I was looking through the Assemble Your Fleet article and it mentions an upgrade for expanded hanger bays. Is there any word about how hangers will work in Armada? Anybody see or hear mention of them at the Con demos?

I am guessing it's separate from the Squadron bar. Perhaps a cap on how many squadrons you can field? Will it effect the rebels the same since their fighters have hyperdrives?

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

That sounds plausible. Not very exciting, but simple and likely true.

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

I'm thinking the same thing. I am under the impression the squadron value is both the amount of ships you may activate in the

squadron command and also the amount of squadrons that canbe fielded with a given ship.

IMHO, I guess that they are thinking in the Gladiator...

She is a carrier...

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

I'm thinking the same thing. I am under the impression the squadron value is both the amount of ships you may activate in the

squadron command and also the amount of squadrons that canbe fielded with a given ship.

I believe it only controls how many squadrons you activate, i dont think there's been anything to point to a restriction on how many squadrons you can field.

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

I'm thinking the same thing. I am under the impression the squadron value is both the amount of ships you may activate in the

squadron command and also the amount of squadrons that canbe fielded with a given ship.

I believe it only controls how many squadrons you activate, i dont think there's been anything to point to a restriction on how many squadrons you can field.

So do you entertain the possibility of simply running as many squadrons as you would like?

I'm thinking it's just a fancy title for a card that will say "add 1 to your Squadron value"

I'm thinking the same thing. I am under the impression the squadron value is both the amount of ships you may activate in the

squadron command and also the amount of squadrons that canbe fielded with a given ship.

I believe it only controls how many squadrons you activate, i dont think there's been anything to point to a restriction on how many squadrons you can field.

So do you entertain the possibility of simply running as many squadrons as you would like?

I think this is the idea, but tempered with the notion that once your capital ships are all destroyed, you lose the match, so going all-in on squadrons with only a small capital ship presence will leave you vulnerable to getting tabled quickly if your opponent rushes down your ships.

Would be interesting to see if there are fighter number restrictions. Would make sense, for the Imps at least, to restrict the total number of squadrons to capacity of the capital ships they are fielding. Clearly Rebel fighters with their own hyperdrives would not have this restriction.

Would be interesting to see if there are fighter number restrictions. Would make sense, for the Imps at least, to restrict the total number of squadrons to capacity of the capital ships they are fielding. Clearly Rebel fighters with their own hyperdrives would not have this restriction.

That's if the battle takes place somewhere that the fighters couldn't reach without hyperdrive, though. If the rebels are attacking an Imperial-controlled planet or space station, for example, there would be fighters already present without needing to be transported in.

I think that this is being overthought a bit. What you are saying about hyperdrives all makes sense for Rebel Players however with this being a game bent on capital ship engagements I am highly doubting that there will be amounting lists that include all fighter groups.

Also when hitting on the repeated notion that when all of your capital ships are destroyed you have lost. I keep reading this statement on the forums yet until I see the proof I have yet to believe that this is a game deciding "table clearing auto win".

There needs to be a limit on fighters, without it the game turns into disk and dice wars with no real maneuver tactics or Armada for that matter.

I am not saying that I have the answer to the limit of fighters in the game, I will however place my livelihood on there being a limit imposed on fighter squadrons in some form or fashion. I'm taking this with a grain of sugar, hoping for fail safes from keeping the game from getting ruined.

The "capital ships dead = loss" thing comes from one of the developer conversations in a video. I think maybe one of Team Covenants GenCon ones. It has definitely come up direct from FFG, anyway.

I actually think that losing all of your capital ships results in a loss is a good rule. It will make for better tactical decisions in fleet selection.

From what I understand, the Squadron command allows you to control up to its value in starfighters. This means you can give that many groups of fighters actions and moves using a squadron command. Otherwise, your squadrons are limited to only 1 action.

This severely limits the effectiveness of an "all fighter" group or even the mostly fighter group. a more balanced team will run rings around your fighters, while you try to decide if they should move OR attack, since they can't do both.

Unless you're running lots of ships with Counter.

Unless you're running lots of ships with Counter.

Who will only be able to attack it they are attacked by fighters in turn...

and that's not counting the Capital ship anti-squadron fire.

Also, since fighters cannot lock Caps into an engagement, Caps have the possibility of moving away from fighters.

