Jump to content



Photo

The Assault Missiles Thread- By popular demand


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 El_Tonio

El_Tonio

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:14 AM

hothie said:

5. Once AM's are spent, all bets are off. Ships can and will get back into formation. I would almost keep AM's on a ship for many rounds just for the _threat_ of using them.

Fair point, but won't these also affect friendly ships within range of your target?  So, using them later might not be a good option.

If they can also hit friendly ships, this represents a notable limitation (if you don't use them early you may not get to without also damaging yourself).


REBEL: 5 X-Wing  •  3 Y-Wing  •  3 A-Wing  •  3 YT-1300  •  4 B-Wing  •  1 HWK-290  •  7 Z-95 Headhunter  •  2 E-Wing

IMPERIAL: 8 TIE Fighter  •  3 TIE Advanced X1  •  5 TIE Interceptor  • 3 Firespray 31  •  6 TIE Bomber  •  2 Lambda Class Shuttle  •  2 TIE Phantom  •  2 TIE Defender

 

 


#22 El_Tonio

El_Tonio

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:16 AM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

 

Again, the new cards will do nothing to help the units that Assault Missiles hurt most, non-unique TIE Fighters. They cannot take skill cards or any upgrade cards. No amount of new cards presented will help them defeat Assault Missiles.

 

 

We don't know this for sure.  Maybe there will be an elite talent card that prevents area attacks from taking effect.  There are three TIEs that can take elite talents, including one generic 14 point TIE.

Or, maybe there will an upgrade that takes out another / opposing  ship's upgrade (so, if you attack first you can take out their AM).

Or, maybe there is a typo that means it can only be used in large ships (there have been significant typos before).

Not to mention that each card will cost you $20 (assuming you only get one with each larger ships). 

There are options as well.

 

 


REBEL: 5 X-Wing  •  3 Y-Wing  •  3 A-Wing  •  3 YT-1300  •  4 B-Wing  •  1 HWK-290  •  7 Z-95 Headhunter  •  2 E-Wing

IMPERIAL: 8 TIE Fighter  •  3 TIE Advanced X1  •  5 TIE Interceptor  • 3 Firespray 31  •  6 TIE Bomber  •  2 Lambda Class Shuttle  •  2 TIE Phantom  •  2 TIE Defender

 

 


#23 El_Tonio

El_Tonio

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:20 AM

Right now only TIE Advanced X1 can take missiles.  These are pretty pricey, as are the Falcon and Slave 1 (assuming it also has missiles).  So, in 100 point squad you may not be able to have too many AM anyway. For example, do we know if the TIE Interceptor or A-Wing have missiles?  If they don't, or if they cost enough, this will not be a huge problem anyway. 

In fact, at 5 points for this upgrade, I'll bet it doesn't have a huge effect on the game (especially if it only comes in the larger ships which cost $20).  Here's why:

(1) a side can have 3 max if they go with this upgrade on every ship (unless the A-Wings are very cheap now that someone confirmed they also have missiles… but that would likely make it 4 ships max… and with 2 shields and 2 hull I wouldn't really want to put my only hope in a 4 A-Wing squad, especially since you don't know what you are playing against and the Imperials will also have access to this upgrade).

(2) some will likely not hit (and you then you pretty much wasted 5 points each time they miss)

(3) you can come up with several formations to defend against (or at least minimize its effectiveness)

(4) they will be less use later in the game when you might risk damaging your own ship

(5) both sides can use them (especially if they end up being usable by TIE Interceptor, too)

(6) these will be less effective against certain squads, and since you don't know what you are playing against you may be wasting points by taking too many of these

(7) you have to have a target lock and be at range 2 or 3… not always easy to set up.  Especially if the target also has to be in your firing arc to use.

 


REBEL: 5 X-Wing  •  3 Y-Wing  •  3 A-Wing  •  3 YT-1300  •  4 B-Wing  •  1 HWK-290  •  7 Z-95 Headhunter  •  2 E-Wing

IMPERIAL: 8 TIE Fighter  •  3 TIE Advanced X1  •  5 TIE Interceptor  • 3 Firespray 31  •  6 TIE Bomber  •  2 Lambda Class Shuttle  •  2 TIE Phantom  •  2 TIE Defender

 

 


#24 Duraham

Duraham

    Member

  • Members
  • 824 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:35 AM

 we know for sure that the Awing can carry 1 missile



#25 Duraham

Duraham

    Member

  • Members
  • 824 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

 

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

 

Again, the new cards will do nothing to help the units that Assault Missiles hurt most, non-unique TIE Fighters. They cannot take skill cards or any upgrade cards. No amount of new cards presented will help them defeat Assault Missiles.

