Does anyone else think that the critical hits are a bit biased against Imperial ships? Lately I've been kinda feeling like they are.

depends. some crits are more painful on specific ships.

eg. academy TIE fighters are practically immune to "discard secondary weapon", "reduce pilot skill to 0", "no pilot ability"

Biased towards the Imperials in that they have a few ships without shields? Or perhaps they are not biased against the imperials as many of those critical often do nothing special to them as Duraham mentions.

If you want to say they damage deck is biased against the Imperials then the Proton Bomb must be EXTREMELY biased against Rebel ships. Not only are the Imperials the only one that can use it because it deals a face up damage card to a ship it is more likely to cripple something on a rebel ship where many of them carry secondary weapons assuming of course it doesn't just destroy it from an undamaged state.

That's true, but that is very limited. Only two ships to my knowledge can use bombs, and you must hit with it. Meanwhile, any rebel ship can deal a critical hit at any time. Any imperial ship can deal them at any time too, but it's 50/50 if you get through shields.

When it comes to the Imperials deals criticals to the Rebels you should remember that hits are negated first but Rebel ships usually are NOT the best at negating hits. At range 1 a TIE Fighter could land a crit on an X-Wings hull especially with a little help.

You don't seem to understand what the point is. You keep saying specific circumstances. The moment you alter the parameters from baseline you prove my point inherently. Statistically, an Imperial craft is more likely to take a critical hit than a rebel craft, and most of them either a) deal extra damage, which you can't likely take at that point, b) eliminate actions from the action bar (such as the focus and evades that keep most TIEs flying), or c) limit maneuverability, which TIEs rely on to really be able to do anything. That's all I'm saying. I'm not debating that these things aren't a hinderance to rebel craft as well, or the fact that rebels can't take critical hits (they totally can and do). I'm just saying that on average, Imperials will take them more easily and often, and it's more dire if they do.

Bonus for rebels, they have at least one pilot who flat out ignores them for ever all the time.

Alliance starfighters have, on average, higher shield values in proportion to their hull values than Imperial starfighters. Also, the general Imperial player preference is for fighters lacking shields whatsoever. Therefore, yes, I agree that, on average, a higher proportion of critical hits that are not canceled by defense dice result in faceup damage cards when resolved against Imperial starfighters than Alliance starfighters.

I wouldn't call that concept "bias", though, simply a feature of the game's mechanics and ship profiles. And that's only part of the picture. In addition to what others have mentioned above, Alliance starfighters are generally outnumbered about 3 to 2 by (and actually have less average hull individually than) Imperial starfighters. Therefore the faceup damage cards they do receive have a greater proportional effect.

And just so you know, you actually can get faceup damage cards on Chewbacca through the Saboteur crew, as his ability only affects cards dealt to him.

I'm going to remember that. I don't think i have Saboteur.

Short answer; yes. A lot of fighter kills are due to a double damage critical, or something similar, sneaking through the defence dice. This is, ultimately, the reason 'shield' hit points are worth more than normal hit points - and hence why the shield upgrade is worth a point more than the hull upgrade.

The counter argument is, I guess, that imperial fighters (certainly interceptors) are better at avoiding shots in the first place. Note that I don't mean evade dice, but in sabre-dancing around firing arcs completely.

Yes, I am aware of this. I believe my especially rotten run of luck the last few games had got me thinking about this.

Does anyone else think that the critical hits are a bit biased against Imperial ships?

Biased? No, but that term makes your statement imply that FFG intentional designed the game to make things worse for the Imperials, which is clearly untrue. Both factions are fairly well balanced in this game as I mentioned in the thread saying that the game favors the Imperial side.

Are Imperial ships more likely to suffer crits? Sure, with their main fighters being un-shielded they're naturally more prone to critical hits. But they also cost a good deal less, and have higher defense then the Rebel fighters do.

Does the deck itself hurt Imperial ships more then Rebels? No, both sides suffer pretty equally when it comes to the effects of a critical hit.

But the first fact does not make the game unbalanced, or biased to one faction over the other. Because even though the Imp's are more prone to Crits they are better able to absorb them because they'll generally have more ships on the table which spreads those crit hits out.

Having a single Tie Fighter hit with Direct Hit! isn't nearly as painful as having a B-Wing hit with that same crit.

I would say you are using the wrong example, you are comparing a 12 point ship to a 22 point ship. Assuming point similarity with 2 Tie fighters (total of 24 points), It is still more painful for the Tie fighter to take a critical because you would have to go through the 5 shields of the B-wing that negates criticals. It'll be a total of 6 hulls vs 3 hull + 5 shields.

