Jump to content



Photo

The Assault Missiles Thread- By popular demand


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 DrUnK3n_PaNdA

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:49 PM

Well to respond to the fellow who thought I was overreacting on account of the other upgrade cards that might be added in the set, these cards are only applicable to units that can take them. Not to standard, non-unique TIEs who Assault Missiles would hurt most. And yes, three TIE Advanced or four A-Wings all with Assault missiles would be a devastating force in the present tournament environment. Some lucky rolls give a player the opportunity to level an entire squadron in one turn's shooting with either of those builds.

As for why it couldn't be photocopied and sleeved, please refer to the tournament rules,

"Proxies are not allowed during tournament play, each player must use only the components included in official X-Wing products. Each ship must have the official ship base, official Ship and Upgrade cards and the correct, official ship model."

That pretty clearly details why you can't bring Assault Missile proxies to a tournament, which is the only environment these will be a problem in anyway… as when playing with your friends you can just house-rule Assault Missiles as you like to keep your game's balance somewhere near where it is now. I certainly won't use them in friendly games because I think they're an addition to the game that only limits options instead of expanding on them, in that it severely limits the effectiveness of swarm armies, Rebel or Imperial and makes already questionably costed characters like Howlrunner never worth their entire points value.

As concentrating fire in a tight formation is right now the only thing that really makes an Imperial swarm work, I question the wisdom of a single 5 point upgrade card essentially removing a themely and interesting build from competitive play entirely… which severely frustrates me even moreso because I've been running a seven TIE list, not because 8 TIEs is the flavor of the month, but rather because I think it fits well with the theme and I enjoy the imposing look of having many ships on the table. From a game-design standpoint, one should not even CONSIDER adding a silver bullet counter of that power until the competitive metagame has had time to evolve and a strategy has proven completely unbeatable without it.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this isn't a CCG where the threat of that counter will limit someone's strategic options. In order to limit your opponent's deployment, you also have to be using Assault Missiles. That's what  renders swarm lists unusable. If you do not pack them yourself, your opponent can deploy to maximize their fire and take out a ship in the first couple turns for an early advantage that will remain all game. Your only recourse is to take assault missiles as well to force your opponent to also deploy spread out so you can have a game on even footing.



#2 Stormtrooper721

Stormtrooper721

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

They do seem undercosted for the potential obliteration they can cause, but I will reserve judgement until I've played a couple games against them. Theoretically, three or four TIE Advanced or A-Wings with Assauilt Missiles can actually wipe out an entire eight-TIE swarm in a single round of shooting, but in reality, will they. Perhaps. Sometimes.

 

I am a dedicated TIE swarmer - check out my sig and batreps! - but while I'm not looking forward to these, I'm not panicking yet. 


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


#3 Duraham

Duraham

    Member

  • Members
  • 731 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:28 PM

 and that is also provided that the missile hits the target, which may not happen all the time. Also, you could continue playing your TIE swarm, but you would break them up into 2 seperate groups of 3-4 fighters instead, so even if you do eat an assault missile, there is some damage control going on. Also, the limited number of ships that could field these missiles limits its use rather drastically, and it does give empire vs empire lineups more teeth when going against each other, which can take ages given how TIEs have 2 attack versus 3 agility and an evade action. the assault missile also forces players to go beyond the standard Biggs / Howlrunner / TIE swarm clusterfork combos that are played to death, and actually makes lineups using lesser ships more potent and playable.

 

Still, I feel that they should make assault missiles some form of torpedo instead, right now the proton torpedo really isn't cutting it, and the concussion/cluster missiles still work wonders when they do hit, so yeah.



#4 hothie

hothie

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:34 PM

My thoughts, in no particular order:

1. TIE swarms are now effectively a thing of the past. If I bring 3 TIE advanced with AM's, I can literally take out an entire swarm in one combat turn. The squad I played at Worlds would have been decimated quickly.
2. Range 1 abilities like Howlrunner and Biggs are rendered fairly useless now, because everyone will now be bringing at least 1 AM in their squad, whether Rebel or Imperial. Everyone will be prepared for it.
3. That being said, the players will adapt. The TIE All star squad that Adam ran at Worlds will fair better, because he didn't rely on Range abilities, they all had abilities that boost themselves. The squads that don't need to stay in formation will become the squads to beat.
4. Tactics will change. Players will either run 3 or 4 ship combos, attacking from the flanks and the center rather than attacking from a formation. Or players will engage right away in hopes of the attacker not wanting to hurt his own ships with AM's.
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.
6. This is only one ship from Wave 2. We shouldn't be freaking out yet. Every single game changes with each new wave or expansion of the game. Everyone who has played games for more than the past week knows this. Wave 3 will also change the game.
7. With all of this being said, AM's are game-changing. Whether it's for the better or for the worse, people will argue til they're blue in the face for either side. I say, it's a game, let's have fun! :)



