I mean, the point stands that 200 points of fighters would be a lot of clutter on the table, but I don't know that it needs an arbitrary limitation during list building.

The problem is if you take a Corvette and Mon Montha and then 240ish points of fighters and bombers. The Corvette just spends 6 turns running away from everything. Once the Imperials get their version of the Corvette you could end up with two fleets running away from the fighters and otherwise having a game that ends up being far from enjoyable. You could experiment with a Rebel v Rebel fights and have no limits on squadrons, have one player take a "normal" fleet and the other a Corvette and Squadrons.

I would give most players a game or two before the metagame broke down to squadron wars.

I'd be very unconcerned about a list featuring a ton of squadrons and no squadron commands. At least until the Rogue keyword hits.

The 1/3 squadron point rule, is it like 300 + 100 or that 100 is part of the 300 point?

The 100 is part of the 300. If you bring 100 points of squadrons, you have 200 points left for ships and upgrades.

I mean, the point stands that 200 points of fighters would be a lot of clutter on the table, but I don't know that it needs an arbitrary limitation during list building.

The problem is if you take a Corvette and Mon Montha and then 240ish points of fighters and bombers. The Corvette just spends 6 turns running away from everything. Once the Imperials get their version of the Corvette you could end up with two fleets running away from the fighters and otherwise having a game that ends up being far from enjoyable. You could experiment with a Rebel v Rebel fights and have no limits on squadrons, have one player take a "normal" fleet and the other a Corvette and Squadrons.

I would give most players a game or two before the metagame broke down to squadron wars.

I'd be very unconcerned about a list featuring a ton of squadrons and no squadron commands. At least until the Rogue keyword hits.

I think you'd be very concerned if there were 30 Squadrons regardless of the fact that they can't move and shoot. Both logistically and the fact that they will kill things dead.

I would have liked seeing a 'hangar' value for ships that restricts the amount of fighters you can take to 'canon' values. Even for Rebel fighters this makes sense as even though they have hyperdrives they still need space aboard ships to repair/rearm/refuel/maintenance, seek medical help etc. This would also give dedicated carrier ships a role in the game.

I'd also like to have seen a different deployment rule to differentiate between fighters without hyperdrives (set up close to a ship with a hangar value) and fighters with hyperdrives (setup anywhere in the deployment area).

Are these "they must implement this or else" changes? No. But I think it would have been nice.

That they are called Squadrons doesn't inherently denote that they are full 12 Fighter Squadrons.

People keep saying this, but like it or not the opposite was a direct sentiment from the lead designer at GenCon last year.

I wonder if we'll see dedicated carrier ships - the points limit on squadrons almost make it not worth-it, and since ships on their own don't come with any abilities (they only gain through upgrades and titles), I don't really think there's a niche a dedicated carrier ship could fill that isn't already being semi-catered too else-where. (in terms of upgrades/titles that support squadrons - which already exist for other ships).

Now is a stand a flight, or just 3 ships?

Neither. It's a squadron.

This stupid fighter stand representation debate is going to haunt this forum forever

This stupid fighter stand representation debate is going to haunt this forum forever

I fear so . The designers have said that a squadron represents an actual squadron, and that's good enough for me.

I mean, the point stands that 200 points of fighters would be a lot of clutter on the table, but I don't know that it needs an arbitrary limitation during list building.

The problem is if you take a Corvette and Mon Montha and then 240ish points of fighters and bombers. The Corvette just spends 6 turns running away from everything. Once the Imperials get their version of the Corvette you could end up with two fleets running away from the fighters and otherwise having a game that ends up being far from enjoyable. You could experiment with a Rebel v Rebel fights and have no limits on squadrons, have one player take a "normal" fleet and the other a Corvette and Squadrons.

I would give most players a game or two before the metagame broke down to squadron wars.

I'd be very unconcerned about a list featuring a ton of squadrons and no squadron commands. At least until the Rogue keyword hits.

I think you'd be very concerned if there were 30 Squadrons regardless of the fact that they can't move and shoot. Both logistically and the fact that they will kill things dead.

Think what you like.

Think what you like.

Well, 30 squadrons of Tie fighters equals 30 blue dice of anti-ship fire, and with a 50% chance to hit means that it is 15 damage, sooooo yeah. "Will kill things dead."

I don't know how effective 30 TIE squadrons would be over a full game, but I've had 8 uncontested TIE fighters do all but 2 damage needed to take out my Nebulon B in a single round before moving onto the next one in the next round. Protip: don't put ALL of your squadrons aside for Hyperspace Assault.

