What you're kind of getting into is a glass half full/half empty debate. It really just depends on what you focus on as a positive/negative.

It really doesn't, honestly.

It's pretty basic economics surrounding opportunity cost considerations. It's actually a purely empirical thing.

Then you shouldn't simplify it so much and focus on just the A-Wing. Concussion missiles in fact costs 4 points. If they were limited to only the A-Wing the effective cost, 6, would be much more appropriate. However, the Tie Advanced, upcoming Z-95 and several other ships can take them. Additionally it throws out other instances where some people may choose to not take the point reduction, an example was on this forum awhile ago, someone was talking about taking a useless target lock as a mod for a ship so he'd hit 100 points because he really did not want initiative. Its only empirical if you focus on soley on the A-Wing which in itself illustrates one's personal perspective.

Maybe you should go back to the beginning of the discussion, because the only point in contention was what it cost to equip a missile on an A-wing .

Yes, it still costs the same to put that missile on the Falcon, or a Headhunter. Nobody ever claimed differently. This entire thread was in the context of A-wings once Rebel Aces hits. If you want to argue that a Concussion Missile on a Headhunter costs 4 points, feel free to start a new thread - I doubt you'll get much in the way of dispute.

And I'll say the same thing here that I said when that example was originally proposed - if the best example you can come up with is someone intentionally under-pointing their squad without wanting to get initiative, you lose this debate. Are there such cases? Possibly, but they're so utterly, vanishingly rare they're not even worth considering.

I was posting in response to your point about list building which itself goes beyond the A-Wing. Your recognizes, whether knowingly or not, that its not that simple because the points structure fits into list building as a whole.

No one underpoints there's squad without a reason. In this case, now you can take two PTL greens with 2x Advs Daggers and a concussion missile. That reasoning exists whether or not you think its likely. You used almost the same line of reasoning when you said the Cog 'o Two templates shouldn't be used because they could be used to cheat in a corner case.

Again my whole point is that options have not been removed, they've been increased. Just because going without missiles is even cheaper then before doesn't mean missiles on A-Wings are less effective then before.

Yes, it actually does.

The effectiveness of any build does not exist in a vacuum - it exists in comparison to other options of equal points cost. If other options get cheaper, then the A-wings with missiles become less effective compared to those other options .

The effectiveness of a build in a vacuum may not change, but it's a meaningless concept.

So while we're dealing on a smaller scale, reducing the cost of the base A wing by 2 points does not mean that an old build with a missile on the A wing is still a good build.

Ok, so I want to build a rebel Alpha Strike list. PtL Green Squadrons and Z-95s are going to be the choices, and without PtL the Z-95 platform is sub optimal (Need a squad leader to get the shot off). The fact that I can bring an A-Wing for 2 points less without the missile means nothing, since the 20 point PtL A-Wing has no early game punch. I don't see anything that has changed this equation...

5*20 = 100

5 ships > 4 ships

There is your change. ;-)

Edit yes if all you care about is the alpha strike, then Green PtL Missiles are currently the best way to go.

On the other extreme, 7 Z95 + 1 Awing, 99 points

Again my whole point is that options have not been removed, they've been increased. Just because going without missiles is even cheaper then before doesn't mean missiles on A-Wings are less effective then before.

Yes, it actually does.

The effectiveness of any build does not exist in a vacuum - it exists in comparison to other options of equal points cost. If other options get cheaper, then the A-wings with missiles become less effective compared to those other options .

The effectiveness of a build in a vacuum may not change, but it's a meaningless concept.

You miss the point. If a wings were naturally 2 points cheaper and then they added a card that gave it a missle slot for 2 points you would be saying right now how ffg just gave the awing more options. Instead you act like a card that reduces the cost while removing a missle icon is limiting. It's the same darn thing. It's your own personal perception that the a wing is limited when it is the exact opposite and has more options now.

So while we're dealing on a smaller scale, reducing the cost of the base A wing by 2 points does not mean that an old build with a missile on the A wing is still a good build.