#5 Joshuar56

Joshuar56

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

 All I hear is a lot of crying by people who play tie swarm. AM just adds an option for people to deal with the swarm. If you are running the swarm and see your opponent is running AM, and you still keep your models too close then you deserve to lose. It just adds more depth to list building strategy. The more rocks, paper, and scissors there are, the better.



#6 DrUnK3n_PaNdA

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

Joshuar56 said:

 

 All I hear is a lot of crying by people who play tie swarm. AM just adds an option for people to deal with the swarm. If you are running the swarm and see your opponent is running AM, and you still keep your models too close then you deserve to lose.

 

 

It doesn't add an option for dealing with a swarm, it adds a hard counter. The swarm only works right if you can focus your firepower, which you can't if your force is spread out.

I'd also argue that rock/paper/scissors is a terrible way to balance any competitive game unless both sides have equal access to rock, paper, and scissors. Hard counters break miniatures games and make them too much about force comp and not enough about maneuver and skill.

 

As for Hothie, I agree on some counts and disagree with one point, really, that being mostly with number 6. In the case of a good expansion or new set, the cards offered add more options to gameplay. Assault Missiles locks in about a quarter of any competitive squad (26 or so points for a Tempest Squadron with AM's) and eliminates the TIE swarm as a strategy. This only limits our options. In a sense they gave us new toys to play with, but at the expense of our old ones. The game isn't expanded by the expansions (or at least not greatly). Basically I will now HAVE to take a TIE Advanced or Slave I even though I would strongly prefer not to so as not to surrender a deployment advantage to my opponent. Thematically this makes no sense, which is another problem with it. These are rare ships we should not see pop up in every game.

From a monetary standpoint this is also irritating because it shows that FFG will be hard-countering builds with similar ferocity in the future… and that means the potential for lots of wasted money, which has been my beef with Games Workshop in the past, having to buy new units because of buffs and nerfs (whether direct or indirect) every time a new set of rules comes out. Furthering the problem is that they've packaged a card which is by most people's reckoning, game changing, with their most expensive model, it will not be appearing with the A-Wing based on their promotional pictures, and more than likely will only be available with the Falcon and Slave I prior to Wave 3's release. Since I don't plan on fielding the Falcon or Slave I, that's $20 for a little card. From a CCG background, I can say without doubt that game-changing cards should be uncommons at worst, or it creates an unpleasant game atmosphere of haves and have-nots.

Howlrunner was already really overcosted at 18 points. She was only worth it in the first few turns' approach, and after that she'd basically let you reroll maybe one die or so a turn, which is not nearly as good as an extra attack die on Mauler or Backstabber for 1 or 2 points less respectively. So if you don't get your points out of her flying in formation in the first two turns, you won't get your points out of her for the rest of the game.

Meanwhile I would say Biggs has actually stayed about equal because of Draw Their Fire allowing him to mete out critical hits to ships that still have shields and FORCE you to spread fire. Keep in mind AMs don't hurt Rebels nearly as much, since against TIE's you're looking at each shot that hits against your formation dealing 33% of your total hit points in one go, versus rebels who can actually stand to formation fly, as they lose a minimum 20% with all X-Wings, even less if using Y's or the Falcon.

Also in response to Duraham, TIE Interceptors already offered Imp vs. Imp matchups more teeth with 3 firepower.



#7 hothie

hothie

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:43 PM

I know some people I played against last Saturday that would disagree with you about Howlrunner. I was able to stay within 1 of her most of the time for most of the games, and it absolutely helped.

And I'll reserve judgment about the availability until next month, when we see just what does come in each expansion pack.



