Lately theres been alot of talk about the importance of the "initiative bid", and rightly so... Objectives can play a huge part in Armada matches. There has also been some talk of ignoring the initiative bid and simply building a fleet as a "take all comers" in regards to objectives... but this struck me as quite a challenge, as, after all, there are 12 objectives in all.

This was when I realized that really, you need not build a fleet to play 12 objectives, merely 4. As a player is forced to take one of each "color" objective, a savvy fleet builder, may, in theory, build a fleet geared toward all 4 objectives of a certain color. This guarantees said savvy player that, no matter what, one of these four objectives will appear in their opponent's objective choices, thus allowing them to choose an objective they are comfortable with.

Does anyone see any merit to this approach, or is it merely a pipe dream? I haven't had the time to devote alot of tinkering to this concept... it seems the blue "mobility" objectives may be easiest to gear a list toward... Intel Sweep would be easy to configure, as would Superior Positions, and possibly even Dangerous Territory... it was Minefields that frustrated me most... its hard to really build a fleet to prepare for it, although I am sure some leverage can be applied. It seems like experience is the best weapon for playing that particular objective.

Any thoughts?

Seems like a really good idea.....but it would need to play for 6 objectives (all of one colour and your other two). Otherwise if you are the second player the opponent can pick one of your 'other colour' objectives outside of the four you are primarily building for.

Ha! Yes, a fair point. Still, its at least a 50% reduction in the number of objectives to consider, and you can still pick 2 objectives that are favorable.

Given the ruling that objectives are hidden until the first/second player are declared, I doubt many players will willingly place themselves at the mercy of their opponent's objectives.

But still, you raise a good point.

Underbidding means you have the choice.

If you take the choice to play second you get the advantage of having your opponent play one of your missions, which is fine if you can win via each of your missions. However, as the OP pointed out more often than not you give your opponent the choice and he can often times find one you can do too. The disadvantage here is while the missions are your choice, your opponent will pick one.

If you chose first then you have the advantage of being able to move first and shoot first, you can also flee with that ship and by mixing it up ensure that your opponent is never concentrating multiple ships on shooting just one. If I outnumber my opponent, I think this is where black attack dice are going to be used, you move the ship in last then move it away first. Once Wave 1 drops here this is an interesting idea I wouldn't mind playing with. Further the choice of mission is yours, all be it from your opponents selection.

Of course if you don't underbid the choice is now your opponents and he can look at you fleet and chose all this based on where his advantage lies.

It largely comes down to determining the metagame so you can accurately determine which objectives to prepare and build around.

It largely comes down to determining the metagame so you can accurately determine which objectives to prepare and build around.

Do tell?

The idea of the metagaming is that you can predict what is happening as to build against the main build and use that to advantage. I think there are 3-4 archetypes within each fleet at 300 points, so until we get to wave 2 I am not too sure there is going to be much of a metagame to predict. 3 Tanks, 2 Tanks plus Fighters and 3-4 Mediums with Fighters and 4+ Mediums with little or no Fighters. Each side can field 3 tanks now, 3 Assault Frigates or 3 Star Destroyers for example.

Right at this time I would meta towards the new models, Assault Frigates and Gladiators, but not because they stand out tactically but because they are new and players will be experimenting.

Lately theres been alot of talk about the importance of the "initiative bid", and rightly so... Objectives can play a huge part in Armada matches. There has also been some talk of ignoring the initiative bid and simply building a fleet as a "take all comers" in regards to objectives... but this struck me as quite a challenge, as, after all, there are 12 objectives in all.

This was when I realized that really, you need not build a fleet to play 12 objectives, merely 4. As a player is forced to take one of each "color" objective, a savvy fleet builder, may, in theory, build a fleet geared toward all 4 objectives of a certain color. This guarantees said savvy player that, no matter what, one of these four objectives will appear in their opponent's objective choices, thus allowing them to choose an objective they are comfortable with.

Does anyone see any merit to this approach, or is it merely a pipe dream? I haven't had the time to devote alot of tinkering to this concept... it seems the blue "mobility" objectives may be easiest to gear a list toward... Intel Sweep would be easy to configure, as would Superior Positions, and possibly even Dangerous Territory... it was Minefields that frustrated me most... its hard to really build a fleet to prepare for it, although I am sure some leverage can be applied. It seems like experience is the best weapon for playing that particular objective.

Any thoughts?

That is pretty clever. However are those 4 (say gunnery) objectives so much alike that you can build a fleet that works with them all?

To a large extent I agree with you. My plan thusfar has been to pick three objectives that aren't necessarily *good* for me, but REALLY bad for the match ups I'm bad against or bad enough so that they mitigate that match up (Seriously, every Imperial player should have minefields if only to block off half the board and force an engagement)

You'll win the match ups you're good against anyways, so plan for the bad ones. You don't need to win more.

Lately theres been alot of talk about the importance of the "initiative bid", and rightly so... Objectives can play a huge part in Armada matches. There has also been some talk of ignoring the initiative bid and simply building a fleet as a "take all comers" in regards to objectives... but this struck me as quite a challenge, as, after all, there are 12 objectives in all.

This was when I realized that really, you need not build a fleet to play 12 objectives, merely 4. As a player is forced to take one of each "color" objective, a savvy fleet builder, may, in theory, build a fleet geared toward all 4 objectives of a certain color. This guarantees said savvy player that, no matter what, one of these four objectives will appear in their opponent's objective choices, thus allowing them to choose an objective they are comfortable with.

Does anyone see any merit to this approach, or is it merely a pipe dream? I haven't had the time to devote alot of tinkering to this concept... it seems the blue "mobility" objectives may be easiest to gear a list toward... Intel Sweep would be easy to configure, as would Superior Positions, and possibly even Dangerous Territory... it was Minefields that frustrated me most... its hard to really build a fleet to prepare for it, although I am sure some leverage can be applied. It seems like experience is the best weapon for playing that particular objective.

Any thoughts?

That is pretty clever. However are those 4 (say gunnery) objectives so much alike that you can build a fleet that works with them all?

If going second:

Adv Gunnery: Good for Imperials generally, bad for Rebels generally, unless it's an Assault Frigate build, then go for it

Opening Salvo: Bad for Imperials, AMAZING for Rebel lists with lots of ships

Most Wanted: Probably the most even.

Precision Strike: TERRIFYING for Imperials, very good for Rebels