Ok, so I want to build a rebel Alpha Strike list. PtL Green Squadrons and Z-95s are going to be the choices, and without PtL the Z-95 platform is sub optimal (Need a squad leader to get the shot off). The fact that I can bring an A-Wing for 2 points less without the missile means nothing, since the 20 point PtL A-Wing has no early game punch. I don't see anything that has changed this equation...

4*22 = 88

5*20 = 100

5 ships > 4 ships

There is your change. ;-)

Agreed, 5 PtL Greens is better than 4 PtL Greens with no upgrades. I also have enough game experience to know that:

PtL Green w/ Homing Missile

PtL Green w/ Homing Missile

PtL Green w/ Concussion Missile

PtL Green w/ Chardaan

is better than the 5 ship squad, especially if the 5 ship squad ends up with initiative. Best case, the 3 missiles all manage 4 hits, and no evades are rolled on any of the defending ships. Worse case, the missile squadron ends up with a HP advantage and a likely win later in the game.

If we take those 2 points, and you seem to be referring to using 2 A wings, so a total of 4 points... That's the difference between Biggs and Wedge, or a Dagger and Ibby. Or PTL + R2 on Wedge... or R2D2 on Luke.... Those 4 points that are now being essentially wasted by giving the A wings missiles could be used in so many other areas that now your 26pt GSP w/ PTL + missiles is no longer a good idea.

Heck, as far as that goes, you can get a GSP w/ PTL & Expose/Opportunist for 4 points, raising their overall damage throughout the game. And yes, the A wing is a good platform for Expose now. No one else (short of Vader) can have an action along side of Expose, and it's better on a 2 attack ship than 3 attack ship. Heck, you can even through a Shield on one of the GSP for those 4 points to basically have a more maneuverable X wing w/ Boost + Evade!

If other options get cheaper, then the A-wings with missiles become less effective compared to those other options .

If you wanted the punch of missiles you were already paying for them, the only change is you now have a even less expensive no-missile option. So yes you can put together a A-Wing list without missiles for less points then before.

You can argue that A-Wings are a bad choice for missiles over all, but having 4 or 6 extra points isn't going to drastically change the effectiveness of a A-Wing with missiles list.

No one underpoints there's squad without a reason. In this case, now you can take two PTL greens with 2x Advs Daggers and a concussion missile. That reasoning exists whether or not you think its likely. You used almost the same line of reasoning when you said the Cog 'o Two templates shouldn't be used because they could be used to cheat in a corner case.

This is not an underpointed squad. And if you were to take that list and remove the Concussion Missile, you could put Stealth Device on both A-wings. Which is how many points again?

I really don't think you're following the basic discussion here. The core question is how many points it takes to put a missile on an A-wing. That is cost+2, because of Chaardan. It has been suggested that this isn't valid because people aren't REQUIRED to take the Chaardan. Which is technically true. If someone presented the list to you, and suggested that they wanted to drop the missile to put Stealth on one of the A-wings, leaving them 1 point and an empty missile slot, would your advice be to NOT put a Chaardan in there?

It's a tangent, but my objection to the templates has to do with my tolerance for cheating. You think it's OK because someone can only use it to cheat in a corner case. I don't think you should allow tools which enable cheating, period. But I'm a software developer, we live in corner cases, so I have a much different standard for waving away things like that.

You miss the point. If a wings were naturally 2 points cheaper and then they added a card that gave it a missle slot for 2 points you would be saying right now how ffg just gave the awing more options. Instead you act like a card that reduces the cost while removing a missle icon is limiting. It's the same darn thing. It's your own personal perception that the a wing is limited when it is the exact opposite and has more options now.

I've never said it takes away options - I've said it makes a particular option more expensive and, therefore, less attractive. Does the A-wing still have the choice to mount a missile? Of course. But doing so will cost your squad 2 more points than it will cost to put that same missile on any other ship that can carry them.