#8 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:36 PM

 I really think you're overreacting, for various reasons. First of all, we still haven't seen the rest of the cards from wave 2. There's no telling what options they present, several of which could easily mitigate the effects of Assault Missiles. Second…I'll believe it's the death of the TIE swarm when I see it. It certainly presents a deterrent to certain tactics within the swarm. But I simply don't believe that a skilled player could not still make good use of the swarm. Maybe it will just cut back on the simple tactic of throwing more ships at the other guy than he can handle. It means maybe Rebels won't HAVE to run 4 ships to have a chance. And don't forget the A-wings aren't exactly the sturdiest things in the world, and they're the only standard fighter for the Rebels that can carry them. Sure, the Falcon can. But that's a loooot of points already invested. Third, perhaps you should look at some of the other potential effects they could have on the game? Maybe, rather than simply seeing them as overpowered, you'll begin to see new value in other cards. Like Expert Handling, maybe? I'm not denying that Assault Missiles will have a significant effect on the game. But perhaps it is not the purely negative outcome you envision. Give it a chance before you pass a verdict.



#9 Remorhaz

Remorhaz

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

a hard counter is way better than a nerf to the tie fighers point cost and in the long run will be better for the meta. the 8 tie swarm may be shelved and builds will adapt to be less vulnerable to assault missiles,eventually  people will start dropping assault missiles from their lists to counter the mirror and then bam some crazy guy will win worlds with an 8  tie swarm a year from now.  that kind of meta is why people still play magic after all these years and if this game has any semblance of that meta i will be quite happy. 

my concern is where ffg goes after wave 2…the iconic ships are a big draw for me. 

 

 

 



#10 Tawnos

Tawnos

    Member

  • Members
  • 249 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

Howlrunner was already really overcosted at 18 points. She was only worth it in the first few turns' approach, and after that she'd basically let you reroll maybe one die or so a turn, which is not nearly as good as an extra attack die on Mauler or Backstabber for 1 or 2 points less respectively. So if you don't get your points out of her flying in formation in the first two turns, you won't get your points out of her for the rest of the game.

I suspect you may not be playing Howlrunner correctly, then.  It's not difficult to keep her in Range 1 of the majority of your swarm.  Doug did it very well.  I like her with Squad Leader, as I tend to keep her behind the rest of my formation and rely less on her personally attack roll then her reroll ability.  I know other people (like Doug) use Swarm Tactics on her to great effect.

As for the Assault Missiles, I'm not going to pass judgment until I've had a chance to play around with them.  But in general, I'm all for anything that forces people to come up with new ways to modify old strategies to keep them viable.  TIE Swarm's strength lies in its sheer overwhelming number of attacks, total defense, and the amount of hull it brings to the party.  Assault Missiles has removed none of that; they just force you to fly a bit differently.  Splitting your swarm up isn't necessarily a bad strategy.  It forces your opponent to likewise split their force (which is a distinct advantage for TIE Swarm), or allow a portion of your squad to slip in behind them.

Keeping your TIE grouped up may make it easier to focus fire, but it also guarantees your opponent a target rich environment.  Personally, I'd rather split them up a bit.



#11 DrUnK3n_PaNdA

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:43 PM

KarmikazeKidd said:

 

 I really think you're overreacting, for various reasons. First of all, we still haven't seen the rest of the cards from wave 2. There's no telling what options they present, several of which could easily mitigate the effects of Assault Missiles. Second…I'll believe it's the death of the TIE swarm when I see it. It certainly presents a deterrent to certain tactics within the swarm. But I simply don't believe that a skilled player could not still make good use of the swarm. Maybe it will just cut back on the simple tactic of throwing more ships at the other guy than he can handle. It means maybe Rebels won't HAVE to run 4 ships to have a chance. And don't forget the A-wings aren't exactly the sturdiest things in the world, and they're the only standard fighter for the Rebels that can carry them. Sure, the Falcon can. But that's a loooot of points already invested. Third, perhaps you should look at some of the other potential effects they could have on the game? Maybe, rather than simply seeing them as overpowered, you'll begin to see new value in other cards. Like Expert Handling, maybe? I'm not denying that Assault Missiles will have a significant effect on the game. But perhaps it is not the purely negative outcome you envision. Give it a chance before you pass a verdict.

 

 

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.

"a hard counter is way better than a nerf to the tie fighers point cost and in the long run will be better for the meta. the 8 tie swarm may be shelved and builds will adapt to be less vulnerable to assault missiles,eventually people will start dropping assault missiles from their lists to counter the mirror and then bam some crazy guy will win worlds with an 8 tie swarm a year from now. that kind of meta is why people still play magic after all these years and if this game has any semblance of that meta i will be quite happy."

