But to say it denotes a lack of original thought takes credit away from the gamer. I never got on these forums until well after Wave 1 released, and as soon as I saw that card, I thought "wow! That changes a core mechanic of the game! And with....wow, engine techs! And look at these options for extra damage! I better put wulff so I always have a navigation token on him....

.....oh look, everyone online did the same thing."

I don't feel any less original because of it. I noticed the synergies myself.

Well I'm sure there is credit for original thought. The problem is that everybody had the same idea. They looked at the card and knew it was good (I certainly did when I saw the spoilers). This isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody starts including it in their Imperial fleet all the time.

Inclusion of demolisher is not in itself cliche because it'd coming in with 2 other gsds (which is just glorious insanity)

Cliche would be demolisher + skreed squadron support vsd 1 + rhymer bombers & howlrunner interceptors, which is the only imp list I seem to play against.

Inclusion of demolisher is not in itself cliche because it'd coming in with 2 other gsds (which is just glorious insanity)

Cliche would be demolisher + skreed squadron support vsd 1 + rhymer bombers & howlrunner interceptors, which is the only imp list I seem to play against.

Optimal is as optimal does o_O

But to say it denotes a lack of original thought takes credit away from the gamer. I never got on these forums until well after Wave 1 released, and as soon as I saw that card, I thought "wow! That changes a core mechanic of the game! And with....wow, engine techs! And look at these options for extra damage! I better put wulff so I always have a navigation token on him....

.....oh look, everyone online did the same thing."

I don't feel any less original because of it. I noticed the synergies myself.

Well I'm sure there is credit for original thought. The problem is that everybody had the same idea. They looked at the card and knew it was good (I certainly did when I saw the spoilers). This isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody starts including it in their Imperial fleet all the time.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. It makes my opponents more predictable, thus allowing me to scheme against them with a higher probability of being right.

But to say it denotes a lack of original thought takes credit away from the gamer. I never got on these forums until well after Wave 1 released, and as soon as I saw that card, I thought "wow! That changes a core mechanic of the game! And with....wow, engine techs! And look at these options for extra damage! I better put wulff so I always have a navigation token on him....

.....oh look, everyone online did the same thing."

I don't feel any less original because of it. I noticed the synergies myself.

Well I'm sure there is credit for original thought. The problem is that everybody had the same idea. They looked at the card and knew it was good (I certainly did when I saw the spoilers). This isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody starts including it in their Imperial fleet all the time.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. It makes my opponents more predictable, thus allowing me to scheme against them with a higher probability of being right.

That is absolutely correct.

I think that is overstated. By taking a list that I played the last time I was out and/or taking a list that is similar to those that other people take does not in and of itself make me predictable. I suppose it would if I played it exactly the same way every time regardless of situation, opponent or opponent's forces.

I think players put too much stock in what is in a list and not how they are used. I see players trying to conceal what they are bringing to an event as though they have access to some secret set of forces that no one else can access and that their opponents do not know about it until the last second bestows some advantage. In looking at that phenomenon having become more common over the years, it would seem that is tied to games like Magic - with a far greater range of combos, no points balance system and no tactical maneuver interplay.

But Armada is not Magic. I have the same points you do, access to the same limited combos (currently extremely limited) and its what is done with a fleet that matters, not what is in it.

Over the years of competitive play, there have always been those who think that they are taking their list in some surprising new way and that surprising new way is going to be what wins the game for them. What has changed, IMO, is that group is now in the majority. Ok by me...

But to say it denotes a lack of original thought takes credit away from the gamer. I never got on these forums until well after Wave 1 released, and as soon as I saw that card, I thought "wow! That changes a core mechanic of the game! And with....wow, engine techs! And look at these options for extra damage! I better put wulff so I always have a navigation token on him....

.....oh look, everyone online did the same thing."

I don't feel any less original because of it. I noticed the synergies myself.

Well I'm sure there is credit for original thought. The problem is that everybody had the same idea. They looked at the card and knew it was good (I certainly did when I saw the spoilers). This isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody starts including it in their Imperial fleet all the time.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. It makes my opponents more predictable, thus allowing me to scheme against them with a higher probability of being right.

It's the predictability that is the problem not the fact that players can somehow 'exploit' it.

In addition could you possibly provide some examples of schemes you've come up with?

But to say it denotes a lack of original thought takes credit away from the gamer. I never got on these forums until well after Wave 1 released, and as soon as I saw that card, I thought "wow! That changes a core mechanic of the game! And with....wow, engine techs! And look at these options for extra damage! I better put wulff so I always have a navigation token on him....

