A-Wing Fix

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

My blah-blah

Those are by ship numbers not points invested or effectiveness, which would be more telling. Also, people could bring whatever they wanted, that doesn't say anything about how successful a ship it was.

 

That's true - the points invested will be forthcoming, but the success rate is already known.

 

It's quite true that the A-Wing was wiped from the top 32, but a large number of other ships were removed also. But it also only recently got the fix, and the full implications of that fix may not have fully percolated through the meta yet.

 

 

But what is your argument? What question would the points spent answer that the number taken wouldn't?

 

 

Not sure if your last question is directed at me, but...

 

Percentage of points spent is going to give you a better idea of how valuable players actually think those ships are since ships have wildly different point values.  

 

That is true, but if the original argument is whining about how the A-Wing is just no good, then the points spent is not particularly relevant. I didn't aim my last question at you, but I might as well have: What argument are you trying to support? Is it just to inform me that we don't have point values in the data as we presently have it?

 

I don't know if 'points spent' really gives us added value in terms of understanding how much they value the ship. With the availability of the Z-95, I really doubt that the A-Wing is just filler. Furthermore, while about half of the times they were used were Prototype pilots, the other half were Jake and Green Squadron. Jakes and Greens are not filler. We don't know how many of the missiles went on A-Wings, but we do know that Chardaan refit was used quite often. I think, therefore, that the A-Wing was rarely used as a missile platform.

[Sithborg 11,513]

Could you be more specific?

 

 

This thread seems to be devolving into competing accusations of not getting it or groupthink.

 

If you've privately unlocked the code of making the A-Wing viable, be silent about it and kick our asses around the table.

 

The issue is that I think people are having a different definition of viable. What I consider viable is vastly different than I think most of those that are critical of the current meta. Most are limiting it to the top tier. And that view only brings sorrow, as the top tier will shift and change, and as more and more ships, each ship is going to have a tougher time finding representation. You yourself pointed out the top 32. Yet, we know quite a few different squads missed out due to the MOV tiebreakers. I mean, the Bomber & Proxy Mines squad missed out on the cut, so is it a lesser squad or player than the other 4-2s that made the cut? 

 

Me, I view viable as having fun and potentially good options. The tier 1.5 (stuff that could compete against some of the top tier, but has other problems keeping it from being used more) or tier 2 (the more fun stuff) is where I think this game is really good at the moment. I don't believe the Advanced is as bad shape as most, because Vader still has good options. Top tier, probably not. But he can win games. I am viewing U-turn Tycho (Daredevil + PTL) as the same. It is going to be a blast to fly, but I won't consider it to be something people have to plan against. 

 

It is okay for a ship to remain a more fun ship than competitive ship. 

[All Shields Forward 1,797]

You were comparing them to each other so obviously you do at some level.

Prototypes exist for proton rockets. They have too much punch to ignore and force your opponent to change their plan.

 

I've found prototypes a relatively inefficient platform for proton rockets.    With PS 1 they are more readily avoidable than other ships and they can't have PTL or extra movement (like Jake/Tycho/Vader) in order to easily acquire a TL or boost into range after your opponent moves.  They also make for a very expensive prototype.  Just my experience, but something like a Green with outmaneuver more effective consistently at the same price range.

How are you using them? If you fly them straight at them I could see that. However I have used them extensively to great result. The Key is to have them make contact from the side or rear at the same time your main force makes contact from the front. They can one shot the majority of small based ships so your opponent will need to react to their presence.

[eagletsi111 1,113]

 

I'd like to see the System slot, because their fluff says they have it.      They were used with enhanced sensor and long range systems to strike quickly and run.    The used system slots for reconnaissance and were the first new technology equipped planes in the Rebel Army.

 

I respect the lore as much as anyone - even so much that I refuse to call it fluff. That said, the lore lends certain units plot armor, whereas in our game the stuff has to remain balanced. FFG Has to think through all the implications of adding a systems slot to A-Wings.