The problem isn't that they are only a niche counter to the TIE swarm it's that they limit the deployment options of ANY list. If they were something that might go to waste against other lists, then what you suggested could happen, but the Assault Missile is always 5 points well spent as it is now. Additionally the power-creep and the constantly changing list of playable cards made me quit Magic, which is what we're seeing here, power creep and a huge shift to the metagame that means it will never be worth fielding all 7 of my TIE Fighters at once again. Hence, I've wasted money.

"Keeping your TIE grouped up may make it easier to focus fire, but it also guarantees your opponent a target rich environment. Personally, I'd rather split them up a bit."

In a game like X-Wing a target-rich environment is it's own form of defense. If you can tempt your opponent away from focus firing a single TIE, then you've actually made your force more resilient by presenting them in such a way. Furthermore I have had universally more success flying in tight order for the first couple of turns. Chances are you'll trade a TIE for an X-Wing or Y-Wing and some change, and that's always going to come up in the Empire's favor.

Further, as a historical wargamer, I should note that good game design, in a game with a well-fleshed out world, be that the Star Wars canon or real-world history should encourage through rules, players to use tactics used historically, (i.e. in a game about the Second Punic War, It's very likely that the player playing Carthage will march through the Alps. They don't need to, but the danger of crossing the sea and daring the superior Roman fleet makes it more desirable for the player.) What Assault Missiles do more than limit strategic and tactical options is DISCOURAGE the tactics that we see in the movies. There should be, if anything incentive for TIEs to fly in close formation in great number, it's what we as fans see in the films, and by extension want to see on the tabletop. The shift Assault Missiles will bring is smaller groups of more greatly spaced TIEs which distances this game from the movies and what takes place in them.

 

 



#12 Stormtrooper721

Stormtrooper721

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

Further, as a historical wargamer, I should note that good game design, in a game with a well-fleshed out world, be that the Star Wars canon or real-world history should encourage through rules, players to use tactics used historically, (i.e. in a game about the Second Punic War, It's very likely that the player playing Carthage will march through the Alps. They don't need to, but the danger of crossing the sea and daring the superior Roman fleet makes it more desirable for the player.) What Assault Missiles do more than limit strategic and tactical options is DISCOURAGE the tactics that we see in the movies. There should be, if anything incentive for TIEs to fly in close formation in great number, it's what we as fans see in the films, and by extension want to see on the tabletop. The shift Assault Missiles will bring is smaller groups of more greatly spaced TIEs which distances this game from the movies and what takes place in them.

 

This is a good point - where did we ever see Assault Missiles being used in the movies? The Millennium Falcon and the A-Wings in RotJ certainly should have been using them to light up space like the 4th of July when those massive TIE swarms closed on them, but definately we saw none of that. 

Of course, I don't remember Vader firing off Concussion Missiles or Cluster Missiles from his TIE Advanced in ANH's Death Star battle either. 

Anyhoo, I still plan to use the TIE swarm because, as KarmikazeKidd points out, some of us like like to play historically according to the given universe, and, as a staunchly loyal Imperial fan, that means swarms of TIEs for me. I will have to adjust my tactics now - using two formations of four dispersing to move but still hopefully concentrating to fire.

We'll see how it goes. I'll post more batreps.    


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


#13 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 927 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:20 PM

You know I've missed shots with protons before. Assult has the same attack dice, which, while high, is not an unheard of number to beat. Just have your center ties focus or evade, then if you survive the swarm of assault missiles, well they just spent most of their actions target locking you. Weapons free Ties



#14 Remorhaz

Remorhaz

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:26 PM

"a hard counter is way better than a nerf to the tie fighers point cost and in the long run will be better for the meta. the 8 tie swarm may be shelved and builds will adapt to be less vulnerable to assault missiles,eventually people will start dropping assault missiles from their lists to counter the mirror and then bam some crazy guy will win worlds with an 8 tie swarm a year from now. that kind of meta is why people still play magic after all these years and if this game has any semblance of that meta i will be quite happy."