Which is exactly what I'd say in the scenario you presented, and I'd say it cost exactly the same. If the A-wing had no missile slot, and you could add one for 2 points, then a Concussion Missile would cost six points to put on an A-wing or 4 on a Headhunter - which is exactly what it costs with Chaardan in play.

Those 4 points that are now being essentially wasted by giving the A wings missiles could be used in so many other areas that now your 26pt GSP w/ PTL + missiles is no longer a good idea.

That's not true. Because a GSP w/PtL + Missile isn't the same thing as a GSP w/PtL. You don't use them the same way, or use the same tactics when playing. There may be other things you can do with those 4 points, but that doesn't mean doing this way is a bad choice.

Even if it's a less then ideal choice, that is not the same thing as saying the choice has been removed, especially considering how few A-Wings you see in tourney's in the first place.

Agreed, 5 PtL Greens is better than 4 PtL Greens with no upgrades. I also have enough game experience to know that:

PtL Green w/ Homing Missile

PtL Green w/ Homing Missile

PtL Green w/ Concussion Missile

PtL Green w/ Chardaan

is better than the 5 ship squad, especially if the 5 ship squad ends up with initiative. Best case, the 3 missiles all manage 4 hits, and no evades are rolled on any of the defending ships. Worse case, the missile squadron ends up with a HP advantage and a likely win later in the game.

Okay, so let's do a mathwing analysis here. And lets assume you lose init, so you can TL on the opening salvo.

So, the 20 cost PTL GSP x5 will F+E as their two actions, and seeing you have missiles, are going to force a R2 engagement. Yours are going to TL + F for the 3 with missiles, and F+E for the 4th.

The 5 GSP shoot first, spending their focus as needed (call it 50% of them... so we'll say 3 spend the focus and 2 don't). They target one ship, and each one does .85 damage to it. .85 x 5 = 4.25, so it dies. But it does get to shoot its missiles first due to simultaneous fire. We're also going to say that you didn't spend your focus on D because you wanted it for your missile strike.

The homing missile A wings shoot theirs off, targeting one of the A wings that needed to spend his F on offense. They will each do 2.63 damage, less an evade token for 4.26 damage. Now your other two target a second A wing without a focus, the regular A wing does .61 damage, while the concussion missile does ~2.64 damage, totaling 3.25 damage, less the evade, for a total of 2.25 damage. The round ends, you are out of missiles, and it's 4 ships (given one damaged) to 3 ships (at full health). From there, the 4 ships mathematically win.

5 ships > 4 ships.

I've never said it takes away options - I've said it makes a particular option more expensive and, therefore, less attractive.

I agree, it might make missiles less attractive as an option. But my point was that options were not eliminated, which is what AndOne was saying.

But from what you've been saying it seems like you're trying to make the same argument, that options have been removed.

Okay, so let's do a mathwing analysis here.

5 ships > 4 ships.

You know I respect your mathwing, but you have a lot of assumptions in your post.

However, your point of 5 ships > 4 ships, yes clearly 5 ships is normally going to be better. But that doesn't mean that A-Wings with missiles are not a valid option.

kay, so let's do a mathwing analysis here. And lets assume you lose init, so you can TL on the opening salvo.

So, the 20 cost PTL GSP x5 will F+E as their two actions, and seeing you have missiles, are going to force a R2 engagement. Yours are going to TL + F for the 3 with missiles, and F+E for the 4th.

The 5 GSP shoot first, spending their focus as needed (call it 50% of them... so we'll say 3 spend the focus and 2 don't). They target one ship, and each one does .85 damage to it. .85 x 5 = 4.25, so it dies. But it does get to shoot its missiles first due to simultaneous fire. We're also going to say that you didn't spend your focus on D because you wanted it for your missile strike.

The homing missile A wings shoot theirs off, targeting one of the A wings that needed to spend his F on offense. They will each do 2.63 damage, less an evade token for 4.26 damage. Now your other two target a second A wing without a focus, the regular A wing does .61 damage, while the concussion missile does ~2.64 damage, totaling 3.25 damage, less the evade, for a total of 2.25 damage. The round ends, you are out of missiles, and it's 4 ships (given one damaged) to 3 ships (at full health). From there, the 4 ships mathematically win.