 

 

 

Just like they did with the Phantom?      Both Alex Davy and Frank the other guy(Can't remember his last name) both said in a pod cast, they would not release a Errata stating that the phantom should have been Attack 3.     They just don't do that because there are too many sold already.        And that they probably under costed Advanced Cloaking Device.        

 

A Systems slot upgrade card for 2 points would be perfect for the Awing.   You keep the lore, but you pay for it.

Edited November 29, 2014 by eagletsi111

[z0m4d 727]

I think chess offers a good analogy. Certain opening systems trend among the world's best, and club players who follow current events sometimes blindly assume that those systems are the best. That is not necessarily so. They are merely the ones that the greatest grandmasters have found a theoretical novelty that could offer the slightest advantage over their opponents. Next year those opponents will be prepared with a counter, and perhaps different opening systems will be in vogue. Yet all the while those other opening systems that remained unplayed at the highest levels didn't become suddenly unsound just because they were unpopular that year.

While I'm on the analogy, some ships will always be popular because players prefer to attack rather than defend, but that doesn't make that latter any less strong. So while the Ruy Lopez may be more celebrated than the Dutch, French, and Stonewall Defenses, etc, they will never be proven unsound. That's why ships like the TIE Advanced suffer mostly from closed mindset more than anything else. That ship is a whole other thread--several, in fact--but it's relevant to this the problem of being unwilling to accept what a ship's strengths and weaknesses are, rather than call it broken for not having the strengths you want it to have.

Edited November 29, 2014 by z0m4d

[AlexW 2,902]

 

 

You were comparing them to each other so obviously you do at some level.

Prototypes exist for proton rockets. They have too much punch to ignore and force your opponent to change their plan.

 

I've found prototypes a relatively inefficient platform for proton rockets.    With PS 1 they are more readily avoidable than other ships and they can't have PTL or extra movement (like Jake/Tycho/Vader) in order to easily acquire a TL or boost into range after your opponent moves.  They also make for a very expensive prototype.  Just my experience, but something like a Green with outmaneuver more effective consistently at the same price range.

How are you using them? If you fly them straight at them I could see that. However I have used them extensively to great result. The Key is to have them make contact from the side or rear at the same time your main force makes contact from the front. They can one shot the majority of small based ships so your opponent will need to react to their presence.

 

 

Yeah, I fly them as you do, but I've just found it's not as smooth a platform as the other options I pointed out.  I didn't mention it, but at PS1 going last, you're also sometimes having to choose between taking hits or spending the focus token earlier in the round.  All  that's just my experience.   They can change the way an opponent flies, but I find there are more cost effective choices for that job that are more consistent (also as I pointed out above).

[All Shields Forward 1,797]

How are they taking hits when attacking from the rear? Sounds like they are working.

[AlexW 2,902]

While I'm on the analogy, some ships will always be popular because players prefer to attack rather than defend, but that doesn't make that latter strength any less. That's why while the Ruy Lopez may be more celebrated, the Dutch and French Defence, and the Stonewall, etc, will never be proven unsound. That's why even ships like the TIE Advanced suffer mostly from closed mindset more than anything else. That's a whole other thread, but it's relevant to this the problem of being unwilling to accept what a ships strengths and weaknesses are, rather than call it broken for not having the strengths you want it to have.

First, I don't think anyone has used the word "broken."    Most people are talking about competitive play and balance and that sadly, maybe even after the refit, the ship isn't balanced enough to be competitive and big part of that is the cost being paid for two attacks.   

 

I also don't think it's really debatable that the value of a set number of attacks (and the price paid for that or any other ability) actually evolves in this game as new upgrades come out (one of the reasons chess analogies really don't work is that the pieces are the same on both sides and are exactly the same on both sides).    I mean, are you really saying the value of two attacks is the same as it was before ships like the Phantom and cards like 3PO entered the game (just as a couple of examples)?   

 

A couple of final points.  The designers saw the A-Wing needed a fix, (the refit) and the same is true of the advanced. So, another question.  Are the designers not seeing the ships for what they are, are they bowing to pressure of the gaming population's "closed mindset?"  Or, did they take a look at the game, recognize that these ships weren't balanced with the rest of the game and decided they needed a fix?  

