol

and I do like upgrades

Non-Named vs Named - boils down to Tunnel Vision.

If your opponent sees a Name Character chances are they'll try to "Snipe" it since it's natural effects are obvious.

Compared to a group of non-Named Characters with no special abilities has your opponent focusing on the Tactics you use to maneuver the group rather than "that Pilot's the fulcrum of their battle plan; Kill it".

Less ships required better maneuvering. More ships require knowing how to block maneuvering.

Fair enough

I quite like the idea of having a couple of hard hitters like Wedge and then backed up by a 3rd ship such as Dutch or Kyle etc

Playing with named pilots is all part of the rebel experience in my view. I get upset when they die, especially Wedge and Luke! I don't get bent out of shape at all when "Rookie Pilot" shuffles off his mortal coil - except perhaps when he still had some unfired proton torpedos

A three ship build made top 8 at Worlds. A lot of it comes down to dice rolls and player ability, but I would say that personal preference and having fun are far more important.

The only 3 ship Rebel build in the Top 8 at Worlds used a Millennium Falcon, which is a different animal that what the OP was probably asking about.

http://moseisleyraumhafen.forumieren.com/t814-x-wing-wm-2013#10078

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

I sort of auto think large based ships such as the Falcon as two ships so dont count

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Worlds may not have had a three snub fighter build but wasn't the runner up a Gen Con a three fighter build?

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between surviveability (did I just make up a word? ) and effectiveness. Also, your math is wrong?

HSF with Chewie as crew has 15 HP at 1 agility, and 10 HP at 2 agility, 25 total.

3 B-wings have 24 HP at 1 agility, 24 total.

So, the HSF list is more durable, both in absolute hit points, and weighted durability (considering higher agility on the X-wings), than the B-wings. Obviously there are many other considerations too.

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between surviveability (did I just make up a word? ) and effectiveness. Also, your math is wrong?

HSF with Chewie as crew has 15 HP at 1 agility, and 10 HP at 2 agility, 25 total.

3 B-wings have 24 HP at 1 agility, 24 total.

So, the HSF list is more durable, both in absolute hit points, and weighted durability (considering higher agility on the X-wings), than the B-wings. Obviously there are many other considerations too.

Quite a few. I'm a big fan of ninja B-Wings with Advanced Sensors and Engine Upgrade. There's no real way to quantify being able to get out of firing arcs, which the Falcon has a harder time with. Not to mention ninja B-wings' effectiveness relies HEAVILY on how well the player can maneuver them.

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between surviveability (did I just make up a word? ) and effectiveness. Also, your math is wrong?

HSF with Chewie as crew has 15 HP at 1 agility, and 10 HP at 2 agility, 25 total.

3 B-wings have 24 HP at 1 agility, 24 total.

So, the HSF list is more durable, both in absolute hit points, and weighted durability (considering higher agility on the X-wings), than the B-wings. Obviously there are many other considerations too.

For a person so thoroughly left-brained as yourself, you're having an awfully difficult time with an obvious technical issue. Three ships is three ships is three ships. You can shift or redistribute the points however you like, but it's still three ships, and it fit OP's criteria.

Also, not every HSF list uses Chewie, but the principle remains the same. Either way, you're contending that 1 more hit point and 2 extra green dice is a "whole other animal" (or whatever your pre-edit remark was).

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between surviveability (did I just make up a word? ) and effectiveness. Also, your math is wrong?

HSF with Chewie as crew has 15 HP at 1 agility, and 10 HP at 2 agility, 25 total.

3 B-wings have 24 HP at 1 agility, 24 total.

So, the HSF list is more durable, both in absolute hit points, and weighted durability (considering higher agility on the X-wings), than the B-wings. Obviously there are many other considerations too.

For a person so thoroughly right-brained, you're having an awfully difficult time with an obvious technical issue. Three ships is three ships is three ships. You can shift or redistribute the points however your like, but it's still three ships, and it fit OP's criteria.

Also, not every HSF list uses Chewie.

3 ship lists tend to have their ships in the 30s, not 2 ships in their 20s and one in its 40s-50s. Falcon lists tend to fit the mold of 4-5 ship lists, with the Falcon itself taking 2 slots.