5 ships > 4 ships.

Ever so slightly change the squad then, as I wasn't thinking about the A-Wing Test Pilot Ability.

Green Squadron, A-Wing Vet, Veteran Instincts, Push the Limit, Homing Missile

Green Squadron, A-Wing Vet, Veteran Instincts, Push the Limit, Homing Missile

Green Squadron, A-Wing Vet, Veteran Instincts, Push the Limit, Homing Missile

Prototype Chardaan.

All 3 Green Squadrons launch their missiles prior to the opposing green squadrons getting to fire, and I'll target lock different greens with each one. Given how frequently I one shot Tie Fighters, I'll take the risk that I'll throw 4 hits and my opponent will roll 0 evades on one of their A-Wings. If I'm lucky, I might even pull a Direct Hit crit somewhere in there and maybe ace 2 Green Squadrons, and leave one at 1 or 2 hull left. Then its 4 and against 3 (one with damage), and I'll take that game, no problem.

No one underpoints there's squad without a reason. In this case, now you can take two PTL greens with 2x Advs Daggers and a concussion missile. That reasoning exists whether or not you think its likely. You used almost the same line of reasoning when you said the Cog 'o Two templates shouldn't be used because they could be used to cheat in a corner case.

This is not an underpointed squad. And if you were to take that list and remove the Concussion Missile, you could put Stealth Device on both A-wings. Which is how many points again?

I really don't think you're following the basic discussion here. The core question is how many points it takes to put a missile on an A-wing. That is cost+2, because of Chaardan. It has been suggested that this isn't valid because people aren't REQUIRED to take the Chaardan. Which is technically true. If someone presented the list to you, and suggested that they wanted to drop the missile to put Stealth on one of the A-wings, leaving them 1 point and an empty missile slot, would your advice be to NOT put a Chaardan in there?

And taking a frivolous targeting computer on the same build because you couldn't take the missile before isn't technically underpointing either. But both builds lead to what you have been trying to point out is two wasted points (in one a frivoulous upgrade and the other a two point tax for not taking Chaardan). This just illustrates the different mind set I was pointing to in my original post.

It's a tangent, but my objection to the templates has to do with my tolerance for cheating. You think it's OK because someone can only use it to cheat in a corner case. I don't think you should allow tools which enable cheating, period. But I'm a software developer, we live in corner cases, so I have a much different standard for waving away things like that.

I didn't say I disagree with you on the cheating aspect, I was just pointing out you used the same logic pointing to a corner case.

PS Does that mean you are against playing on a starfield?

I agree, it might make missiles less attractive as an option. But my point was that options were not eliminated, which is what AndOne was saying.

But from what you've been saying it seems like you're trying to make the same argument, that options have been removed.

This is kinda funny - you quote my argument, agree with my argument, and then say I'm trying to make a completely different argument Honestly, I'm not sure how you can even get there. If I'm so strenuously arguing the real points cost difference between two options, how can I be claiming one of those options no longer exists?

The option is still there - won't even pretend otherwise. But the previous example is a good way to think about it. If the A-wing had no missile slot, and you could add one for 2 points then slap in a missile of your choice, would you consider it a good missile platform?

Honestly, this debate over whether the option exists or not feels like a distraction. Of course it exists. The question is whether it's worth it. At 4 points, does a Concussion Missile earn its points back? What about at 6 points? That's the more interesting discussion.

The option is still there - won't even pretend otherwise. But the previous example is a good way to think about it. If the A-wing had no missile slot, and you could add one for 2 points then slap in a missile of your choice, would you consider it a good missile platform?

The best missile platform is the one that can take 2 actions and carry a missile for the fewest points possible. Until something can do that for fewer points than a PtL green, its still the best available missile platform.

and then say I'm trying to make a completely different argument

No I said what it seems like. I understand the argument you're trying to make but I'm also telling you what it sounds like you're saying. It reads like you're trying to say it removes options but at the same it doesn't.