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

I respect the lore as much as anyone - even so much that I refuse to call it fluff. That said, the lore lends certain units plot armor, whereas in our game the stuff has to remain balanced. FFG Has to think through all the implications of adding a systems slot to A-Wings.

 

Just like they did with the Phantom?      Both Alex Davy and Frank the other guy(Can't remember his last name) both said in a pod cast, they would not release a Errata stating that the phantom should have been Attack 3.     They just don't do that because there are too many sold already.        And that they probably under costed Advanced Cloaking Device.        

 

A Systems slot upgrade card for 2 points would be perfect for the Awing.   You keep the lore, but you pay for it.

 

I honestly don't know what the implications of a systems slot on the A-Wing would be, or their reasoning for leaving it out. What types of systems did the A-Wing have according to the lore? Was it just the sensor package for its spying missions?

 

Anyway, I don't think there's much of a point talking about the 'what if'. The 'what if' ain't.

 

I agree that Alex Davy and Frank the-other-guy screwed up with the Phantom. Despite how badass that combination was, however, it was defeated in the meta. It also IMO created the Fat Han meta that we're currently in. Because the A-Wing is a fast flanker, it has suffered because the rock that smashes the phantom scissors also smashes the fast flankers such as the A-Wing, the TIE Interceptor and the EU-Vader.

 

This brings me to...

 

I think chess offers a good analogy. Certain opening systems trend among the world's best and club players who follow current events sometimes blindly assume that those system are the best. That is not so. They are merely the ones that the greatest grandmasters have found a theoretical novelty that could offer the slightest advantage over their opponent. Next year they'll be prepared for that with a counter, and perhaps a whole different opening system will be in vogue. But all the while the other opening systems haven't suddenly become unsound just because they're unpopular that year.

 

Yes, I very much agree with this. The meta is not an objective statement of how good certain ships (or opening moves, with the chess analogy) are. The meta is a function of hype.

 

However, hype is real. It may not be based on the full universe of possibilities, but it nevertheless constrains the world we live and play in. If my meta is Phat (Phantom + Fat Han), then if I want to be competitive I have to design builds that respond to that. If A-Wings are not a good response to that, then I should not use A-Wings.

 

One way to respond to the meta is to recreate the meta. Personally, I don't like that, which is why I'm a bomber guy. But I'm also not the strongest player in my area. I rib the Fat Han/Dash guy in my area, but he also beat the pants off me the two times that we've flown against one another.

 

Or, maybe you figure out how the A-Wing might possibly be the Phat Trimmer with a particular build and tactic.

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

A couple of final points.  The designers saw the A-Wing needed a fix, (the refit) and the same is true of the advanced. So, another question.  Are the designers not seeing the ships for what they are, are they bowing to pressure of the gaming population's "closed mindset?"  Or, did they take a look at the game, recognize that these ships weren't balanced with the rest of the game and decided they needed a fix?  

 

I don't think that the designers are all that much more omniscient than the rest of us. They're fallible human beings with deadlines to meet. They make mistakes and see what they might do to fix those mistakes. I think that they are smart not to overfix problems.

 

Regarding the "closed mindset", I don't think that's an apropos indictment of the gaming population. Sure, we've all got blind spots, and frequently we share the blind spots, but 'closed mindset' is an entirely different thing.

[z0m4d 727]

 

...it's relevant to this the problem of being unwilling to accept what a ships strengths and weaknesses are, rather than call it broken for not having the strengths you want it to have.

First, I don't think anyone has used the word "broken."    Most people are talking about competitive play and balance and that sadly, maybe even after the refit, the ship isn't balanced enough to be competitive and big part of that is the cost being paid for two attacks.   

 

Is uncompetitive the same as broken at the competitive level?  I think that's what people mean even if that's not what they say.  I'm arguing that just because it's unpopular right now at the highest levels doesn't mean 1) it won't be popular at some time in the future, as trends shift, and 2) it can't be competitive at the levels that most of us can honestly aspire to play at.  I mean, let's get real.