 

 

well, there's the +1 shield ship upgrade which looks like any ship could use it, so it might be worthwhile to cannabilize 1 or 2 TIEs to give everybody the +1 shield upgrade. You could also try swarming with Obsidians/ Black squadron TIEs instead, as they have a higher skill point, so when you see your opponent trying to setup a missile salvo this very turn, put that targeted TIE on evade, get everybody else to barrel roll or boost away, and start praying hard



#26 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 703 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:22 AM

Absolutely no one has said FFG is infallible. Your bastardization of people’s clearly written arguments is completely insulting. You want to claim other posters are making knee-jerk reactions? That is completely laughable coming from the poster whose only posts on this subject have been complete knee jerk reactions.

As has been said by a number of posters you are dealing with an incomplete data set and no testing to base your conclusions on. You’ve taken your theory straight from hypothesis to conclusion with absolutely nothing real to stand it on. And you’ve done so ignoring that you don’t even have the full picture yet. On the face of that your conclusions are invalid, because they have nothing that makes them actual conclusions.

As said everybody as a number of theories, thoughts, hope, fears, dreams, strategies, etc. in regards to the new options that we are getting. But to take those initial thoughts and then, with no testing, expand them into the conclusion that FFG has broken their game is just plain absurd. It is the boldest of knee jerk reactions and requires a huge amount of arrogance. Let’s never mind the fact that you continue to insist that nothing coming out to help the generic TiE when that is just false on the face of it because of Modifications and false in spirit given the synergistic abilities we’ve seen on pilots and elite upgrades that certainly benefit the generic TiE even if it cannot take them.

In summation let’s not put the 8 parsecs in front of the horse. How about you actually put some testing in with all of Wave 2 before you come to your conclusions? That way we can actually have a discussion on the subject, because right now we only have theory and groundless knee-jerk conclusions.
 



#27 El_Tonio

El_Tonio

    Member

  • Members
  • 418 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:33 AM

After asking a few questions over at the rules forums, I've decided I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.  To summarize…

AM do not seem all that game changing to me given that they:

(1) cost 5 points -- making them one of the most expensive upgrades,

(2) require a target lock,

(3) work only at range 2-3,

(4) require the target locked ship in your 90 degree firing arc,

(5) require that you actually hit the targeted ship -- and you've already spent your target lock so you can't reroll,

(6) that the targeted has to have one or more ships within one of them to really be worth it -- otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives,

(7) that they also effect friendly ships that happen to be near the target,

(8) are available to both sides,

(9) work only once per ship, and

(10) you have to be prepared for all types of squads and not just swarm squads.

Am I missing that makes some folks think these are a game changer (besides the fact that there is a vary remote chance that they could do a lot of harm every now and then).

I'd say the possibility of successfully using Assault Missiles to take out an opponents entire squad are approximately 3,720 to 1. Though I have been known to make mistakes… from time to time… Oh dear.

I know, I know… never tell me the odds.


REBEL: 5 X-Wing  •  3 Y-Wing  •  3 A-Wing  •  3 YT-1300  •  4 B-Wing  •  1 HWK-290  •  7 Z-95 Headhunter  •  2 E-Wing

IMPERIAL: 8 TIE Fighter  •  3 TIE Advanced X1  •  5 TIE Interceptor  • 3 Firespray 31  •  6 TIE Bomber  •  2 Lambda Class Shuttle  •  2 TIE Phantom  •  2 TIE Defender

 

 


#28 magadizer

magadizer

    2014 X-wing Store Championship Participant

  • Members
  • 1,083 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:02 AM

 I am hiring a lawyer to begin a class action lawsuit. All purchases of this game have been completely invalidated by the impending publication of this one card. We will be demanding an immediate injunction to stop the publication of this game, and to freeze these forums. We will of course be demanding that FFG refund all our money, but will also seek punitive damages due to the mental anguish and suffering caused by the possible modification of one potential squad build's effectiveness in one style of play. This is an outrage, and justice must be done. Who's with me?

