I also think it is too early to say. there is a huge difference between a prediction and actual practice. some things which may look good while you are staring at cards fall completely apart on the table. the "meta" takes time to evolve, and, like natural selection, tends to shape itself over lots and lots of games. what does not work repeatedly gets phased out, and combinations that are powerful see more and more play. If you can figure all that out in a game with this many possible combinations, then you are beyond genius.

What this seems more like is - here are the broad possibilities. I can run a few big ships, more little ships, lots of fighters, no fighters, or somewhere in between. I think that about covers it, but I'd be hard put to call that any kind of prediction, more like stating the obvious. not trying to be snide, but wave 1 has been out less than 1 week, it's a little early to be talking about a "meta" of any kind at this point.

Yeah, but I think we're largely at odds over terminology.

Darth Ruin, I think, makes a useful contribution by starting the debate and introducing the big question of: Squadrons yes/no/what type? He sets up some ideal-type fleets; fleets that exist at the extreme value of some attribute. Provided that these types of fleets are only suited for some very specific specialization, they should not be the sort of fleets that any wise player would build.

But, as you point out, that's not really what you or I understand as being that elusive thing called "the meta". "The meta", as that term is commonly understood, is what does actually seem to be played, and there are archetypes within that meta.

While there are doubtless communities where a meta (including awareness thereof) does seem to be developing, I don't think it's all that common yet, and with Wave 1 still having that new-ship smell, it is probably too chaotic right now to make any sense of. So, we might as well refer to the realm of possibilities, the way that the OP seems to be doing.

To that point: There's probably a centripetal logic that should force people to make balanced lists, rather than extreme lists. If you're facing a fleet that has no fighters, devise a tactic that makes the maximum use of your bomber/fighter capability. Have your capital ships steer clear of your opponent. If the case seems to be the opposite, lunge in with your capital ships so that the turbolasers do most of the talking before his/her squadrons can gnaw away at your ships too much.

The problem with specialized fleets is that they will not be all that adaptive, whereas balanced fleets should be much more adaptive than the specialized ones.

Rebel Bomber Wing

AFII B ECM Hangar Flight Controller

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

AFII B ECM Hangar Flight Controller Dodonna

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing

Y-Wing - 300 points

Strengths: Alpha-strike potential

Weaknesses: Space superiority not guaranteed

So to use this in an event I would have to buy 5 Rebel Squadron kits?

There's a guy splitting Rebel and Imperial Aces packs on Ebay so you can just buy the squadrons you need.

Thanks Mikael for explaining my intent.

The way Armada is designed at the moment the amount you spend on Squadrons plays a big role in deciding how your fleet performs and the matchups it's good against.

Full Squadron Complement (100 pts) ================================================= No Fighters (0)

(Strong Fighters) Balanced Lists (Weak Fighters)

Full Squadron Bomber lists do well against lists with No Fighters, since you out DPS them significantly.

Full Squadron Space Superiority don't do as well because fighters may not put out the necessary damage and you will quickly lose your capitals.

Full Squadron lists will quickly wipe Weak Fighter lists and use their fighter advantage to win the battle.

No Fighter Heavy lists do well against Balanced lists of all kinds as you simply brute force them with your ship advantage.

No Fighter Light lists mostly depend on piloting.

No Fighter lists are hard countered by Bomber lists.

Balanced lists with Weak Fighters are the weakest archetype in my opinion, because they are weak against all lists except Bomber lists.

Balanced lists with Strong Fighters are the archetype with the fewest weaknesses, as they only have trouble against Heavy No Fighter lists.

I think that there really needs to be two separate meta discussions, because Rebs and Imps really don't play with a lot of similarity.

The OP also gives lip service to Balanced lists, and then makes a absurd statement about what balanced lists are going to struggle against.

For Instance, is my list with 3x Gladiators II's and 5x Tie Interceptors going to struggle against Heavy Squadrons Lists?

How about two heavily equipped Mark IIA's with a 4-5 A wings and Flight Controllers?