 

I also don't think it's really debatable that the value of a set number of attacks (and the price paid for that or any other ability) actually evolves in this game as new upgrades come out (one of the reasons chess analogies really don't work is that the pieces are the same on both sides and are exactly the same on both sides).

 

The point of most chess openings is to establish imbalances.  It's not about chess piece values.  "Knights are worth 3 points and rooks are worth 5 points" is a basic tool to teach beginners.  You must trash such garbage to grow.  There is so much more, such as development, time, initiative, space, king safety, and so on.  Material is just one that novices fixate on.  Much like many X-Wing players fixate on attack dice.

 

I mean, are you really saying the value of two attacks is the same as it was before ships like the Phantom and cards like 3PO entered the game (just as a couple of examples)?

 

No.

 

A couple of final points.  The designers saw the A-Wing needed a fix, (the refit) and the same is true of the advanced. So, another question.  Are the designers not seeing the ships for what they are, are they bowing to pressure of the gaming population's "closed mindset?"  Or, did they take a look at the game, recognize that these ships weren't balanced with the rest of the game and decided they needed a fix?  

 

The latter, of course.  Just because tweaks are necessary doesn't mean something was broken.  And especially now that tweaks were made, there is even less reason to call it broken.

Edited November 29, 2014 by z0m4d

[z0m4d 727]

 

A couple of final points.  The designers saw the A-Wing needed a fix, (the refit) and the same is true of the advanced. So, another question.  Are the designers not seeing the ships for what they are, are they bowing to pressure of the gaming population's "closed mindset?"  Or, did they take a look at the game, recognize that these ships weren't balanced with the rest of the game and decided they needed a fix?  

 

I don't think that the designers are all that much more omniscient than the rest of us. They're fallible human beings with deadlines to meet. They make mistakes and see what they might do to fix those mistakes. I think that they are smart not to overfix problems.

 

Regarding the "closed mindset", I don't think that's an apropos indictment of the gaming population. Sure, we've all got blind spots, and frequently we share the blind spots, but 'closed mindset' is an entirely different thing.

 

 

I honestly think many want to "get smart" about the game quickly by merely reading up on what other people are writing on the forums, or paying attention to what they're talking about at tournaments.  That, of course, lacks real substance.  So if they read or hear a current of thought that the A-Wing is broken (because the highest levels of play aren't using it, which makes no sense for local and regional players not to use it), then they assume it must be true.  They regurgitate it for the next like-minded person to absorb.  That's what I mean by "closed mindset".

Edited November 29, 2014 by z0m4d

[AlexW 2,902]

 

Is uncompetitive the same as broken at the competitive level?  I think that's what people mean even if that's not what they say.  I'm arguing that just because it's unpopular right now at the highest levels doesn't mean 1) it won't be popular at some time in the future, as trends shift, and 2) it can't be competitive at the levels that most of us can honestly aspire to play at.  I mean, let's get real.

 

The point of most chess openings is to establish imbalances.  It's not about chess piece values.  "Knights are worth 3 points and rooks are worth 5 points" is a basic tool to teach beginners.  You must trash such garbage to grow.  There is so much more, such as development, time, initiative, space, king safety, and so on.  Material is just one that novices fixate on.  Much like many X-Wing players fixate on attack dice.

 

 

The latter, of course.  Just because tweaks are necessary doesn't mean something was broken.  And especially now that tweaks were made, there is even less reason to call it broken.

 

 

I don't disagree with your initial statement here, but I'd just like to see more variety in X-Wing and balance helps that variety rather than facing off against turreted falcons/B-Wings/phantoms or whatever all day.   As to how much that balance affects us is really about what our area and playgroup is like.  

 

Regarding "value," I do disagree, and maybe it's because you thought I was talking about an actual point value when what I really meant was "efficiency."  Unlike Chess, the pieces in X-Wing have a set point value that you have to pay to put them on the table.  Being able to figure out how much you can get out of paying that point value based on what a ship offers (including the more nebulous characteristics you mention) is a very big part of the game, and mileage can vary depending on the player.