Just kidding, Inebriated ursine.

But seriously I think this card will be a lot of fun. The argument about it costing too much in real $ seems unwarranted as well. If you don't like the card at your house or in friendly games, don't use it. If you are worried about its use in tournament play, then look at the likelihood of how it will be used. First of all, how many of serious players will not be buying 1 falcon and 1 slave 1? This card looks like it will be coming with each of these ships. So most everyone will own 2 of these cards. Will many people really want to field more than 2 of these in a single 100 point squad? As someone else pointed out, that probably means taking sub-optimal squads as a rebel if you want 3 assault missiles.


Be seeing you.

#29 DrUnK3n_PaNdA

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

    Member

  • Members
  • 145 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:42 AM

Well we'll see. I didn't really make this thread to argue about it with people, but it seems increasingly difficult to have a discussion on the internet without someone being randomly inflammatory, so I give up. I'll be testing them a bit this weekend, I do know that much, but honestly I am not pleased this card is in the game, and I dislike how strong a counter it is to certain playstyles and squadron builds, because I think it's a poor miniatures game that can ever be decided off the table during force composition.

Anyway, I'll let you know how it turns out actually seeing them in play. I expect I'll be right, but I would be very pleasantly surprised if I were not.



#30 hothie

hothie

    Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:54 AM

Just played it. Report in the Battle Reports section.



#31 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 703 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:17 AM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

Well we'll see. I didn't really make this thread to argue about it with people, but it seems increasingly difficult to have a discussion on the internet without someone being randomly inflammatory, so I give up. I'll be testing them a bit this weekend, I do know that much, but honestly I am not pleased this card is in the game, and I dislike how strong a counter it is to certain playstyles and squadron builds, because I think it's a poor miniatures game that can ever be decided off the table during force composition.

Anyway, I'll let you know how it turns out actually seeing them in play. I expect I'll be right, but I would be very pleasantly surprised if I were not.

You know I, personally speaking, find a person asserting admittedly untested and incomplete theory as fact in the ruin or at least down turn of a game extremely inflammatory.  And based on this thread I do beieve most people agree, so lets lay off the victim card please.

Secondly if that is you take on what makes a poor miniatures game, then there has never been a good one made.  Every miniatures game features bad match ups even among top builds.  Warmachine which is incredibly diverse and often used as an example of a balanced table-top game features many possible match ups decided in list building.  Even among tournament viable lists. 

What is good today in an expanding game may not be good tomorrow.  New options enhance, add to, and supplant old options in order to expand on the game.  An old play style being invalidated is not a strict negative so long that they new addition offer a net increase in variety.  You bought an expanding game, to conclude a current playstyle would be forever viable is not at all logical.

To put it plainly your assertion are unbacked and your expectation are unrealistic.



#32 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

Well we'll see. I didn't really make this thread to argue about it with people, but it seems increasingly difficult to have a discussion on the internet without someone being randomly inflammatory, so I give up. I'll be testing them a bit this weekend, I do know that much, but honestly I am not pleased this card is in the game, and I dislike how strong a counter it is to certain playstyles and squadron builds, because I think it's a poor miniatures game that can ever be decided off the table during force composition.

Anyway, I'll let you know how it turns out actually seeing them in play. I expect I'll be right, but I would be very pleasantly surprised if I were not.

Discussions are held between reasoning people who acknowledge others' opinions as valid and differentiate between proven fact and unproven theories. You've done neither. Arguing may not have been your intention, but it was certainly the outcome you produced. This most recent post of yours does relate a much better understanding of the difference between personal opinion and fact, though. So kudos. Here's hoping your tests leave you with a better outlook on the future of the game.

Mags, I approve. If you ever decide to go through with it and you need someone to plead insanity, I'm your man.



#33 Remorhaz

Remorhaz

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:22 PM

hothie said:

Just played it. Report in the Battle Reports section.

thanks for that. overall what are your thoughts on the falcon ? would something else been better on it in place of the missiles ?



#34 hothie

hothie

    Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:37 PM

Remorhaz said:

hothie said:

 

Just played it. Report in the Battle Reports section.