Honestly, this debate over whether the option exists or not feels like a distraction. Of course it exists. The question is whether it's worth it. At 4 points, does a Concussion Missile earn its points back? What about at 6 points? That's the more interesting discussion.

Yes it would. But the point I was making from the start, and the one you kept using my quotes to argue against, was that the option existed, which is something that AndOne clearly claimed wasn't there. I have to wonder just how much time you actually spend reading other peoples posts before you respond. Because I said a number of times that my one and only point was the option existed, yet you kept disagreeing with me.

And taking a frivolous targeting computer on the same build because you couldn't take the missile before isn't technically underpointing either. But both builds lead to what you have been trying to point out is two wasted points (in one a frivoulous upgrade and the other a two point tax for not taking Chaardan). This just illustrates the different mind set I was pointing to in my original post.

The Targeting Computer may not be the most effective choice, but I have a hard time seeing it being truly frivolous. There's no place to throw a Determination or Draw Their Fire? No crew slots anywhere? Even if it is the case for this particular build, it's more likely to occur on Imperial builds which frequently have much tighter upgrade restrictions (this is an Imperial build, right?). I expect most people could find ways to spend 2 points on a Rebel build. But whatever - you'll post a strange combo, I'll point out how I'd do it differently, you'll say that the author WANTED that particular bit of suck in there so my suggestion isn't valid, yadda yadda. I can't save every incompetent list builder who can't find a way to make good use of his available points.

PS Does that mean you are against playing on a starfield?

Without additional measurement options which aren't provided by the templates, you really can't mark positions and ranges based on the printed image.

If that starfield just happens to have a grid with squares sized to the movement template sizes, then yeah, I'm against it.

Okay, so let's do a mathwing analysis here.

5 ships > 4 ships.

You know I respect your mathwing, but you have a lot of assumptions in your post.

However, your point of 5 ships > 4 ships, yes clearly 5 ships is normally going to be better. But that doesn't mean that A-Wings with missiles are not a valid option.

Obviously there are assumptions in there. I'm assuming a discrete damage capability of the ships, and I'm assuming both players are equally skilled, and I'm assuming that the dice don't favor one team or the other.

If you want to look at it another way - each of the 7 ships has a 72% chance of hitting (and doing at least one damage). If we assume that they only do 1 damage, then we need 4 of the ships to hit. The chances of that happening are 37%. But the chances of doing 2 damage is 13%.

So, lets take a look at 3 ships hitting, with at least one doing 2 damage. 3 ships will hit 29% of the time, with a 35% that at least 1 did 2 damage. And then 2 ships hitting, both doing 2 damage is .1%, so negligible. So, now (ignoring crits, which in a previous analysis, I showed added about 5% probability of one shotting an X wing, so that's a fair number to keep in the back of your head)... we have calculated that there is a 47% chance of the 5 A wings killing one of your A wings. So that means it could indeed go either way and be well within the margin of chance.

So, we'd have to look then at how much damage the missiles will do. There's a 98% chance of homing missiles rolling at least 3 hits, so for simplicity sake, lets say that they can either roll 3 or 4 hits. They roll 4 77% of the time, and 3 23% of the time.

A non-focused A wing will roll 0 evades 24%, 1 evade 44%, 2 26% and 3 5%. So, the two missiles need to do a total of 5 damage (evade token + 4 health), lets see how plausible that they will kill an A wing is.

The two will roll 6 hits 5% of the time, 7 hits 35%, and 8 hits 60% of the time. We can assume it to be 1 attack since no evade die will ever be wasted (we're saying a min of 3 hits and a max of 3 evades). Therefore, if 6 hits are rolled, 2 or more evades are needed (between 6 dice) in order to live. This will happen 73% of the time. 7 hits require 3+ evades = 40%, and 8 hits require 4+ for 15%. This means that 2 homing missiles have a 73% chance of one shotting an A wing.