The problem isn't that they are only a niche counter to the TIE swarm it's that they limit the deployment options of ANY list. If they were something that might go to waste against other lists, then what you suggested could happen, but the Assault Missile is always 5 points well spent as it is now. Additionally the power-creep and the constantly changing list of playable cards made me quit Magic, which is what we're seeing here, power creep and a huge shift to the metagame that means it will never be worth fielding all 7 of my TIE Fighters at once again. Hence, I've wasted money.

 this is no where near as absurd as errata, restricted and banned lists or the ridiculous 2-3 chase cards wizards likes to put in with hundreds of filler cards for each magic expansion.  assault missiles could end up being a staple but that does not mean there will not be future equipment or pilots that provide a counter or protect your swarm. maybe the tie interceptor will be so good it will force a couple of regular ties out of your list regardless of the missiles. these are the kinds of decisions and changes that keep the game from stagnating. no one likes to feel like they wasted their money but honestly if you are the type of person to own 8 ties in the first place im fairly sure you've gotten your money's worth already :) 



#15 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 604 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:33 PM

The amount of haphazard conjecture regarding something, that has not been released, by someone that has done no testing with it, already announcing it as a harbinger of ruin is just absurd.

You can't declare a play style invalidated with absolutely no testing behind that 'conclusion'.  The hubris behind that is just absurd.  It's not even a conversation you can functionally have, as no one knows what they hell they are talking about.  Because no one has had a chance to even test the theory they are basing their conclusions on.  We all went through middle school science class correct?  We are all aware of the basics of the scientific method?

So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft.  So what if you split up and collapse in?  Force a non-ideal Assault Missile shot, and then benefit from your opponent bringing a less the ideal (A-Wing and Adv due to stats) or really expensive (Falcon) to carry the Assault Missile.  You've lost the sheer weight of clumping together but you've offset it by, wait for it, actually adjusting your tactics.  But that is complete conjecture because no one except play testers have had any way to test what we are talking about.  But I'm not trying to sell my theory as anything but theory.

Holy crap we might have to 'gasp' adjust our play to accommodate new additions to the game? Inconceivable.



#16 hothie

hothie

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:01 AM

ScottieATF said:

The amount of haphazard conjecture regarding something, that has not been released, by someone that has done no testing with it, already announcing it as a harbinger of ruin is just absurd.

You can't declare a play style invalidated with absolutely no testing behind that 'conclusion'.  The hubris behind that is just absurd.  It's not even a conversation you can functionally have, as no one knows what they hell they are talking about.  Because no one has had a chance to even test the theory they are basing their conclusions on.  We all went through middle school science class correct?  We are all aware of the basics of the scientific method?

So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft.  So what if you split up and collapse in?  Force a non-ideal Assault Missile shot, and then benefit from your opponent bringing a less the ideal (A-Wing and Adv due to stats) or really expensive (Falcon) to carry the Assault Missile.  You've lost the sheer weight of clumping together but you've offset it by, wait for it, actually adjusting your tactics.  But that is complete conjecture because no one except play testers have had any way to test what we are talking about.  But I'm not trying to sell my theory as anything but theory.

Holy crap we might have to 'gasp' adjust our play to accommodate new additions to the game? Inconceivable.

 

Did anyone else read this like "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" ? Then throw in Princess Bride in the end. I loved it!

Yes, I also think drunken panda is overreacting, unless he is a playtester, which I doubt. I'll try to get some games in this weekend, and then I'll proudly proclaim the sky is falling. Or not.



#17 DrUnK3n_PaNdA

DrUnK3n_PaNdA

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:30 AM

ScottieATF said:

 

The amount of haphazard conjecture regarding something, that has not been released, by someone that has done no testing with it, already announcing it as a harbinger of ruin is just absurd.

You can't declare a play style invalidated with absolutely no testing behind that 'conclusion'.  The hubris behind that is just absurd.  It's not even a conversation you can functionally have, as no one knows what they hell they are talking about.  Because no one has had a chance to even test the theory they are basing their conclusions on.  We all went through middle school science class correct?  We are all aware of the basics of the scientific method?

So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft.  So what if you split up and collapse in?  Force a non-ideal Assault Missile shot, and then benefit from your opponent bringing a less the ideal (A-Wing and Adv due to stats) or really expensive (Falcon) to carry the Assault Missile.  You've lost the sheer weight of clumping together but you've offset it by, wait for it, actually adjusting your tactics.  But that is complete conjecture because no one except play testers have had any way to test what we are talking about.  But I'm not trying to sell my theory as anything but theory.