 

As to your final comment, I think it's well worth thinking about whether the fix went far enough and just because it got a fix doesn't preclude it from continuing  to sit on the sidelines during competitive play.   While we have mostly been discussing World's, it is our only competitive data point at this time.  It will be interesting to see where A-Wings are in a year, and I hope it is better than my own pessimistic analysis, and I'll be doing my best to help defeat that myself

Edited November 29, 2014 by AlexW

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

I honestly think many want to "get smart" about the game quickly by merely reading up on what other people are writing on the forums, or paying attention to what they're talking about at tournaments.  That, of course, lacks real substance.  So if they read or hear a current of thought that the A-Wing is broken (because the highest levels of play aren't using it, which makes no sense for local and regional players not to use it), then they assume it must be true.  They regurgitate it for the next like-minded person to absorb.  That's what I mean by "closed mindset".

 

I wonder to what degree 'local metas' differ from the Worlds meta. I suppose it depends to what degree the locals read stuff online. Is there any reason to believe that the local scene isn't plugged into what's going on in the wider world?

[DrBlood 1]

I'm definitly not a Pro Player, but for my local fights, A-Wings have done quite well. So i'm a bit surprised to read, that so many players think a-Wings are not feasible.

 

Gemmer is my insurance to get to an endgame agains Tie-Swarms, and Jake is, well fast...

 

Besides that, it has been mentioned somewhere already, that Gemmer with autothrusters will be even more difficult to kill and a good part of a strategy not only against swarms but also against Fat-Han's. 

 

What about Arvel with Test-Pilot, Refit and Intimidation ?

 

Think about it? ;-)

[AlexW 2,902]

How are they taking hits when attacking from the rear? Sounds like they are working.

You don't face turrets? Opponents don't send a cheap counter to block or harry you? Either of these options can easily deal with a PS 1 ship, or at least prevent you from getting the rocket off where you want it if you are playing a good opponent.

I regularly take multiple approaches at my opponent and often have a flanker, but as I mention, there are other options I prefer to carry proton rockets that are more reliable and aren't as restricting as getting into R1 with a PS 1 pilot and trying to hold your focus for a whole round.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

I never said a-wings were broken just that they lose out to other fighters of a similar value, red dice are worth more than green after all.

A-wing vs squint the squint wins because of that extra change of a hit each time it fires.

When your building a squad the number of red dice you have matters, a three a-wing build gives six dice a three x-wing brings nine it's simple numbers is all.

If you could rely on missiles that would make the difference but you can't.

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

I never said a-wings were broken just that they lose out to other fighters of a similar value, red dice are worth more than green after all.

A-wing vs squint the squint wins because of that extra change of a hit each time it fires.

When your building a squad the number of red dice you have matters, a three a-wing build gives six dice a three x-wing brings nine it's simple numbers is all.

If you could rely on missiles that would make the difference but you can't.

 

Yes, red dice are worth more than green dice; no question. I wonder if the creators fully realized that when they were working on this game.

 

Regarding the A-Wing vs. the Squint I do think that in that match-up the Squint wins, but it's also worth more points, especially with the Chardaan Refit. As an A-Wing you also have to make the most of your target lock, which probably means that you need to do some sort of feint that gets you the target lock, but doesn't put you into a joust with the squint until you're ready to do so.

 

I think ordnance is fairly reliable, if you're being both methodical and conservative with them (neither of which describes me). You really shouldn't launch them unless you have both the necessary target lock AND the focus (or vice versa in the case of Proton Rockets or in case of Deadeye). If you're not making sure you're taking the best possible shot, don't blame the ordnance if it doesn't go well.

 

I think the point here is that A-Wings are not a beginner's fighter. Like the Phantom, you have to know what you're doing with them to make them effective. I don't know if there's a bigger payoff for them if you really figure them out, the way there seems to be with the Phantom, but how many of us are A-wing aces enough to know?

[z0m4d 727]

Yes, red dice are worth more than green dice; no question. I wonder if the creators fully realized that when they were working on this game.

 

Tell me you're kidding.  Of all the things to not overlook, 4 (+2)/8 vs 3 (+2)/8 is the most obvious.  They designed it that way on purpose to move the game along.