Granted, the All Fighters player will get to place his squadrons when the opponent runs over them with a Cap ship. Which suggest that getting a Cap ship away from a swarm of squadrons will not be easy...

Also, since fighters cannot lock Caps into an engagement, Caps have the possibility of moving away from fighters.

Granted, the All Fighters player will get to place his squadrons when the opponent runs over them with a Cap ship. Which suggest that getting a Cap ship away from a swarm of squadrons will not be easy...

Rebels corvette at speed 4 can probably outdistance fighters easily, forcing them to move each turn. But the Imps Vic is going to have a hard time, even at max speed, of forcing fighters to move every turn. It'll probably be (if the fighters are well placed) a move every other turn, or every third turn if the fighters are extremely well placed.

Who will only be able to attack it they are attacked by fighters in turn...

and that's not counting the Capital ship anti-squadron fire.

If you engage the enemy fighters only with interceptors/A-wings, they're guaranteed to get their counter shots in, which helps offset only having a move action. Im not saying a primarily fighter force will be a winning strategy, but it does advocate the benefits of the different types of fighters.

I'm envisioning leading with your interceptors, then following up with escorts to force your opponent to ignore your wounded spearhead in order to engage the escorts. Since the Rebels in particular will be leaning on their fighters to do a decent amount of capital ship damage, being able to manipulate the Imperial ties into getting either lured into a meat grinder or into wasting shots and time will free up your fighters to line up some shots on the big guns.

Who will only be able to attack it they are attacked by fighters in turn...

and that's not counting the Capital ship anti-squadron fire.

If you engage the enemy fighters only with interceptors/A-wings, they're guaranteed to get their counter shots in, which helps offset only having a move action. Im not saying a primarily fighter force will be a winning strategy, but it does advocate the benefits of the different types of fighters.

I'm envisioning leading with your interceptors, then following up with escorts to force your opponent to ignore your wounded spearhead in order to engage the escorts. Since the Rebels in particular will be leaning on their fighters to do a decent amount of capital ship damage, being able to manipulate the Imperial ties into getting either lured into a meat grinder or into wasting shots and time will free up your fighters to line up some shots on the big guns.

I understand what you're saying, but it underscores that the fighters will be supporting the capital ships. I don't believe you will be able to field a full "armada" of ships with both "interceptor" and "counter" so only a portion of your ships will actually be effective...

As if there was some limit... a squadron limit, if you will, on how many fighters can move and attack...

But... one of the benefits of Counter is that it offsets not moving and shooting, as you're guaranteed to deal damage every time that squadron is attacked. You're sacrificing your initial attack for the benefit of locking down enemy fighters in an inconvenient or disadvantageous location.

The example I gave using Escort squadrons to support a spearhead of Counter squadrons was intended to point out how a fighter force not entirely composed of Counter ships could function.

As I mentioned initially, I don't think a high percentage fighter force would be very successful, but there are ways that it could be executed, particularly with a Rebel squad.

EDIT: Guaranteed is not at all the right word to use regarding Counter attack damage.

The "capital ships dead = loss" thing comes from one of the developer conversations in a video. I think maybe one of Team Covenants GenCon ones. It has definitely come up direct from FFG, anyway.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Wait, does Counter mean you pass up an attack?

But... one of the benefits of Counter is that it offsets not moving and shooting, as you're guaranteed to deal damage every time that squadron is attacked. You're sacrificing your initial attack for the benefit of locking down enemy fighters in an inconvenient or disadvantageous location.

Can you clarify this? I thought Counter simply meant that, if you were attacked, you could attack back for free. As in these ships are so agile that engaging them means being engaged yourself.

I was referring to losing your attack to move and engage an opposing squadron when you don't have a squadron command available.

Exactly.

I have no problem with a fleet which uses fighters as it's 'main battery'. Taking ships with high squadron values and maxing out on supporting fighters with a heavy bomber/gunship presence should make for an effective fleet. Rebels especially should be able to turn a battle with snubfighter wings.

As noted above, however, a carrier fleet is not the same as a pure fighter fleet. Fighters with an accompanying capital ship can move in and kill enemy fighter escorts before they can react, rather than having to move in, take their lumps, then get to shoot next turn.

If the Gladiator is being touted as a light carrier, I can imagine several gladiators - especially with Tarkin in command to give them squadron commands whilst manouvring - with fighter escorts and bombers, making an effective fleet.