Holy crap we might have to 'gasp' adjust our play to accommodate new additions to the game? Inconceivable.

 

 

Way to keep it civil and stay classy, bro.

"So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft. So what if you split up and collapse in?"

What are the implications and far reaching effects of this? If you do not ALSO have Assault Missiles, your opponent can deploy in a tight formation and make use of full focus-fire. While you have to deploy spread out and surrender an advantage to your opponent in the initial approach. That is a problem on it's own, it means to play the first few turns on level ground everyone will have to take missiles, or only ONE person will have to adjust their play, and by 'adjust their play' of course in this context, we mean give up a good board position and deal far less focused damage in the opening volleys. So regardless of ANY other considerations you agree with me on that point, Assault Missiles force a specific kind of deployment.

Take a moment, continue down that line of reasoning and ask yourself if it's worth 5 points to be completely dominant in the opening few turns. Yes, you can adjust your tactics and play around it, but in not taking it yourself you are granting your opponent an advantage that's worth well over 5 points. Having assault missiles in the game does not force everyone to play like there's assault missiles in the game, just the people who are sitting across the table from them. So why would you not take them?

Really? You're also claiming the A-Wing is 'less than ideal?' Those things are extremely strong, they're basically a TIE that's markedly better in defense (1 more HP total, 2 hits immune to criticals) and offense (Target lock) and pretty comparable in maneuver. They don't get barrel roll, but they get boost instead.

Also if only the Falcon/Slave I could carry the missiles to begin with, I would have no problem with it at all.

TIE swarms do not work if you can't stick close and focus-fire. In fact they're a poor list if spread out. I've played them both ways and really only had success if I can stay in tight formation for the initial approach. So while I don't know about the damage Assault Missiles can do, I have seen what deploying spread out does to the TIE swarm and it takes the teeth right out of it.

Of course at this point I'm really just reiterating what I've already said in other posts for your benefit. Hopefully you'll choose to read the points this time instead of instantly assuming that FFG is somehow infallible and that I must be drawing false conclusions because I disagree with your knee-jerk reaction of assuming that Assault Missiles must be balanced because they made it through playtesting.

Also you seem to think that I feel like Assault Missiles are a 'harbinger of ruin' that will destroy the game. I never said that. I never said they would make the game imbalanced or anything else, but there is one problem with what they will do to the competitive game in the limiting of strategic and tactical options available to players at a competitive level. TIE swarms are not as viable as they were before, and I would actually say they're probably not a very good list, then to control your opponent's deployment and not surrender an advantage in the first few turns, you have an auto-include A-Wing or TIE Advanced with Assault Missiles. That's about a quarter of your points (Probably more), so you effectively have one build now closed off to you if you played Imperials and you have 25% fewer points to customize your force with. I think it adversely effects the game in that it will place limitations on competitive lists, but no. I don't think that it will ruin the game or any other foolishness like that.

 

"no one likes to feel like they wasted their money but honestly if you are the type of person to own 8 ties in the first place im fairly sure you've gotten your money's worth already :) "

Not too fond of the implication there. You can ask any of the folks I play with, I run a TIE swarm because it's themely and I like the list. I intend to run all A-Wings for Rebels when they come out and paint them up green for Green Squadron. I'm not in it just for the competition, so no, I haven't really gotten my money's worth. Good game design would dictate that rather than removing viable strategies to keep the metagame from stagnating, you add new ones that are on-par. Honestly, I love TIE Interceptors with Expert Handling. That combo seems like a ton of fun, I'm sure there will be new and viable Imperial builds, so we would've stopped seeing as much of the swarm. If FFG felt swarm lists were overpowered (And they would've had to have made that decision MONTHS ago, then the proper way to mitigate that would be to give Rebels more defensively oriented abilities or pilot cards that would allow them to better defend against a swarm, this levels the playing field while keeping swarms viable. The way they chose to deal with it means there is one less build in the game.



#18 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 927 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:04 AM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

you have an auto-include A-Wing or TIE Advanced with Assault Missiles. That's about a quarter of your points (Probably more), so you effectively have one build now closed off to you if you played Imperials and you have 25% fewer points to customize your force with. I think it adversely effects the game in that it will place limitations on competitive lists, but no. I don't think that it will ruin the game or any other foolishness like that.

