Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DrUnK3n_PaNdA

The Assault Missiles Thread- By popular demand

53 posts in this topic

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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScottieATF said:

 

 

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.

I understand the odds, which is why I have even used them at all after my initial attempts. But experience is a powerful motivator, and so far proton torps have given me a bad taste in my mouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So first attempt at using them: 2 hits, 2 evades.

Just played the second attempt: 2 hits, 2 evades. 

Grand total of 0 damage done. Just a little Empirical evidence for you. (see what i did there? :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Methinks Scottie is a Vulcan. I'm not some caveman cringing at the lightning gods. I understand the odds and that superstition is bumpkis. But if you knew me, and had a history of playing minis games with me…you would believe in bad luck too. I have a long list of witnesses that will attest to it. Besides that, it's just good strategy to minimize chance as much as you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KarmikazeKidd said:

 Methinks Scottie is a Vulcan. I'm not some caveman cringing at the lightning gods. I understand the odds and that superstition is bumpkis. But if you knew me, and had a history of playing minis games with me…you would believe in bad luck too. I have a long list of witnesses that will attest to it. Besides that, it's just good strategy to minimize chance as much as you can.

Oh I have some friends that prove that bad luck is as real as you or I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Ha! I stopped reading this thread on page one when I got to this response. Nothing else of value will come from this thread as Scottie nailed it right away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacemonkeymafia 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.

 

 

Ha! I stopped reading this thread on page one when I got to this response. Nothing else of value will come from this thread as Scottie nailed it right away. 

Was that a Princess Bride reference there Scottie? I’ll tip my hat to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A lot has been said about these being game breaking or not.  Personally I agree with the wait and see group.  I actually think it will be fun to find out just how tuff these little things are.  I am looking forward to trying out 3 TIE advanced with a Assault missile each.  But that is 15 points just on upgrades.  That isn't even a cheap TIE, it is a pretty medium one.  Not to mention the extra points you paid to have TIE Advanced instead of normal TIEs.

My worry is if (an this is only a possibility) this card only comes with the falcon expansion.  I know someone out there would be willing to buy Three Falcon expansion sets (or just by the cards on Ebay or something) so that they can have their awesome list.  Now if it turns out that three assault missiles is a bad idea then it isn't much of a problem, but if they are even remotely a good idea then they verge into the territory of spending your money into being good at the game. 

I hate games that require you to spend money to be good at them.  Not spend money to have stuff to play with, but spend money to get the3 good stuff.  I am plenty willing two pay over $50 for some table top units but am getting what I pay for.  But in CCGs or other collectable game you end up paying that much money just to get a good chance to get what you want.  You end up buying lots of stuff you don't want so you can get the things you want.  I don't want to have to buy three Falcons (2 of which I will never use) just so I can get two more little missile cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been an A-Wing spoiler, to show that the  A-Wings gets to use Assault missiles,

I thought A-wings use P.Ts in the old X-Wing game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I again think this cost fear is unfounded. The picture for Slave 1 shows that the Assault missiles come with it. Almost everyone playing this game with the dedication to be on these forums is going to buy both the slave 1 and Falcon. (Read the threads on "how many models do you own etc." for some testimony to this.)

So "everyone" will have 2 of these cards to play with, and can you really see running more than 2 of these in a squad for competitive play at the point cost?

To answer the other question, if the preview pics are acccurate, A-wings do not have the Assault missiles card, but they have the Concussion and Cluster missiles card from the TIE adv, as well as a new Homing missiles card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0