You can keep claiming fat falcons aren't more powerful then hsf builds all you want you were wrong 7 months ago and still wrong now.
Don't think we had fat falcons 7 months ago...
But no where did VS ever say they weren't more powerful, then the older HSF. He said that the falcon was more powerful then the one in the HSF because you spent more points on it.
He's talking about a thread from February where, essentially, he predicted that Han + Bandits with Ion Pulse Missiles were going to take over the metagame because missile-carrying Headhunters are better than X-wings. I said that no, I'm not sure that's really going to be an issue--Headhunters provide additional options for HSF-style lists, but don't make the list more powerful.
Then a few weeks ago he jumped on me for the same thing again, and I disagreed again. Basically, my position is that Falcon + Headhunters has definitely turned out to be a far bigger deal in the metagame than I expected, but I'm standing firm on the point that Threepio isn't substantially better (in a mathematical sense) than Chewie as a defensive crew option, and I'm also not giving in on the idea that having Headhunters + missiles as escorts is stronger than having X-wings or B-wings.
Now he's on about it again, to the detriment of the point I'm making in this thread--which, to be explicit, is that it's more expensive to run three Prototypes than to run three Talas or Bandits, and in an HSF-style list those points require compromises on the Falcon's upgrades. And since the whole point of Fat Falcons is that you can get a power boost on your Falcon by reducing the proportion of your list you spend on escort fighters, Rebel Aces is actually going the wrong direction as far as Fat Falcon lists are concerned.