 

 

You're invalidating your own point here. To carry Assault missiles into the fight if you didn't already want to run one of the missile capable ships is expensive and limits your own options as much as the enemies. It's good against one type of list and one type of deployment and that's about it. And it's not a certainty that it'll even hit. That's a big gamble to fight just Tie swarms and not any other imperial or rebel build. And if you're going to play in tournys and such you probably won't have the luxury of knowing what you'll be fighting.



#19 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:24 AM

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

ScottieATF said:

 

The amount of haphazard conjecture regarding something, that has not been released, by someone that has done no testing with it, already announcing it as a harbinger of ruin is just absurd.

You can't declare a play style invalidated with absolutely no testing behind that 'conclusion'.  The hubris behind that is just absurd.  It's not even a conversation you can functionally have, as no one knows what they hell they are talking about.  Because no one has had a chance to even test the theory they are basing their conclusions on.  We all went through middle school science class correct?  We are all aware of the basics of the scientific method?

So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft.  So what if you split up and collapse in?  Force a non-ideal Assault Missile shot, and then benefit from your opponent bringing a less the ideal (A-Wing and Adv due to stats) or really expensive (Falcon) to carry the Assault Missile.  You've lost the sheer weight of clumping together but you've offset it by, wait for it, actually adjusting your tactics.  But that is complete conjecture because no one except play testers have had any way to test what we are talking about.  But I'm not trying to sell my theory as anything but theory.

Holy crap we might have to 'gasp' adjust our play to accommodate new additions to the game? Inconceivable.

 

 

Way to keep it civil and stay classy, bro.

"So clumping you TiEs together becomes less attractive when facing down Assault Missile wielding craft. So what if you split up and collapse in?"

What are the implications and far reaching effects of this? If you do not ALSO have Assault Missiles, your opponent can deploy in a tight formation and make use of full focus-fire. While you have to deploy spread out and surrender an advantage to your opponent in the initial approach. That is a problem on it's own, it means to play the first few turns on level ground everyone will have to take missiles, or only ONE person will have to adjust their play, and by 'adjust their play' of course in this context, we mean give up a good board position and deal far less focused damage in the opening volleys. So regardless of ANY other considerations you agree with me on that point, Assault Missiles force a specific kind of deployment.

Take a moment, continue down that line of reasoning and ask yourself if it's worth 5 points to be completely dominant in the opening few turns. Yes, you can adjust your tactics and play around it, but in not taking it yourself you are granting your opponent an advantage that's worth well over 5 points. Having assault missiles in the game does not force everyone to play like there's assault missiles in the game, just the people who are sitting across the table from them. So why would you not take them?

Really? You're also claiming the A-Wing is 'less than ideal?' Those things are extremely strong, they're basically a TIE that's markedly better in defense (1 more HP total, 2 hits immune to criticals) and offense (Target lock) and pretty comparable in maneuver. They don't get barrel roll, but they get boost instead.

Also if only the Falcon/Slave I could carry the missiles to begin with, I would have no problem with it at all.

TIE swarms do not work if you can't stick close and focus-fire. In fact they're a poor list if spread out. I've played them both ways and really only had success if I can stay in tight formation for the initial approach. So while I don't know about the damage Assault Missiles can do, I have seen what deploying spread out does to the TIE swarm and it takes the teeth right out of it.

Of course at this point I'm really just reiterating what I've already said in other posts for your benefit. Hopefully you'll choose to read the points this time instead of instantly assuming that FFG is somehow infallible and that I must be drawing false conclusions because I disagree with your knee-jerk reaction of assuming that Assault Missiles must be balanced because they made it through playtesting.

Also you seem to think that I feel like Assault Missiles are a 'harbinger of ruin' that will destroy the game. I never said that. I never said they would make the game imbalanced or anything else, but there is one problem with what they will do to the competitive game in the limiting of strategic and tactical options available to players at a competitive level. TIE swarms are not as viable as they were before, and I would actually say they're probably not a very good list, then to control your opponent's deployment and not surrender an advantage in the first few turns, you have an auto-include A-Wing or TIE Advanced with Assault Missiles. That's about a quarter of your points (Probably more), so you effectively have one build now closed off to you if you played Imperials and you have 25% fewer points to customize your force with. I think it adversely effects the game in that it will place limitations on competitive lists, but no. I don't think that it will ruin the game or any other foolishness like that.

