Has anyone tried to fly the crazy action economy combo of C with PTL and FCS? Getting stressed and losing adv. sensors really limits your dial, but being able to use your entire action bar is insane.
I also feel this kind of build pairs really well with A, since your are maximizing the potency of your shots (decreasing the chance to miss, invalidating B) and stressing yourself out regularly (invalidating D's special Sloop).
Edited by Joostuh
The few times I've played Aggressors, I've used B & C, and honestly, the regularity with which I was hitting really made B's ability moot.
On paper I see the use of the kaboom and regen aspect of A but it's situation based..You have full control of when you activate the others and can milk them for what their worth.
It is interesting how there are a lot of responses of "Well, C > A, so A is bad." I do have to disagree with the OP that A is the best Aggressor but, as with most things, it is important to look at why the OP thinks what he thinks. I can see A being quite underrated.
Lets take a quick look at what the Aggressors do and what they are good at:
A - Shield regen on scoring a kill. Strong vs swarms, much less good vs 2 ship builds.
B - Gunner effect using a Cannon upgrade. Strong vs. high defense enemies and when offensive dice modification is less possible. Weak when enemies are easy to hit. Requires points in cannon upgrades. Ultimately, stronger vs. things like Fat Han and TIEs, weaker vs Decimators and rebel swarms.
C - Get a free evade on boost. Good for arc dodging or in a slugfest. Probably the most universally strong, but reliant on being able to boost. Therefore, somewhat weaker vs swarms or lists with a good suite of blockers but still very good.
D - Allows for a tighter S-turn and limited change of maneuver. Strong vs blockers but less good when the enemy isn't intent on blocking. Even without opposing blockers, still good for repositioning for the next attack run or for shaking a tailing enemy.
So, C is awesome and I think most people will agree. It seems that CD is a popular defensive slant to dual Aggressor lists, while BC and BD are the choice for aggressive versions. What about running AC is an extra defensive list? The combination loses the better blocker dodging of D, but if you are dodging blockers, you are probably up against weaker ships that feed into A. I'd argue that it is a tossup between A and D vs. a two ship list, since neither ability is really stellar in that situation. Looking at the single strong ship + support, like Fat Falcon+3Zs or Whisper+mini Howlswarm, I'd say A is better. Usually the trap here is that if you go after the support, you'll lose too much and won't have the umph to take on the main threat and the support will eat you up if you go after the main. With A, you lose less taking out support first, which should make the difference taking on the main afterwards.
Which is best really depends on your build and what you intend your Aggressors to do. There are many upgrade slots and many ways to build a balanced list (which is key I think). Pick your upgrades to complement a certain style of flying and choose the pilots that work well with those upgrades and reduce your weakness.
For example, I think B is really good in a build that focuses on maneuverability and/or defense because you often don't have the actions to modify your shots. In return he is pretty bad in builds that focus on action economy or offense, because you are less likely to miss.
OP, I'm not sure I agree in this case, but you always bring great analysis of these things to the forums and get me thinking. Thanks for all the great posts!
OP, I'm not sure I agree in this case, but you always bring great analysis of these things to the forums and get me thinking. Thanks for all the great posts!
Exactly. I don't need to agree (and in this case, I do not) to still appreciate someone who gets folks talkin' in a constructive, examining, way.
Here's why A is good:
Consider Mr. Heaver's world's list or any other sort of Fat Han type list. The standard strategy is to kill Han first, because as you lose ships it will be harder and harder, and failing to kill Fat Han himself will mean a loss if you lose a ship. With IG88A, you can go after support first, mitigating damage from a centerpiece as you go after support ships.
In that case, you're changing the target priority order, which has some real advantages.
There also might be something to A for asymmetric IG 2000s. If one is specced toward swarms, and on toward elites, A may be useful because you can spend fewer points on "anti-swarm" gear and more on something else.
I completely disagree with the OP, and reiterate what several here have stated that B&C are the best pair. I won a SC yesterday with them plus Predator, AdvS, AT, Mangler and seismic charges. I boosted consistently to get distance plus an evade token and it payed off many times over. IG-88 NEEDS to be at range three with an evade token. One bad dice roll can cost half your health, and autothrusters mitigates this significantly. B's gunner ability can mitigate your lack of offensive focus and cut through enemy focus/evade tokens. I would never run a different pair in a 2 ship list. The only one I would even consider is D, but I don't know which I would drop because B&C synergize so well
Here's why A is good:
Consider Mr. Heaver's world's list or any other sort of Fat Han type list. The standard strategy is to kill Han first, because as you lose ships it will be harder and harder, and failing to kill Fat Han himself will mean a loss if you lose a ship. With IG88A, you can go after support first, mitigating damage from a centerpiece as you go after support ships.
In that case, you're changing the target priority order, which has some real advantages.
There also might be something to A for asymmetric IG 2000s. If one is specced toward swarms, and on toward elites, A may be useful because you can spend fewer points on "anti-swarm" gear and more on something else.
I see no reason to go after the support ships in a fat han + Zs list
in my experience Zs are the most worthless garbage against aggressors that it's almost depressing. 2 dice on 3 agility is rough enough, and then they add 8 health, large ship movement w/boost, and a stupendous dial against one of the least mobile ships in the game.
I would actually say that C is a far better ship to take against fat han +Zs than A. You can boost to get out of the Z's arc or get them in, and then still get an evade to deal with han's turret. Any aggressor with autothrusters is going to fare quite well against a 3 dice turret. Without gunner you will almost never get damage through, and without R2D2, you will eventually get burned down by even 1 IG88. Against an HLC dash, I only took 4 damage over, like, 10 rounds. Each of those damage came from 4 hits vs 2 evades + evade token
Edited by darthjeff81Yes, but what about A+C. All the defenses of C with shield regen. Vs. Fat Han, kill the 3 Zs while being very unlikely to lose an Aggressor which in turn forces Han to fight you or lose on points. Like you say, 3agi+evade+autothrusters, with possibly a focus, is going to be exceedingly hard for Han and the Zs to focus down.
Yes, but what about A+C. All the defenses of C with shield regen. Vs. Fat Han, kill the 3 Zs while being very unlikely to lose an Aggressor which in turn forces Han to fight you or lose on points. Like you say, 3agi+evade+autothrusters, with possibly a focus, is going to be exceedingly hard for Han and the Zs to focus down.
losing IG-88B's astounding ability against higher agility lists would just be too much
Yes, but what about A+C. All the defenses of C with shield regen. Vs. Fat Han, kill the 3 Zs while being very unlikely to lose an Aggressor which in turn forces Han to fight you or lose on points. Like you say, 3agi+evade+autothrusters, with possibly a focus, is going to be exceedingly hard for Han and the Zs to focus down.
So, you'd rather have IG-88A to regenerate 3 shields the whole game than have the gunner-like effect of B to re-roll all the attacks you whiff and help you punch through Fat Han's defences? Or D's maneuverability options that could be game-changing vs those 3 Z's that are trying to block you?
Edited by KlutzSorry, but B is simply a must-use piece. Double Aggressor lists are all about slow-and-steady. They don't kill anything quickly, but their combination of range 3 firepower and range 3 damage avoidance allows them to whittle things down while minimizing return fire. Having the ability to use a Gunner effect to strip tokens is invaluable when you only have two attackers in your list.
And in a 28-person tourney today, I only faced squads with more than 3 ships twice in five rounds. Meanwhile, I faced two 2-ship lists along with a single 3-ship list. When I compare the the 1-3 shields I'd get back from using 88A to the sheer amount of damage avoidance through evade tokens that I gained from running 88C, it's not even a remotely balanced.
Yes, but what about A+C. All the defenses of C with shield regen. Vs. Fat Han, kill the 3 Zs while being very unlikely to lose an Aggressor which in turn forces Han to fight you or lose on points. Like you say, 3agi+evade+autothrusters, with possibly a focus, is going to be exceedingly hard for Han and the Zs to focus down.
So, you'd rather have IG-88A to regenerate 3 shields the whole game than have the gunner-like effect of B to re-roll all the attacks you whiff and help you punch through Fat Han's defences? Or D's maneuverability options that could be game-changing vs those 3 Z's that are trying to block you?
So yes in some IG builds and no in others.