So, there are the probabilities that the two events I called out actually happen. Neither is a guarantee, but both are plausible.

So when making lists with A-Wings the first thing to decide is missile or no missile, once you decide that it does change the cost of thing .

...

You can argue that A-Wings are a bad choice for missiles over all, but having 4 or 6 extra points isn't going to drastically change the effectiveness of a A-Wing with missiles list.

This is where I started, and what I've been arguing against. I've been ignoring your "you still have options" parts because it's nothing I ever said, and I don't feel the need to defend AndOne's points.

I think I'm done here. If you want to continue this discussion, the Wikipedia page for opportunity cost can stand in for me just fine from here on.

I just find it funny the amount of arguing over A wings being seen more in tourney lists. Seriously guys, it is happening. Instead of debating the reason behind the change, go theorcraft new and exciting builds with the changes, they really do open up a lot of things, like say a green with missiles+opp+ptl, that right there is a scary thing. Lots of points sure but it would be fun to see happen.

People get to caught up with numbers in this game. By most peoples mathwinging I shouldn't be able to kill a dual yt build with a few interceptors with only losing one, but who would of thunk it, I have! Multiple times!

I am honestly excited that I can bring in A wings more and that are more tailored to what I want in a squad. Sure I might not take missiles all the time, but I have the option and more points now to play with, but a green+ptl+missile is still the best delivery system outside of a named pilot. I don't see power creep being present at all (I find wedges ability far superior to the new B wing), we are just getting new ways to build. Also as some have pointed out, we still don't know what kinda tricks the phantom and defender have for the Imperial lover (I play both).

EDIT:I know opp can't be used while stressed. The ptl would be in place to line up the shot (turn after) and for end game viability once the missiles are loose.

And taking a frivolous targeting computer on the same build because you couldn't take the missile before isn't technically underpointing either. But both builds lead to what you have been trying to point out is two wasted points (in one a frivoulous upgrade and the other a two point tax for not taking Chaardan). This just illustrates the different mind set I was pointing to in my original post.

The Targeting Computer may not be the most effective choice, but I have a hard time seeing it being truly frivolous. There's no place to throw a Determination or Draw Their Fire? No crew slots anywhere? Even if it is the case for this particular build, it's more likely to occur on Imperial builds which frequently have much tighter upgrade restrictions (this is an Imperial build, right?). I expect most people could find ways to spend 2 points on a Rebel build. But whatever - you'll post a strange combo, I'll point out how I'd do it differently, you'll say that the author WANTED that particular bit of suck in there so my suggestion isn't valid, yadda yadda. I can't save every incompetent list builder who can't find a way to make good use of his available points.

That might be your problem there. You have a way of insulting the reader in your arguments, even though it does appear you are trying to "save every incompetent list builder" from A-wings missiles in this case. (Just FYI the targeting computer dealt specifically with the A-Wing B-Wing build mentioned earlier which was actually impossible without 2 points in dead points, either you went light or you took a targeting computer)

Without additional measurement options which aren't provided by the templates, you really can't mark positions and ranges based on the printed image.

If that starfield just happens to have a grid with squares sized to the movement template sizes, then yeah, I'm against it.

Surprising considering it would be really easy to premeasure just using the stars.

Dam it........must not buy anything else this month, must not buy anything else this month, need money to eat, need money to eat

Don't worry these won't be out until sometime in 2037.

1) I'm skipping over any more posts in this thread as soon as I see the words "Chardaan" and "A-Wing".

2) FFG has shown that they're still editing cards, text and probably effects too. Going on and on about how good/awesome/terrible/OP they are is pointless right now. It really appears that they're still In Development.

3) Any time any game company releases add-ons to an existing game and only teases the market about them they are branded as: OP if they add new effects (especially if there's an entire release that comes out in between i.e.: Wave 4)/ Underpowered & waste of time or money if they duplicate effects for the same team. So, in short, no game company ever seems to win when they offer pre-release info out to their market.

4) Chill.