 

"no one likes to feel like they wasted their money but honestly if you are the type of person to own 8 ties in the first place im fairly sure you've gotten your money's worth already :) "

Not too fond of the implication there. You can ask any of the folks I play with, I run a TIE swarm because it's themely and I like the list. I intend to run all A-Wings for Rebels when they come out and paint them up green for Green Squadron. I'm not in it just for the competition, so no, I haven't really gotten my money's worth. Good game design would dictate that rather than removing viable strategies to keep the metagame from stagnating, you add new ones that are on-par. Honestly, I love TIE Interceptors with Expert Handling. That combo seems like a ton of fun, I'm sure there will be new and viable Imperial builds, so we would've stopped seeing as much of the swarm. If FFG felt swarm lists were overpowered (And they would've had to have made that decision MONTHS ago, then the proper way to mitigate that would be to give Rebels more defensively oriented abilities or pilot cards that would allow them to better defend against a swarm, this levels the playing field while keeping swarms viable. The way they chose to deal with it means there is one less build in the game.

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

 

Of course at this point I'm really just reiterating what I've already said in other posts for your benefit. Hopefully you'll choose to read the points this time instead of instantly assuming that FFG is somehow infallible and that I must be drawing false conclusions because I disagree with your knee-jerk reaction of assuming that Assault Missiles must be balanced because they made it through playtesting.

 

If this isn't a hypocritical statement then I don't know what is. Everything about your reaction is knee-jerk and you're making assumptions left and right. No one said that FFG is infallible. But there's so certainly no reason to jump the gun and assume Assault Missiles are going to completely invalidate the TIE swarm. And just because you've taken the time to write out your 'points' doesn't mean they hold water. I don't think playtesting is a perfect science or that the people who conduct the process are perfect. However, at this particular juncture I'll take their word over yours, because they've actually gotten to see the thing in use with all of the other available resources, many of which we haven't seen yet. You're working with a wholly incomplete data set.

And just because your non-elite TIEs don't have upgrade slots doesn't mean that some of the upcoming cards won't help them. Or upcoming ships for that matter. Rookie pilots can certainly benefit from Biggs. There could be a 'Flares' card that diverts missiles for all we know. It's only a matter of time before they introduce countermeasures into the game, in my opinion. So why not now? It could easily be that there's a one use countermeasure card that for less points than Assault Missiles will completely protect you from their effects for that first turn you so covet.

We just….don't….know. So let's cool the jets already. If you're still so convinced, maybe you should focus on enjoying what time you've got left before your favorite (only?) tactic kicks the bucket instead of complaining about something you can't control that's going to happen regardless. Go have fun!



#20 Duraham

Duraham

    Member

  • Members
  • 731 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:00 AM

 Honestly, I cant really see how game changing it would be for now, especially since it is still relatively untested. If my opponent is only fielding 1 or 2 of this new missile only, I'd continue flying together at him, missile or no missile. If by some stroke of luck he hits one of my TIEs with evade, then ok fine all my TIEs take 1 damage each, does this kill them? nope. Will it make them more likely to die? Yes definitely since all of them are now running on 2 hp. In exchange, I'm dead sure I will be fielding a squad with more ships than him because of how high cost a ship with that specific missile is going to be, so with 8 TIEs firing on any one of his ship in one turn he's pretty much dead as well, in exchange fo none of my TIEs being dead. he still has to take down my TIEs one by one, and it's not like any excess hits will rollover to the next TIE or anything (ie. if he takes down a TIE with 1 hp remaining with 4 solid hits, it's not like those extra 3 hits would somehow magically flow over to another TIE that's still alive). At most I'd probably be more inclined to choose evade a bit more frequently than usual, but it's not like im not already doing so already even before this missile came into existence. tl;dr, if he's bring anything less than 3 missiles, I'd continue flying my 8 TIEs in the exact same setup and there is nothing he can do about it. If he fires off them both and both score a hit, then well too bad you lucked out. If only 1 or none of the hits, it's still business as usual, even if all 8 of your TIEs took that 1 damage. You say that you play the TIE swarm rather frequently, Im sure you'd agree that on an average day you could end the game with 1-3 unmolested TIEs. So there's really not too much of a threat here, unless he is fielding 3 or more missile, or he's fielding 2 and you are on an unlucky streak. If he is only fielding 1 missile and hopes to scare you, then too bad for him, you will continue ****** him with the usual TIE swarm formation and there's nothing he can do about it, even if his sole missile hits.






© 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