Let us assume with the specific circumstances that a lot of people would like to propose. Assuming without using criticals, with a Tie fighter, it is easy to get killed with a 1 hit KO, the same with the Interceptor. However, the Tie advanced and Bomber needs 2 hits but you take a significant investment in points with the Advanced and no shielding with the Bomber (and more points invested with the bomber).

To take down a B-wing with Tie fighters, now with every shot hitting, the Tie fighter would have to shoot 4 times! While the B wing needs to take 2 shots to finish off the 2 Tie fighters (which also costs 2 points more).

For a scenario, 1 B wing vs 2 Tie fighters, Tie fighters shoot first. B wing takes 4 shield hit. B wing shoots, KOed the tie fighter. Tie fighter shoots again, taking the B-wing down to 2 hulls. Now the B wing shoots again to finish it off.

*It can be easily seen how my logic did not account for quite a few things.

*It can also be seen how my argument has holes in it.

Now with the weakest Rebel craft, the A wing, even without criticals, you need to take it out with 2 shots and it has 2 hulls and 2 shields, granting it with some protection from criticals. And the A-Wing costs 1 point less than the Interceptor, with a slightly better movement dial (green 5) than the interceptor and more HP (2 hull + 2 shields).

But of course, I have deliberately used specific circumstances and you can easily see the fallacy in it.

I'm not sure what the argument is here.... No, Criticals are not worse for Imperials than they are for Rebels, or do they in any way show some sort of bias.

As was mentioned, the cost of the Rebel Ships usually means they are outnumbered ~2:1. So if we compare the impact of damage to both ships, the Imperials actually come out ahead, even with taking the occasional crit

Just taking 2x Academy and a Rookie as a baseline

3hull x2 + 3 Agility >> 2shields + 3 Hull + 2 Agility

And that doesn't even factor in the survivability gained by the Evade and Barrel Roll actions or the much improved dial. Remember, that if the final point of damage is a critical, it also is largely irrelevant what the ability is, which also favors the Imperial ships.

If anything, Crits are worse for Rebels in general since much more of a given list (by points) suffers. Imagine if you converted shields to hull directly; in that case none of the rebel ships would be even close to being able to compete with the Imperial counterparts, since so many points would be consumed by crits when they occurred.

Almost every aspect of this game is almost perfectly balanced (or at the very least, as balanced as it can realistically get). If you feel that some aspect of it is not, I would recommend looking in the mirror and re-thinking that.

Apparently many of you missed the math behind the 'most survivable ships' post a few weeks ago. Spoiler: B-Wings/X-Wings were below average. On average it will take more Attack dice to kill 2 TIEs than almost any other single ship, even factoring in criticals....

I would say you are using the wrong example, you are comparing a 12 point ship to a 22 point ship.

That's pretty much exactly the point though. Imperial ships are more prone to Critical hits, but they are also a good deal cheaper and that's part of the balance of the game.

That said, the Critical Cards themselves do not favor one side or the other, which was the point the OP was making. A crit on a X-Wing, A-Wing, Tie Interceptor or Tie Bomber is pretty well balanced, in that it's almost always a bad thing no matter what ship gets hit with a crit.

If anything as was pointed out the Tie Fighter is less effected by crits, because a number of them have no real impact on a Academy Pilot. On the other hand, you have A-Wings which can be taken out by a single Direct Hit! as it's the lowest hull value ship in the game.

Yes I do think crits hurt Imperial more than Rebels. Specifically they hurt TIEs, most of which have 0 shields. But I think that it costs more to get a ship with shields than an equal number of hull. I think that TIEs' susceptibility to crits is included in there low cost.

I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been hit with a hit and a crit on a TIE of TIE Interceptor and the crit came up as two damage. Poof.

It isn't such a big problem for standard TIEs because let's face it they are supposed to die. If they survive the fight, but lose the battle Vader is going to choke them to death anyway.

Where this is a bigger issue is TIE Interceptors. The TIE Interceptor is a crap shoot. They can go the whole game without taking a hit, or they can die the first round of shooting. There susceptibility to crits is part of that.

You don't seem to understand what the point is. You keep saying specific circumstances. The moment you alter the parameters from baseline you prove my point inherently. Statistically, an Imperial craft is more likely to take a critical hit than a rebel craft...

Your premise is incorrect. A TIE is just as likely to take a crit in most cases than, say, an X-Wing. The extra Agility die ensures this. A TIE is much more likely to avoid all damage (critical or otherwise) in so many more situations.