Following your logic, 3 Bounty Hunters would be equivalent to 3 Tie Fighters.

In a small tactical way, maybe. It's still a 3 ship build, and suffers from many of the same drawbacks. It's not so different that I felt it required a caveat.

Oh. Well, I personally think that a 13 hit point Falcon with a 360 degree turret is significantly different than a single snub fighter. There were three squads in the top 16 that used Falcon + 2 X-Wings. There weren't any 3 snub fighter builds though.

I'm not comparing a large base ship with a small base ship, though. I'm comparing three ships at 100 points with three ships at 100 points. Both squads suffer from having too many eggs in too few baskets. Or did you mean to make a correlation between the total number of hit points in a squad and its overall effectiveness? If that's the case, three well upgraded B-Wings (or Y-Wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between surviveability (did I just make up a word? ) and effectiveness. Also, your math is wrong?

HSF with Chewie as crew has 15 HP at 1 agility, and 10 HP at 2 agility, 25 total.

3 B-wings have 24 HP at 1 agility, 24 total.

So, the HSF list is more durable, both in absolute hit points, and weighted durability (considering higher agility on the X-wings), than the B-wings. Obviously there are many other considerations too.

For a person so thoroughly right-brained, you're having an awfully difficult time with an obvious technical issue. Three ships is three ships is three ships. You can shift or redistribute the points however your like, but it's still three ships, and it fit OP's criteria.

Also, not every HSF list uses Chewie.

3 ship lists tend to have their ships in the 30s, not 2 ships in their 20s and one in its 40s-50s. Falcon lists tend to fit the mold of 4-5 ship lists, with the Falcon itself taking 2 slots.

Following your logic, 3 Bounty Hunters would be equivalent to 3 Tie Fighters.

Uh, no. Not unless you can quote where I said that three TIEs add up to 100 points, but if you scroll up just a little you can see that's clearly not the case. If you're contending that a more even distribution of points is the dividing line between a Han list and a three ship squad, if there even is such a distinction, then I know at least one poster on these forums that will sing you the praises of three Lambdas.

If we're comparing only Rebel ships, HSF throws significantly fewer red dice to make it comparable to 4 or 5 ship lists. The YT-1300 may have the hit points of more than one ship, but it retains the weapon and agility values of only one. When you add in the primacy of maneuvering in this game, and the fact that the YT can only be in one place at a time, the distinction between HSF and a 4-5 ship list becomes even more apparent.

For a person so thoroughly left-brained as yourself, you're having an awfully difficult time with an obvious technical issue.

People on the interwebs these days, throwing around insults like candy.

See below for answer.

OP had multiple criteria. One was three ships. Another was having points to spend.

OP's post stated that he "likes shiny upgrades and named pilots", so he is pointing us in the direction of lists that have a significant amount of points available to do so. So, lets evaluate the minimum number of points that is required to get some various squads.

2 X-Wings + 2 B-wings: 86 points

4 X-wings: 84 points

3 X-wings: 63 points

3 Lambdas: 63 points

1 X-wing + 1 Y-wing + 1 B-wing: 61 points

1 X-wing + 1 Y-wing + 1 HWK: 55 points

3 Y-wings: 54 points

3 HWK: (LOL?): 48 points

point range: (48 for LOLs?) 54 - 66 points

Falcon + 2 X-wings has significantly fewer points leftover than any of the lists in the second set, including your cited example of 3 Lambdas. OP was looking for lists with points available to spend on upgrades, so having 16 points left to spend is certainly "a whole different kind of animal" compared to having at least 34 points to spend on upgrades.

Based on OP's response quoted below, my line of thinking was apparently as per his original intention.

I sort of auto think large based ships such as the Falcon as two ships so dont count

While we are on the topic of HSF lists, I will plug the wave 3 version of HSF in case OP finds it interesting.

Han Solo

Millennium Falcon

Push the Limit

Recon Specialist

Gunner

Rookie Pilot x2

I played a game where it was down to Han and Soontir Fel, and they were both double-focusing and evading every round. It was pretty funny.

Edits: Long post, I wish this site had a preview button!

Also, not every HSF list uses Chewie, but the principle remains the same. Either way, you're contending that 1 more hit point and 2 extra green dice is a "whole other animal" (or whatever your pre-edit remark was).

