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.