I seriously want to see the math that resulted in the statement 'Statistically an Imperial craft is more likely to take a critical hit than a rebel craft' since I have a feeling it has little to no basis on the actual math and much more to do with your personal stake in this discussion. (or, dare I say it, bias )

I seriously want to see the math that resulted in the statement 'Statistically an Imperial craft is more likely to take a critical hit than a rebel craft'

Great point there.

I think the idea comes from the fact that since they don't have shields, a Imperial ship has no way to avoid a crit, something Shielded ships do. But as you point out, Imperial ships typically have 1 or even 2 more defense dice, meaning they're much better able to cancel that crit in the first place.

So the basic premise that a Imperial ship is more likely to get hit with a crit is something that needs to be proven before that line of thinking can reasonably go any farther.

Which even then is a different issue then if the Crit Cards themselves favor one faction over another.

Funny, as a newer player whose preference is rebels, I've felt that the critical cards effects are more likely to impact the rebels simply because a number of them affect pilot and other ship upgrades, which it seems like in a lot of lists I see, the rebels tend to have more of. So, on a lot of the critical cards I've seen for imperials, they tend to simply count as just damage.

I'm not arguing that I thought this was imbalanced the other way but it's more of an observation and how we can simply apply things to our own situation more readily.

I seriously want to see the math that resulted in the statement 'Statistically an Imperial craft is more likely to take a critical hit than a rebel craft'

Great point there.

I think the idea comes from the fact that since they don't have shields, a Imperial ship has no way to avoid a crit, something Shielded ships do. But as you point out, Imperial ships typically have 1 or even 2 more defense dice, meaning they're much better able to cancel that crit in the first place.

So the basic premise that a Imperial ship is more likely to get hit with a crit is something that needs to be proven before that line of thinking can reasonably go any farther.

Which even then is a different issue then if the Crit Cards themselves favor one faction over another.

I'm sure it does come from that fact, but even that is a fallacy since you get 2 ships for the price of one, meaning double the hull value.

Also, focus/evade further disparage the natural defensive capabilities between an X and 2 TIEs

Whether Imperial ships take the same number as Rebel ships over all might not be the point. Since crits have ongoing effects, Imperial ships are going to take those crits earlier. In order to do a crit to a X-wing you must also do 2 other damage. Where as the very first hit you hit many Imperials with might be a crit.

Whether Imperial ships take the same number as Rebel ships over all might not be the point. Since crits have ongoing effects, Imperial ships are going to take those crits earlier. In order to do a crit to a X-wing you must also do 2 other damage. Where as the very first hit you hit many Imperials with might be a crit.

But again, the impact is diminished because you have a whole other ship that is damage-free, which mitigates the ongoing value of the crit to some degree. Rebel ships can never really claim that advantage because of points

In order to do a crit to a X-wing you must also do 2 other damage. Where as the very first hit you hit many Imperials with might be a crit.

Then again your Tie fighter may avoid the first 4 attacks against it, while the X-Wing had it's shields stripped and hit with a crit.

Just because a Tie fighter has no shields doesn't actually mean it' more likely to be hit by a crit. The point you and a few others are trying make is based on the assumption that Tie Fighters and Interceptors are more likely to suffer a crit.

Well... Lets look at X wing vs. Tie Fighter.

First off, since the X wing has 2 shields and 3 hull, only 60% of the attacks can be criticals. Whereas a TIE has 3 hull and no shields, so it will suffer 100% of the criticals.

So if a TIE fighter gets hit 60% as often as an X wing, then it should balance out. Note - I'm not going to start talking the 1/8 chance of rolling a crit, as that's the same regardless of defenses. Also, since crits get cancelled last, it shouldn't make it such that a TIE is better at evading crits proportionally to hits vs. the X wing.

If they're both being attacked from the same 3 focused attack source, and neither has a focus/evade for defense, the X wing is likely to take 1.53 damage. The TIE is likely to take 1.22 damage. Now lets discount the X wing by 60% for the shield, bringing it down to .918. I'm using straight damage numbers because there's a 1/4 chance that each hit is a crit, and the crits get cancelled last, so crits received should be PROPORTIONAL to damage received.

So, it would appear that the X wing is less likely to take a crit than a TIE. Whether you think this is fair or not would depend on whether you think paying 12 points vs. 21 points is worth the extra shields.

In the example of 1 x-wing versus 2 tie it should also be pointed out that only one of the ties will be susceptible to crits, the other will be totally immune to all damage as the X can only shoot one or the other.

Bottom line is this.

After 2 years or so of this game, it's been pretty well proven that the two factions are pretty well balanced.

FFG does not have a bias to one faction or the other.

The rules do not favor one side over the other.

You can win with either faction.

Any time you think that your faction has some sort of disadvantage, it is almost a given that either you are doing something wrong, or else have had a string of bad luck.