I never said why HSF "is a completely different animal than what the OP was probably asking about", aside from pointing out the obvious that having 13 HP and a 360 degree arc is not possible on a small base ship.

My later math on the standard 25 HP HSF list was a correction to your statement that:

IF the total number of hit points in a squad has a correlation to overall effectiveness, THEN three well upgraded B-wings (or Y-wings) should have placed better at worlds than a HSF list, [given that HSF list has less hit points than a 3 B-wing list.]

You didn't explicitly state the portion in the brackets, but it must be true for your point to make logical sense. I pointed out that the standard HSF list (that was Worlds Top 8) vs 3 B-wings does not meet this criteria.

For a person so thoroughly left-brained as yourself, you're having an awfully difficult time with an obvious technical issue.

People on the interwebs these days, throwing around insults like candy.

See below for answer.

Three ships is three ships is three ships. You can shift or redistribute the points however you like, but it's still three ships, and it fit OP's criteria.

OP's post stated that he "likes shiny upgrades and named pilots", he is pointing us in the direction of lists that have a significant amount of points free for spending on "shiny upgrades and named pilots".

OP had multiple criteria. One was three ships. Another was having points to spend.

So, lets evaluate the minimum number of points that is required to get some various squads.

2 X-Wings + 2 B-wings: 86 points

4 X-wings: 84 points

2 X-wings + Falcon (3/1/8/5): 84 points

AXBY: 78 points

point range: 78 - 86 points

3 B-wings: 66 points

3 X-wings: 63 points

1 X-wing + 1 Y-wing + 1 B-wing: 61 points

1 X-wing + 1 Y-wing + 1 HWK: 55 points

3 Y-wings: 54 points

3 HWK: (LOL?): 48 points

point range: (48 for LOLs?) 54 - 66 points

Falcon + 2 X-wings has significantly fewer points leftover than any of the lists in the second set. OP was looking for lists with points available to spend on upgrades, so having 16 points left to spend is certainly "a whole different kind of animal" compared to having at least 34 points to spend on upgrades.

Based on OP's response quoted below, my line of thinking was apparently as per his original intention.

I sort of auto think large based ships such as the Falcon as two ships so dont count

While we are on the topic of HSF lists, I will plug the wave 3 version of HSF in case OP finds it interesting.

Han Solo

Millennium Falcon

Push the Limit

Recon Specialist

Gunner

Rookie Pilot x2

I played a game where it was down to Han and Soontir Fel, and they were both double-focusing and evading every round. It was pretty funny.

TL;DR

Three ships is three ships. You can do the math, I'll wager.

TL;DR

Three ships is three ships. You can do the math, I'll wager.

Summary here:

Falcon + 2 X-wings has significantly fewer points leftover than any of the lists in the second set, including your cited example of 3 Lambdas. OP was looking for lists with points available to spend on upgrades, so having 16 points left to spend is certainly "a whole different kind of animal" compared to having at least 34 points to spend on upgrades.

TL;DR

Three ships is three ships. You can do the math, I'll wager.

Summary here:

Falcon + 2 X-wings has significantly fewer points leftover than any of the lists in the second set, including your cited example of 3 Lambdas. OP was looking for lists with points available to spend on upgrades, so having 16 points left to spend is certainly "a whole different kind of animal" compared to having at least 34 points to spend on upgrades.

Are 3 ship rebel builds really that bad now?

Everyone seems to think 4 ship builds for rebels are the only way competitively?

I prefer to run 3 ships over 4 ( I like shiny upgrades and named pilots)

No, 3 ships are not really that bad right now. A list with three ships made top 8 at Worlds, and several made top 16. Yes, 4 Rebel ships are strong, but 3 ships can still be competitive.

There, I think we've satisfied OP's question(s) without having to resort to any superfluous "but..."s.

How about we just say that three ships are viable bit the toys will cost you in potential damage and survivability. The ship lists using a yt1300 will have less room for other shinny toys but Han shoots first.

Then we can all agree that a y 1300 is a ship and it is different than a b - wing.

Might just take the 3 hwk option lol

so just got to do a lot more planning with 3 ships basically,but its still possible