In the Corvette Swarm or Gladiator swarm, it says the list weakens substantially when they lose one of their ships. If I lose one of 5x Corvettes, compared to a Dual Victory or Dual Assault MKII list losing a ship, who is weakened more substantially? The idea of Swarm lists is to make beneficial trades.

I hope that people bring no Squadron lists to compete competitively. Not only will those list struggle against Bomber Centric Lists, but I could also see them struggling against balanced lists running Rhymer and a few friends or 4-5 X-Wings.

In order for a Meta conversation to be effective, it needs to be broken down, because broad strokes paints way outside the lines.

Some concrete observations from games I have played so far:

1 - Zero squadrons seems weak. Low squadrons (even 1, sometimes) without heavy can allow you to stall out an entire block of enemy squadrons for a full turn. I think that in the "ship max / squadron min" builds, if viable, will be filled with interceptor type ships to stall. For Imperials, basic ties fill this role fine. For rebels, A-wings seem like the obvious choice.

2 - Many squadron / bomber builds will have trouble with fast ships or fleets that focus on a volume of anti-squadron dice. The limitation on activation range for the squadron command and the ships that can realistically fire off a large number of squadrons at once versus the maximum speed of something like a CR90 means I am not optimistic about being able to chase many small ships around with squadrons. Similarly, keeping fighters in a cluster means you will take broadsides from ships with 2 blue anti-squadron dice to the face. Aces may help with resilience here. Needs more testing.

3 - For ship-heavy builds focusing on slow ships (VSD), it may be worthwhile to keep some points in the bag to win the initiative / objective choice bid. Otherwise, certain objectives are a near auto-loss for an entire fleet moving at maximum speed 2.

The OP also gives lip service to Balanced lists, and then makes a absurd statement about what balanced lists are going to struggle against.

For Instance, is my list with 3x Gladiators II's and 5x Tie Interceptors going to struggle against Heavy Squadrons Lists?

(emph. added)

Come on man, there's no need to behave like that. The list you mention is hardly what the OP would consider a balanced list. It's a space superiority list, which the OP is suggesting would be really good against a heavy squadrons list.

There's a guy splitting Rebel and Imperial Aces packs on Ebay so you can just buy the squadrons you need.

Thanks Mikael for explaining my intent.

The way Armada is designed at the moment the amount you spend on Squadrons plays a big role in deciding how your fleet performs and the matchups it's good against.

Full Squadron Complement (100 pts) ================================================= No Fighters (0)

(Strong Fighters) Balanced Lists (Weak Fighters)

Full Squadron Bomber lists do well against lists with No Fighters, since you out DPS them significantly.

Full Squadron Space Superiority don't do as well because fighters may not put out the necessary damage and you will quickly lose your capitals.

Full Squadron lists will quickly wipe Weak Fighter lists and use their fighter advantage to win the battle.

No Fighter Heavy lists do well against Balanced lists of all kinds as you simply brute force them with your ship advantage.

No Fighter Light lists mostly depend on piloting.

No Fighter lists are hard countered by Bomber lists.

Balanced lists with Weak Fighters are the weakest archetype in my opinion, because they are weak against all lists except Bomber lists.

Balanced lists with Strong Fighters are the archetype with the fewest weaknesses, as they only have trouble against Heavy No Fighter lists.

So, you're saying:

Bomber lists > No fighters lists

No Squadron > Superiority

Full Squadrons > Weak Fighters

No Fighter Heavy > Balanced

No Fighter Light =?= Balanced

Bomber Lists > No Fighters

Since you seem to be expanding your typology from just between 'full squadron' and 'no fighters', which would have been apropos for pre-Wave 1 (though still somewhat different for rebs and imps, due to the X-wing's bomber capability), you might want to formalize that typology. That way, we know what the types mean, and what variables (beyond the simple one of '# of fighters'). Also, you can then maybe create a grid for the types, at which point you can also create a table for the match-ups.

That is, if you want to work it out to that detail.