Think what you like.

Well, 30 squadrons of Tie fighters equals 30 blue dice of anti-ship fire, and with a 50% chance to hit means that it is 15 damage, sooooo yeah. "Will kill things dead."

Moot point though.

Think what you like.

Well, 30 squadrons of Tie fighters equals 30 blue dice of anti-ship fire, and with a 50% chance to hit means that it is 15 damage, sooooo yeah. "Will kill things dead."

And you will definitely be playing an opponent that allows you to drop all those die on one ship. I bet he'll even drop to 0 speed for you. I mean, courtesy counts.

Moot point though.

agreed with madga insofar as you shouldn't count on Ties doing all the work.

but I will absolutely echo any saying that they're surprisingly effective against ships. Those coin tosses add up when you're making tons of them

I would have liked seeing a 'hangar' value for ships that restricts the amount of fighters you can take to 'canon' values. Even for Rebel fighters this makes sense as even though they have hyperdrives they still need space aboard ships to repair/rearm/refuel/maintenance, seek medical help etc. This would also give dedicated carrier ships a role in the game.

I'd also like to have seen a different deployment rule to differentiate between fighters without hyperdrives (set up close to a ship with a hangar value) and fighters with hyperdrives (setup anywhere in the deployment area).

Are these "they must implement this or else" changes? No. But I think it would have been nice.

Having dedicated carrier ships would be interesting, but I don't think it would have any effect on the game. Or at least, it shouldn't.

Armada is a tactical space battle game, and the re– arming, re– fueling of fighters would be a strategic operation. While it is certainly exciting to think about, I cannot recall a single action during any real world conflict where one side's aircraft landed, re– armed/fueled, and then went back into the sky to fight in a battle that carrier was involved in. There are many cases where fighters/bombers returned to their carrier, re– armed, then went back to fight somewhere else away from the carrier, but to do that while their carrier is actively fighting?

At the time scales involved in this game, there isn't enough time for a squadron to fly out, exhaust all its ordnance, fly back, be recovered and processed, then go out again. When your carrier is looking at another warship within effective gun range, you've done something seriously wrong. Carriers will be zigging and zagging and trying to stay away from mainline warships. Fighters need a steady and stable platform to land on.

It's a neat idea and very evocative to think about, but it wouldn't make any sense to me. Unless your force was completely ambushed you would never bring a carrier to a battle, especially if you were the Rebels. You would leave it in a star system somewhere (or better yet, in the middle of interstellar space where no one would look for it), let your hyperspace– capable ships jump into the fight with the warships, and wait until the battle is over to recover what's left. Or, your own hyperspace ships would jump back to you.

To me, bringing a carrier to a Star Destroyer fight is a really bad idea. What possible benefit can those points give you that will be worth not spending those points on a more combat effective vessel?

Some argue that the carrier IS the star destroyer.

Some argue that the carrier IS the star destroyer.

aye

dedicated carries would just muck up the game, whereas carrier destroyers (flight controllers + hangars) are hilariously effective ships that circumvent their extreme slowness and the fact that they turn like bricks

Having dedicated carrier ships would be interesting, but I don't think it would have any effect on the game. Or at least, it shouldn't.

Armada is a tactical space battle game, and the re– arming, re– fueling of fighters would be a strategic operation. While it is certainly exciting to think about, I cannot recall a single action during any real world conflict where one side's aircraft landed, re– armed/fueled, and then went back into the sky to fight in a battle that carrier was involved in. There are many cases where fighters/bombers returned to their carrier, re– armed, then went back to fight somewhere else away from the carrier, but to do that while their carrier is actively fighting?

Or, in the case of Midway, returned to their carriers to re-arm and got caught with their pants down when American bombers showed up.

I excel at stating what others have already said, but I strongly suspect that too many fighters would break the game. I like using them, and I like having them, but I think the restriction is a good one. Imagine taking 15 xwing squadrons against a VSD. would not even be a close fight. the whole game would be cram in as many fighters as you can and support them. the cap prevents that from happening.

I excel at stating what others have already said, but I strongly suspect that too many fighters would break the game. I like using them, and I like having them, but I think the restriction is a good one. Imagine taking 15 xwing squadrons against a VSD. would not even be a close fight. the whole game would be cram in as many fighters as you can and support them. the cap prevents that from happening.

this brings up an opportunity for a good mental exercise:

assuming unlimited squadron points out of your 300 total, how many bombers can you blob around rhymer (while still having something to engage enemy squadrons)