 

 

thanks for that. overall what are your thoughts on the falcon ? would something else been better on it in place of the missiles ?

The Assault Missiles missed, so no damage was done at all. And even if she had hit, the only TIE it would have affected later would have been Howlrunner, who was at 2 damage for a long time. The rest of my squad would have been just fine, honestly.



#35 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:38 AM

 Thanks for the test results hothie. Personally, I don't see myself using them much because my luck is terrible. I very rarely have Proton Torps do anything for me, and I don't expect these to be very different. I just see lots of results like you've listed here in my future, lol.



#36 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 703 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:12 AM

KarmikazeKidd said:

 Thanks for the test results hothie. Personally, I don't see myself using them much because my luck is terrible. I very rarely have Proton Torps do anything for me, and I don't expect these to be very different. I just see lots of results like you've listed here in my future, lol.

I think that's an odd approach to take in a game built on the statistics behind dice rolling.  But such is superstition.



#37 magadizer

magadizer

    2014 X-wing Store Championship Participant

  • Members
  • 1,083 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:49 AM

 Yeah, but I feel the same way as the KarmikazeKidd. I STILL have not yet had a successful hit with proton torpedoes. I will think very long and hard before I commit 5 points to these missiles, even though they are so tempting, and seem like such a fun addition.


Be seeing you.

#38 Stormtrooper721

Stormtrooper721

    Member

  • Members
  • 358 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:06 AM

magadizer said:

 Yeah, but I feel the same way as the KarmikazeKidd. I STILL have not yet had a successful hit with proton torpedoes. I will think very long and hard before I commit 5 points to these missiles, even though they are so tempting, and seem like such a fun addition.

Yeah, this is another reason why I, as a dedicated TIE swarmer, am not panicking over Assault Missiles. You'll need at least three Assault Missiles in your force for them to be truly effective and you'll need all three to hit. That's 15 points and if any one of the three doesn't hit, you've only annoyed not destroyed the TIE Fighter swarm, and now you're really outnumbered and screwed. 

Assault Missiles are something to respect, but they are not the armageddon of swarms that many seem to fear.

 


The 731st Imperial Flight School - "The Vornskrs" - 1 TIE Advanced, 3 TIE Interceptors, 10 TIE Fighters

23 Victories, 1 Defeat, 0 Draws - 69 kills versus 46 losses


#39 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 703 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:08 AM

magadizer said:

 Yeah, but I feel the same way as the KarmikazeKidd. I STILL have not yet had a successful hit with proton torpedoes. I will think very long and hard before I commit 5 points to these missiles, even though they are so tempting, and seem like such a fun addition.

magadizer said:

 Yeah, but I feel the same way as the KarmikazeKidd. I STILL have not yet had a successful hit with proton torpedoes. I will think very long and hard before I commit 5 points to these missiles, even though they are so tempting, and seem like such a fun addition.

I'd think a little longer and harder before staking to a position that hinges on, well, less then likely results.  It is completely correct to say you can wiff with Proton Torpedoes, Assault Missiles, etc; that's a reality of the upgrade.  But still both weapons are more likely to land then not, which is the requirement of the Assault Missiles.  But still missing is a possible reality that diminishes the total galaxy domination this thread insinuates.

And of course there are all the ways you have to further hedge those bets.



#40 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 703 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:13 AM

Stormtrooper721 said:

 

Yeah, this is another reason why I, as a dedicated TIE swarmer, am not panicking over Assault Missiles. You'll need at least three Assault Missiles in your force for them to be truly effective and you'll need all three to hit. That's 15 points and if any one of the three doesn't hit, you've only annoyed not destroyed the TIE Fighter swarm, and now you're really outnumbered and screwed. 

Assault Missiles are something to respect, but they are not the armageddon of swarms that many seem to fear.

 

I think you are underestimating the effect of one or two good Assault Missile hits.  Three may out right wipe you out, but two would still allow the Rebel force to then effectively split fire for good results.  Knocking a decent amount of a squad down to one hull point would mean on subsequent turns the Rebels could go man to man instead of being forced to concentrate fire (and it is easier to get every ship a target as opposed to every ship on the same target) and take out multiple TiEs in a round.  Of course that is theory.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS