14 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

*Rebel Only

Uh... And have Dash or Rebel Han run that? Riiiiiiight... Small ship only, applies to forward arc primaries only, and drop the rebels only bull since that upgrade is right up Scum's alley. Switching out "standard" equipment for more oomph in a pinch is second nature to scummy mechanics...

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Uh... And have Dash or Rebel Han run that? Riiiiiiight... Small ship only, applies to forward arc primaries only, and drop the rebels only bull since that upgrade is right up Scum's alley. Switching out "standard" equipment for more oomph in a pinch is second nature to scummy mechanics...

I'M TRYING.

4 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I'M TRYING.

You aren't doing bad, just need to look at everything it can end up on when thinking of these things, not just which ships you think it would help.

50 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Uh... And have Dash or Rebel Han run that? Riiiiiiight... Small ship only, applies to forward arc primaries only, and drop the rebels only bull since that upgrade is right up Scum's alley. Switching out "standard" equipment for more oomph in a pinch is second nature to scummy mechanics...

Don't forget rebel Zs, which can also take them.

With regard to A-wings being "Straight worse" Than a Fang / Interceptor, I present this handy comparison:

HP: A-wing (With 2 hull, 2 shield) > Fang (4 Hull) > Interceptor (3 hull)

Actions: A-Wing (Boost, Barrel Roll, Lock, Focus, Evade) > Interceptor (Boost, Barrel Roll, Focus, Evade) / Fang (Boost, Barrel Roll, Lock, Focus) [Note: the value of the Lock action vs. The evade action may be debated, and depending on the result, the interceptor and the Fang may be swapped / ranked. For now I am treating them equally]

Dial: A-wing (green 5 straight over Interceptor, 4K becomes a 5) > Interceptor (5K becomes 4) > Fang (No green 4 or 5, 3 Sloops become 2 talons) [ Again, the value of a talon vs. sloop is debatable. In this case, I'd like to suggest the difference is minor enough that the fast greens are more relevant.]

Linked actions: Interceptor ( anything into boost or roll) > A-wing (Anything into boost) > Fang (Boost or roll into focus) [ The Fang is the only one that can attempt to reposition fail, and thus fail to link with a token as both the A-wing and the Interceptor can token up first]

Ship Ability: Fang > A-wing / Interceptor [note: I'm counting both the A-wings and Interceptors ship abilities as linked actions instead]

Focused shots to kill: Fang (4.695 at 3, 3.699 at 2, 4.233 at 1) > A-wing (4.695 at 3, 3.699 at 2, 2.520 at 1) > Interceptor (3.627 at 3, 2.862 at 2, 1.956 at 1) [Note: this is presuming no defensive tokens, so potentially the A-wing and Interceptor can move up because the ability to evade and defend better at range 2-3, and this is also presuming no crits, so if you want to move the A-wing up because of shields.]

Expected Hits: Fang (1.5 No Tokens, 2.250 Focus / Lock, 2.813 Focus + Lock | Range 1: 2 No Tokens, 3 Focus / Lock, 3.75 Focus + Lock) > Interceptor (Interceptor: 1.5 No tokens, 2.250 Focus | Range 1: 2 No Tokens, 3 Focus) > A-wing (1 No tokens, 1.5 Focus / Lock, 1.875 Focus + Lock | Range 1:1.5 No Tokens, 2.250 Focus / Lock, 2.813 Focus + Lock)

Price: A-wing (30, 6 max 20 flex points) > Interceptor (34, 5 max 30 flex points) > Fang (44, 4 max 24 flex points) [Pretty Obvious straight comparison here, but it is important to note the number of each one that can be put in a list]

Slots available: Interceptor (2x Modification) > A-wing (Missile) / Fang (Torpedo) [I'm ranking this based on the number of slots available, although I'd also argue that the missile is the most valuable for the generics, as it has the most versatile options)

Conclusion: The ships are a lot more balanced that this thread may make it appear. What the A-wing loses in offense is makes up in durability and value. Ultimately, you have to remember what you pay for that extra bonus from the interceptor or fang, and ask if a fang is 1.5 A-wings.

22 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

You aren't doing bad, just need to look at everything it can end up on when thinking of these things, not just which ships you think it would help.

Crap you're right. I didn't wanna' say A-Wing only... What about Rebel Only, Small ship only?

9 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

With regard to A-wings being "Straight worse" Than a Fang / Interceptor, I present this handy comparison:

Fang costs 44pts minimum.... Not even in the same ballpark... you can take 6 basic A-Wings (180 pts), 5 basic Interceptors (170 pts), or 4 basic Fang Fighters (176 pts) and stay under 200pts. Just noticed you covered that... Nevermind.

9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

What about Rebel Only, Small ship only?

You also have the issue that this is effectively the T-70 with S-Foils closed ability...

@Hiemfire is right, let’s look at all the possibilities. So to give the A wing a third, conditional, attack die you propose a missile upgrade.

So what is the cheapest non unique 3 die attack in the game? The Striker and Interceptor at 34 points.

So the designers are basically setting a max of 5x 3 dice attacks. So what happens if you make a missile slot upgrade? Well the Z-95 gets it, as does the x1. Those are the two I want to focus on, for different reasons.

The x1 is a two die attack, with a third of you are locked. And a free hit to a crit. This would give it a conditional 4 die attack with lock and bullseye. 5 at range 1. Now imagine Vader with that? For a ship that never uses its missile slot, suddenly this seems almost mandatory, or useless if the points are wrong.

So how many points would you pay for this for Vader? For a Generic? Safe to say this should cost more for Vader period, no? And even for a generic, I don’t think you can price it less than 7 points, otherwise you get 4 of them with FCS. 4x 4 potential dice, with a free refill and hit to crit. That seems… almost broken.

And for our Z squad I think the points would have to be more even. 23 points for a Z. Max of 8 ships. At <=5 points, you can have 7. At 6-10 points you get 6. At 11-17 points you get 5.

Proton Rockets cost 7 for a 1 shot 5 dice attack in bullseye at 1-2. This is at least as good, probably better. Do you allow 6 with no other upgrades? Would 5 be better, meaning 11 points? Let’s see how it rolls. At 11 points you have a 2/2/2/2 ship, with a potential 3rd dice. target lock, focus, red roll. For the same 34 points you have either a 3/3/3/0 ship with focus, Evade, boost, roll, or a 3/2/4/0 ship with focus, evade, roll. +2 shields, -1 hull, -1 agility. Target lock helps offense, overall the Interceptor is more agile but has compromised offense. With the potential for lock focus 3 and 4 dice attacks, it closes in on the always 3 die Interceptor. This is probably a matter of preference, a Z swarm could be proper deadly here.

Vs the striker we have the same agility, swap 2 hull for shields, and add the TL losing evade. Given how the focus is the preferred action, it doesn’t factor much. Again I think this comes to aesthetic preference. Strikers are the harder to use ship, due to ailerons, which can be a plus and a minus when it comes to blocking. But, in my head at least, the Z-95 with this hypothetical feels relatively balanced versus these two ships. At 10 points, allowing 6 rebel Z’s I think it tips towards toonpowerful. And it hoses Scum. At 9 points you get 6 scum and Rebel. An the scum seem strictly inferior since the benefit they have, the Illicit, is unusable on 4 ships minimum.

At 9 points you can get 4 x1’s without FCS. No free reroll, but it’s there. Four conditional 4 dice attacks.

So I really think this has to be 11 points. Gut feeling, admittedly, but there it is. Which pushes the A-wing to 41 points. At which point use an X-wing.

When you consider the costs of an extra die, this feels right. Think what Finn cost, what Punishing One cost, Outrider, Moldy Crow. 11 points is a lot, but doesn’t seem outrageous, especially considering what 10 allows (6 Z’s) or 7 does (4x FCS x1’s). I think those are your break points where you need to carefully consider what it could impact.

But I like what your goal is, just not sure that’s how I’d go about it @Captain Lackwit

36 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Fang costs 44pts minimum.... Not even in the same ballpark... you can take 6 basic A-Wings (180 pts), 5 basic Interceptors (170 pts), or 4 basic Fang Fighters (176 pts) and stay under 200pts. Just noticed you covered that... Nevermind.

The reason I choose the fang as a comparison was because that's what I've seen compared often as the 3 "Interceptor" ships. A better comparison may be the Tie adv. Prototype, or M3-a, but the A-wing fills a similar role to those two so all of them are valid to a degree.

8 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

The reason I choose the fang as a comparison was because that's what I've seen compared often as the 3 "Interceptor" ships. A better comparison may be the Tie adv. Prototype, or M3-a, but the A-wing fills a similar role to those two so all of them are valid to a degree.

M3-A needs Afterburners to come even close to what an A-Wing can pull off, and then only twice. 37pts total on a Cartel Spacer.... It is a swift and fragile gunboat, and for the M3-A those 8 points are better spent on its secondaries than a limited use pseudo-Engine Upgrade. Quinn Jast is the exception if you want to arc dodge with a M3-A. As long as you don't mind disarm tokens to from time to time as you recharge it.

I haven’t really been following this thread, just jumped in and read the last page on a lark, but what about a 3 die missile that takes 2 charges to fire and regens the charge, so it can fire every other round? Would encourage hit and fade attacks, which is something the a-wing is supposed to be good at.

59 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

I haven’t really been following this thread, just jumped in and read the last page on a lark, but what about a 3 die missile that takes 2 charges to fire and regens the charge, so it can fire every other round? Would encourage hit and fade attacks, which is something the a-wing is supposed to be good at.

Something like the "Energy Torpedoes" that the Vulture Droids had in Legends? Hmmm, to use a variation on your formatting system: 3|| Range 1-2 ^2charges Attack [Focus]: Spend 2 charges to perform this attack.

4pts? I'm debating range 1-2 or 1-3. At range 3 it can be a pain to line up but it rolls against the same defense dice as at range 2 which might be too potent.

1 hour ago, millertime059 said:

@Hiemfire is right, let’s look at all the possibilities. So to give the A wing a third, conditional, attack die you propose a missile upgrade.

So what is the cheapest non unique 3 die attack in the game? The Striker and Interceptor at 34 points.

So the designers are basically setting a max of 5x 3 dice attacks. So what happens if you make a missile slot upgrade? Well the Z-95 gets it, as does the x1. Those are the two I want to focus on, for different reasons.

The x1 is a two die attack, with a third of you are locked. And a free hit to a crit. This would give it a conditional 4 die attack with lock and bullseye. 5 at range 1. Now imagine Vader with that? For a ship that never uses its missile slot, suddenly this seems almost mandatory, or useless if the points are wrong.

So how many points would you pay for this for Vader? For a Generic? Safe to say this should cost more for Vader period, no? And even for a generic, I don’t think you can price it less than 7 points, otherwise you get 4 of them with FCS. 4x 4 potential dice, with a free refill and hit to crit. That seems… almost broken.

And for our Z squad I think the points would have to be more even. 23 points for a Z. Max of 8 ships. At <=5 points, you can have 7. At 6-10 points you get 6. At 11-17 points you get 5.

Proton Rockets cost 7 for a 1 shot 5 dice attack in bullseye at 1-2. This is at least as good, probably better. Do you allow 6 with no other upgrades? Would 5 be better, meaning 11 points? Let’s see how it rolls. At 11 points you have a 2/2/2/2 ship, with a potential 3rd dice. target lock, focus, red roll. For the same 34 points you have either a 3/3/3/0 ship with focus, Evade, boost, roll, or a 3/2/4/0 ship with focus, evade, roll. +2 shields, -1 hull, -1 agility. Target lock helps offense, overall the Interceptor is more agile but has compromised offense. With the potential for lock focus 3 and 4 dice attacks, it closes in on the always 3 die Interceptor. This is probably a matter of preference, a Z swarm could be proper deadly here.

Vs the striker we have the same agility, swap 2 hull for shields, and add the TL losing evade. Given how the focus is the preferred action, it doesn’t factor much. Again I think this comes to aesthetic preference. Strikers are the harder to use ship, due to ailerons, which can be a plus and a minus when it comes to blocking. But, in my head at least, the Z-95 with this hypothetical feels relatively balanced versus these two ships. At 10 points, allowing 6 rebel Z’s I think it tips towards toonpowerful. And it hoses Scum. At 9 points you get 6 scum and Rebel. An the scum seem strictly inferior since the benefit they have, the Illicit, is unusable on 4 ships minimum.

At 9 points you can get 4 x1’s without FCS. No free reroll, but it’s there. Four conditional 4 dice attacks.

So I really think this has to be 11 points. Gut feeling, admittedly, but there it is. Which pushes the A-wing to 41 points. At which point use an X-wing.

When you consider the costs of an extra die, this feels right. Think what Finn cost, what Punishing One cost, Outrider, Moldy Crow. 11 points is a lot, but doesn’t seem outrageous, especially considering what 10 allows (6 Z’s) or 7 does (4x FCS x1’s). I think those are your break points where you need to carefully consider what it could impact.

But I like what your goal is, just not sure that’s how I’d go about it @Captain Lackwit

Well crap. That right there is... Whoa, way to go.

Having mulled the idea, here’s how I think I would approach this.

Do it like Victor Hel’s ability. Word it like this:

When you perform an attack, if the enemy is in your || and you roll exactly two dice, you may roll a third dice.

This makes it useful on A’s and Z’s, doesn’t make range 1 overpowered, and makes its utility on Vader or any 3 dice carriers vanish. Like this I think the cost can be more modest. 7 points feels about right. Keeps 7 Z’s off the table, but allows 6 with toys. For A wings it allows 5 with some toys as well, keeping them sub 40. At 6 points you can get 5 green squads with it for exactly 200 points. I’m not sure that’s desirable, but maybe it’d be fine. The I3 Striker is 38 points, and always has 3 dice. This is trading the offense a bit for more agility, shields instead of hull, a better dial, and post move vs pre move repositioning. That may be fair at 40.

Anyhow, I’m not sure it’s needed. I think the right modification or talent would make a difference. I just don’t see much that really works great with them.

2 minutes ago, millertime059 said:

Having mulled the idea, here’s how I think I would approach this.

Do it like Victor Hel’s ability. Word it like this:

When you perform an attack, if the enemy is in your || and you roll exactly two dice, you may roll a third dice.

This makes it useful on A’s and Z’s, doesn’t make range 1 overpowered, and makes its utility on Vader or any 3 dice carriers vanish. Like this I think the cost can be more modest. 7 points feels about right. Keeps 7 Z’s off the table, but allows 6 with toys. For A wings it allows 5 with some toys as well, keeping them sub 40. At 6 points you can get 5 green squads with it for exactly 200 points. I’m not sure that’s desirable, but maybe it’d be fine. The I3 Striker is 38 points, and always has 3 dice. This is trading the offense a bit for more agility, shields instead of hull, a better dial, and post move vs pre move repositioning. That may be fair at 40.

Anyhow, I’m not sure it’s needed. I think the right modification or talent would make a difference. I just don’t see much that really works great with them.

oh crap I love this

They're literally always rolling 3 dice with this so long as the enemy is in bullseye, which means that you need to be a skillful pilot to use an A-Wing good and proper. Yeah, yeah I love that.

On 10/15/2018 at 1:13 PM, MalusCalibur said:

Of course. But declaring an entire ship as 'worthless forever' just because it doesn't play the exact same way as before is not a point for discussion as much as it is an overreaction. The new rules have barely been out a month and the overwhelming majority of ships have not been re-released, thus any ship lacking a certain kind of pilot (in this case, a high init 'Ace') is hardly a valid complaint given that we know the individual ship expansions (and whatever the 'no miniature' equivalent is) will contain more pilots.
Calling for a roll back on the A-Wing to give it two Talent slots again based on that and a handful of games is not, in my opinon, a valid argument. I would far rather FFG excercise caution with their new point/slot adjustment capability, and not start throwing around a change as big as a double Talent slot which could, and indeed would, have unforeseen consequences with future Talent cards.
That's not to mention the opposite, yet equally anecdotal, evidence of the A-Wing performing just fine and, to paraphrase a local player, being 'so much fun to fly' - the A-Wing being 'DoA' is far from a universally accepted fact of the game, and certainly nowhere near enough evidence exists to substantiate a change as big as the OP is suggesting.

First thing, everything we have seen so far on now two bigger tournaments shows us that as far as the A-Wing is concerned, there is nothing to see. Because no one plays it. Other I4 named ships are seen on the table, like Echo, Drea and some even lower PS like Sabine or Palob.

The A-Wing is not. No Named pilot, not even the oh so excellent PS1 blocker.

Of course it’s still a small sample size. But there is nothing to convince me that this is going to change. You can try deny it, but the very probable explanation is, that these players see the same thing in the A-Wing as i do. Nothing special, nothing competitive.

It’s not the low PS or the ship. It’s the combination of both that doesn’t work.

Second, i did jot say the ship is DoA. Ever. So don’t cite me saying that.

Third, the only thing i asked for is a higher Initiative pilot. And i stay with that. If it’s not Jake at I5, there needs to be another pilot. The double talent thing was not me calling for it either.

So i didn’t ask for any drastical changes. I just deplore that they didn’t give it a decent I5-6 pilot. Which is not changing the ship at all.

I also understand if it isn’t Tycho. Name him/her/it how you want. Just know that it would have been needed sorely for this ship. If Legends needs to be killed, oh well, let’s get over with it.

I’d actually love to hear what would happen if they kill off Soontir Fel, Kyle Katarn or Corran Horn, who are also legends Characters...

Or if they had given the TIE Interceptor the A-Wing treatment and taken away all Aces. With a maybe possibility of a new ace in some Expansion pack. I wonder if people would also bring that moot argument, how that ship is just intended for blocking purposes. I can tell you, the whine would flow in streams, if they had done that.

11 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

Conclusion: The ships are a lot more balanced that this thread may make it appear. What the A-wing loses in offense is makes up in durability and value. Ultimately, you have to remember what you pay for that extra bonus from the interceptor or fang, and ask if a fang is 1.5 A-wings. 

Oh boy, for the protocol now:

I never said the A-Wing was overcosted, or that it’s stats were wrong in any way.

The obvious blatant difference is that the other two ace platforms have ace pilots -from the get go, not with the vague hope for one in some expansion. Unlike the A-Wing which should have the possibility to be an Arc-dodger regarding its chassis, stats and fluff but where the low Initiative pilots make this an impossible feat to pull off in most matchups

So now what i really had to say:

The problem is a mismatch between the pilots Initiative and the ship role. Making the A-Wing nigh useless in one of its intended roles.

If after we have that, they are still not playable, we can maybe look at some wall of text stats, cost and talent slots. But that’s not what i suggested or why i made this thread!

Don’t believe me? Most Interceptors and Fangs we see competitively are Soontir and Fenn. That’s just a fact. These pilots make the respective ship great. And it requires no genius to figure out from there, what is wrong with the A-Wing.

5 hours ago, ForceM said:

Don’t believe me? Most Interceptors and Fangs we see competitively are Soontir and Fenn. That’s just a fact. These pilots make the respective ship great. And it requires no genius to figure out from there, what is wrong with the A-Wing.

What if I told you that 4 I1 Interceptors does work? Or that Low-I fangs can still be good? That would pretty conclusively disprove the point that they need an "ace" to be effective, wouldn't it? What if the A-wing performed well in 1e because of low PS options, not the aces? That would also run contrary to the "Ace-or-bust" narrative you present here.

5 hours ago, ForceM said:

I never said the A-Wing was overcosted, or that it’s stats were wrong in any way.

No, but other people did.

46 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

What if I told you that 4 I1 Interceptors does work? Or that Low-I fangs can still be good? That would pretty conclusively disprove the point that they need an "ace" to be effective, wouldn't it? What if the A-wing performed well in 1e because of low PS options, not the aces? That would also run contrary to the "Ace-or-bust" narrative you present here.

No, but other people did.

The low PS A-wings were the good options in 1e. What was it the Chihuahua swarm? Also the Snap/Crack A-wings won some regionals and then Cavern X/Snap Crack A/Ap-5 lists won some late 1e store champs.

1 hour ago, Do I need a Username said:

What if I told you that 4 I1 Interceptors does work? Or that Low-I fangs can still be good? That would pretty conclusively disprove the point that they need an "ace" to be effective, wouldn't it? What if the A-wing performed well in 1e because of low PS options, not the aces? That would also run contrary to the "Ace-or-bust" narrative you present here.

No, but other people did.

Okay, this is a Disney game now, but please no fairy tales please

This just (still) doesn’t work so well. The high agility low Hp, low to mid Initiative 4 ships i mean.

You get outgunned by Swarms and outflown by aces.

it’s a nice friendly list, but nothing more.

The only time that lots of Green squadrons worked decently last edition was with snap shot last edition, and it was still a freak list. One that i played quite a lot. But even this gimmick isn’t there this edition. What we saw in a Worlds final though was PS 9 Jake with Prockets.

Again, what if they just took Fenn and Soontir and made them I4. Nobody would play them.

This kind of ship just works best with Aces, even at only 2 dice and a bit cheaper. This hasn’t changed. A 2 dice ace is probably more workable now that we have a bit less defense to chew on.

56 minutes ago, ForceM said:

Okay, this is a Disney game now, but please no fairy tales please

This just (still) doesn’t work so well. The high agility low Hp, low to mid Initiative 4 ships i mean.

You get outgunned by Swarms and outflown by aces.

it’s a nice friendly list, but nothing more.

The only time that lots of Green squadrons worked decently last edition was with snap shot last edition, and it was still a freak list. One that i played quite a lot. But even this gimmick isn’t there this edition. What we saw in a Worlds final though was PS 9 Jake with Prockets.

Again, what if they just took Fenn and Soontir and made them I4. Nobody would play them.

This kind of ship just works best with Aces, even at only 2 dice and a bit cheaper. This hasn’t changed. A 2 dice ace is probably more workable now that we have a bit less defense to chew on.

What's the fairy tale? Low I generics doing well? Re: Snap shot being necessary, If their were an A-wing that did well without it at low PS that would also prove you pretty wrong. Shame one didn't, esp. not winning worlds ever. A Prototype pilot could never win worlds, and never do well as a blocker. It's impossible, you have to move last to be useful.

All this has made me realize that Jake is the perfect definition of a pocket ace. For 40 points, you get an I4 pilot that can double reposition with a focus, can support his wingmates by passing focus tokens around, outflies swarms, blocks aces, and is a pain to actually put down.

10 hours ago, ForceM said:

First thing, everything we have seen so far on now two bigger tournaments shows us that as far as the A-Wing is concerned, there is nothing to see. Because no one plays it. Other I4 named ships are seen on the table, like Echo, Drea and some even lower PS like Sabine or Palob.

Two tournaments, one of which was something of a gimmick tournament with mandatory upgrades, is not in any way a valid sample size.

10 hours ago, ForceM said:

Second, i did jot say the ship is DoA. Ever. So don’t cite me saying that.

Certain about that, are you? From your original post:
"And since it's not a points or slots issue, the ship is just dead for the whole edition I guess"

10 hours ago, ForceM said:

Third, the only thing i asked for is a higher Initiative pilot. And i stay with that. If it’s not Jake at I5, there needs to be another pilot. The double talent thing was not me calling for it either.

The very first thing you talk about is how the suggestion to give A-Wings back their two Talent slots is "totally correct". So you may not have originally called for it, but you definitely seem to support it.

10 hours ago, ForceM said:

So i didn’t ask for any drastical changes. I just deplore that they didn’t give it a decent I5-6 pilot. Which is not changing the ship at all.

Not every ship needs an I5 pilot (and it certainly shouldn't get a 6), but even so there's every possiblity the A-Wing will still get one at I5 in its expansion pack. So what exactly are you hoping for? Do you want or expect FFG to release one in the interrim for no appreciable reason? Are you so impatient that you arn't able to wait? There could be any number of reasons that FFG have chosen to leave any such pilot until then if one is to exist, and I'd rather they took the time to get it right rather than rush it out with the conversion kit to satisfy some arbitrary need for every ship to get the same Initiative range.

10 hours ago, ForceM said:

Or if they had given the TIE Interceptor the A-Wing treatment and taken away all Aces. With a maybe possibility of a new ace in some Expansion pack. I wonder if people would also bring that moot argument, how that ship is just intended for blocking purposes. I can tell you, the whine would flow in streams, if they had done that.

I doubt it. I imagine the more rational folk would assume that someone like Soontir (or a different named equivalent, if EU characters were to be entirely purged - but given the fact that many of them have survived I'd doubt that there is any such mandate) who has become so well known within the game would come to the ship later, and not throw a hissy fit over it - citing instead the same reason I already have that the A-Wing doesn't have Tycho (or any high-Initiative pilot) at the moment.
The A-Wing is just not that incredible a chassis in the first place, and the cost reflects that. It isn't neccesarily the Rebel equivalent of a TIE Interceptor because the factions are more than just vague copy-pastes of each other. The notion that the A-Wing should behave the exact same way as the Interceptor is a holdover from 1E where it could easy hit PS9+. That isn't what it is right now, and the entire crux of your argument seems to be lamentation of that.

Maybe the A-Wing will get I5, maybe it won't. Either way, there is still nowhere near enough actual evidence to support any claims that the ship isn't any good without it, that no one is playing it, or that it will remain as such 'for the whole edition'. Anecdotally I have seen someone flying them regularly (including a list of six of them) to a lot of success, and it is just as valid (that is to say, not every) as anything you have put forward so far as evidence. Your posts are overreactions and the tone of them is hostile and confrontational, lending them little credence.
So you'll forgive me for not agreeing with your sentiments that FFG have 'dropped the ball' with the A-Wing,

3 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

(including a list of six of them)

Six actually look like it could be fun to play. Maybe even a 5 strong Swarm Tactics mix of 1 pocket ace and 4 generics.

3 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Six actually look like it could be fun to play. Maybe even a 5 strong Swarm Tactics mix of 1 pocket ace and 4 generics.

I think 4 + 2z is the way to go right now.

On 10/15/2018 at 7:13 AM, MalusCalibur said:

Of course. But declaring an entire ship as 'worthless forever' just because it doesn't play the exact same way as before is not a point for discussion as much as it is an overreaction. The new rules have barely been out a month and the overwhelming majority of ships have not been re-released, thus any ship lacking a certain kind of pilot (in this case, a high init 'Ace') is hardly a valid complaint given that we know the individual ship expansions (and whatever the 'no miniature' equivalent is) will contain more pilots.
Calling for a roll back on the A-Wing to give it two Talent slots again based on that and a handful of games is not, in my opinon, a valid argument. I would far rather FFG excercise caution with their new point/slot adjustment capability, and not start throwing around a change as big as a double Talent slot which could, and indeed would, have unforeseen consequences with future Talent cards.
That's not to mention the opposite, yet equally anecdotal, evidence of the A-Wing performing just fine and, to paraphrase a local player, being 'so much fun to fly' - the A-Wing being 'DoA' is far from a universally accepted fact of the game, and certainly nowhere near enough evidence exists to substantiate a change as big as the OP is suggesting.

I get your point, and its valid. but its not the only reasonable take on whats going on with 2.0. we were told that conversion kits would be the only purchase required to play the ships you already own with all the pilots, and that sure doesnt seem like FFGs design plan

also being upset that things still dont seem balanced after buying them twice isnt an over-reaction, its just a reaction, and one of several reasonable ones. if theyre saving the best pilots for later releases, then its straight up pay to win.

For example with A-wings: many people bought an A-wing, then bought the A-wing fix pack, then bought a starviper for auto thrusters to fix their A-wings, then bought 2.0, and now are wondering where the rest of the 2.0 pilots areand if A-wings are a handicap. the idea that you might have to buy yet MORE expansions to balance the A-wing makes it appear that FFG either isnt trying to balance things or are purposefully imbalancing things to sell more product.

this is true of many ships too, not just A-wings. like with many 2 agility ships getting extra hull, why didnt the 1 or 0 agility ships get extra hull too? just weird design and balance choices all around