 

Regarding the A-Wing vs. the Squint I do think that in that match-up the Squint wins, but it's also worth more points, especially with the Chardaan Refit.

 

I wish we could run smart AI computer simulations of various A-Wing vs Squint squads to determine that.  Or maybe one day MathJuggler will have the have the answer by crunching numbers.

 

I think the point here is that A-Wings are not a beginner's fighter.

 

Ain't that the truth.

Edited November 30, 2014 by z0m4d

[All Shields Forward 1,797]

How are they taking hits when attacking from the rear? Sounds like they are working.

You don't face turrets? Opponents don't send a cheap counter to block or harry you? Either of these options can easily deal with a PS 1 ship, or at least prevent you from getting the rocket off where you want it if you are playing a good opponent.

I regularly take multiple approaches at my opponent and often have a flanker, but as I mention, there are other options I prefer to carry proton rockets that are more reliable and aren't as restricting as getting into R1 with a PS 1 pilot and trying to hold your focus for a whole round.

If they send anything to block the one A wing than my plan worked and everything piles on them art the same time. Less for my green A wings with outmaneuvr and Eahtn to worry about. Plus it will trigger outmaneuvr. If they ignore the A wing then they get five red in the rear. Win win in my book, don't see why that's so hard.

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,896]

Yes, red dice are worth more than green dice; no question. I wonder if the creators fully realized that when they were working on this game.

 

Tell me you're kidding.  Of all the things to not overlook, 4 (+2)/8 vs 3 (+2)/8 is the most obvious.  They designed it that way on purpose to move the game along.

 

Heh, not so much kidding as bleary and not thinking clearly.    Still, the notion that the X-Wing and the TIE advanced differ in terms of giving the Advanced a green die instead of the X-Wing's red die with fairly equivalent point costs suggests that they thought of them as being somewhat more similar than experience and math have taught us. That, or they thought that the evade and barrel roll were just so much more awesome than the astromech slot.

 

 

Regarding the A-Wing vs. the Squint I do think that in that match-up the Squint wins, but it's also worth more points, especially with the Chardaan Refit.

 

I wish we could run smart AI computer simulations of various A-Wing vs Squint squads to determine that.  Or maybe one day MathJuggler will have the have the answer by crunching numbers.

 

Well, I don't think it's really worth it to do that particular match-up. Neither A-Wings or Squints exist in a vacuum. I'd prefer the real-world test that we can get a glimpse into with the collected worlds data. It also sounds like they're laying the groundworks for more and more tournaments going forward.

 

 

I think the point here is that A-Wings are not a beginner's fighter.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

So, who has unlocked/decoded the A-Wing? What are the lessons learned? 

 

Personally, having just flown it a leprous handful of times, I can say that I think the A-wing-delivered Proton Rocket is pretty **** awesome, especially when your opponent is forced to pay attention to the anvil rather than the hammer. But that's the classic flanker role, which won't be as good against Imperials now that we they have a turret too.

 

All in all, I'm tempted to really give the A-wing more of a 'go', now that we've had this debate. Unfortunately, I'm really in the mood to try out my Decimator, and so the A-wing is going to have to wait its turn.

[z0m4d 727]

 

Tell me you're kidding.  Of all the things to not overlook, 4 (+2)/8 vs 3 (+2)/8 is the most obvious.  They designed it that way on purpose to move the game along.

 

Heh, not so much kidding as bleary and not thinking clearly.    Still, the notion that the X-Wing and the TIE advanced differ in terms of giving the Advanced a green die instead of the X-Wing's red die with fairly equivalent point costs suggests that they thought of them as being somewhat more similar than experience and math have taught us. That, or they thought that the evade and barrel roll were just so much more awesome than the astromech slot.

 

My argument all along has been that the TIE Advanced is a defensive ship.  No one likes that.  It is weak, relative to the X-Wing, given the 1/8 die difference, the only compensation being evade and barrel roll actions.  But proton rockets were made for the Advanced, not A-Wing, which suffers a 2-point Chardaan tax for equipping them.  The designers promise fixes, and I'm willing to bet credits that one of them will be a title card that gives the Advanced a sensor upgrade slot (so that one of them can take Accuracy Corrector).  They hinted very strongly that there will be more than one unique fix.

 

Regarding the A-Wing vs. the Squint I do think that in that match-up the Squint wins, but it's also worth more points, especially with the Chardaan Refit.

 

I wish we could run smart AI computer simulations of various A-Wing vs Squint squads to determine that.  Or maybe one day MathJuggler will have the have the answer by crunching numbers.

 

Well, I don't think it's really worth it to do that particular match-up. Neither A-Wings or Squints exist in a vacuum. I'd prefer the real-world test that we can get a glimpse into with the collected worlds data. It also sounds like they're laying the groundworks for more and more tournaments going forward.

 

I would like to see a large sample size to control for player strengths, dice variances, game play errors, certain squad match-up weaknesses (ie, some upgrades weak against others), etc.  A computer simulation, while unlikely, could run thousands quickly.  Like in that Matthew Broderick movie, WarGames.  "Would you like to play a game"?

 

So, who has unlocked/decoded the A-Wing? What are the lessons learned? 

 

Not me.  I only claim a little knowledge, and that little bit I've already shared.

 

Personally, having just flown it a leprous handful of times, I can say that I think the A-wing-delivered Proton Rocket is pretty **** awesome, especially when your opponent is forced to pay attention to the anvil rather than the hammer. But that's the classic flanker role, which won't be as good against Imperials now that we they have a turret too.

 

YES!  And with deadeye, it's not too hard to deal 5 damage.  That threat cannot be ignored, while everything else...

[All Shields Forward 1,797]

Don't need deadeye. Proton rockets don't require a target lock, only that you have a focus. Also they don't spend it to fire so you can mod your roll with it!

[Punning Pundit 4,746]

Right now, A-Wings are having a hard time because:

Fat Han takes more damage than an A-Wing can dish.

Phantoms are rolling 4 green dice against A-Wing 2 red dice

Those are the two dominant squads, and it's hard to have a competative squad that's weak against either of those.

So what helps?

If B-Wings become dominant again, cheap A-Wings will have a good time rolling 2 attack against 1 defense. Likewise: Y-Wings and Lambdas.

An A-Wing that moves after it's X-Wing adversary can boost into a better position. A later moving X-Wing cannot make adjustments without spending points on upgrades. As a result, A-Wings will probably win more fights against X-Wings than raw stats would suggest.

If Ordinance ever becomes so good that the Tie Bomber comes into widespread use, expect to see a lot of A-Wings with prockets to take them on. That's the exact role the A-Wing was designed for.

When Scum is released, we can expect a lot more Y-Wings on the table. If Decimators become a thing, we can also expect A-Wings to do quite well against them.

Tl;Dr: A-Wings are in a pretty good spot, but the meta is favoring things that hurt A-Wings pretty badly. Soon that should change, and the A-Wing will do a lot better.

[AlexW 2,902]

 

 

How are they taking hits when attacking from the rear? Sounds like they are working.

You don't face turrets? Opponents don't send a cheap counter to block or harry you? Either of these options can easily deal with a PS 1 ship, or at least prevent you from getting the rocket off where you want it if you are playing a good opponent.

I regularly take multiple approaches at my opponent and often have a flanker, but as I mention, there are other options I prefer to carry proton rockets that are more reliable and aren't as restricting as getting into R1 with a PS 1 pilot and trying to hold your focus for a whole round.

 

If they send anything to block the one A wing than my plan worked and everything piles on them art the same time. Less for my green A wings with outmaneuvr and Eahtn to worry about. Plus it will trigger outmaneuvr. If they ignore the A wing then they get five red in the rear. Win win in my book, don't see why that's so hard.

 

 

It's not, but my point wasn't about your tactics or how awesome your plan was (I run very similar flanking schemes), I just don't find the prototype with rockets the most effective choice for it, that's it.

Edited November 30, 2014 by AlexW