.....oh look, everyone online did the same thing."

I don't feel any less original because of it. I noticed the synergies myself.

Well I'm sure there is credit for original thought. The problem is that everybody had the same idea. They looked at the card and knew it was good (I certainly did when I saw the spoilers). This isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody starts including it in their Imperial fleet all the time.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. It makes my opponents more predictable, thus allowing me to scheme against them with a higher probability of being right.

It's the predictability that is the problem not the fact that players can somehow 'exploit' it.

In addition could you possibly provide some examples of schemes you've come up with?

Sure.

I find that several of the players in my local group are using Rhymer, a medium amount of bombers, a few fighters and interceptors, a completely duded up Gladiator, and a duded up Victory.

I have found that that list has a number of weaknesses, primarily that the Imperial player is very tempted to use his Engine Techs on the Gladiator to make it very mobile and fly around at high rates of speed. It is often used for objectives, to pick up that piece of intel data, or be the first one to race to the contested station. I have found that when they choose Hyperspace Assault, the Gladiator goes cranking around the board to come destroy the rest of my fleet before my withheld ship jumps in-system.

Because of these tendencies, I have developed a fleet of 3 Nebs plus a big Assault Frigate with only about 2 squadrons of X-Wings. Because there are only two Imperial ships (although they're rather strong, given all the upgrades), and because Imps love to fly the heck out of their Gladiator, the Imperials either right off the bat or within a turn or two fatally separate their two ships sufficiently. When that happens, my Nebs crank it from Speed one to Speed three, having banked a Navigation token.

I find that all four ships shooting eight anti-squadron blue dice sufficient when combined with a few X-Wings to engage where necessary and add to the shooting.

I then fly right at one of them, usually the Gladiator because the Victory is much slower coming to the aid of her friend. Three Nebs have quite the hitting power, with either nine or twelve red dice in the space of a round. I also either keep the AF to the Gladiator side of the table, to combine its broadside with the shooting of the Nebs. I try to keep the Gladiator at blue range from the AF, but if I miss on that, the Gladiator usually doesn't have enough left to do too much to the AF, although recently I was happy trading my AF, which split the opponent's two ships. It put the coup de grace on the Gladiator and damaged the Victory sufficiently that my Nebs could destroy it also on a second pass.

This gives you a sense of my thinking: isolate and destroy, or contain and grab Objectives. I'm more than comfortable blowing up one ship and then running like heck if that will win the game.

Please understand: I am in no way suggesting this is a perfect plan, I'm just saying I've found it very successful against a current standard Imperial build against a variety of opponents. Eventually, they will counter, and I will counter that. Then new ships will be available.

The fun of the game.

And btw, IMO predictability is not a problem. I suspect that good players will stop using a build, no matter how tempting, after I'm whomping the heck out of them on a regular basis. I have a suspicion that at some point they'll think, "Hmm, maybe I should change something about this."

I am assuming here that they don't like losing. That's why I believe that predictability is a self-correcting problem.

I think that is overstated. By taking a list that I played the last time I was out and/or taking a list that is similar to those that other people take does not in and of itself make me predictable. I suppose it would if I played it exactly the same way every time regardless of situation, opponent or opponent's forces.

I think players put too much stock in what is in a list and not how they are used. I see players trying to conceal what they are bringing to an event as though they have access to some secret set of forces that no one else can access and that their opponents do not know about it until the last second bestows some advantage. In looking at that phenomenon having become more common over the years, it would seem that is tied to games like Magic - with a far greater range of combos, no points balance system and no tactical maneuver interplay.

But Armada is not Magic. I have the same points you do, access to the same limited combos (currently extremely limited) and its what is done with a fleet that matters, not what is in it.

Over the years of competitive play, there have always been those who think that they are taking their list in some surprising new way and that surprising new way is going to be what wins the game for them. What has changed, IMO, is that group is now in the majority. Ok by me...

I'd mirror this point. Too many people put too much stock in their list...it's how you fly it that matters. In armada your list is kind of irrelevant imo as long as you have some basic points covered.

I'd further agree that the limited lists is just a problem from a boringness standpoint. Everyone running the same list is just boring...it doesn't make the list weaker really, as someone might play completely differently and mess up your plan for the "standard list". This is also why it's hard to talk list tactics as so much relies on setup and objectives that you can't really plan anything.

Wave 2 will be an amazing expansion of options so that we see more variety, not for power but for more fun playing different lists.

And btw, IMO predictability is not a problem. I suspect that good players will stop using a build, no matter how tempting, after I'm whomping the heck out of them on a regular basis. I have a suspicion that at some point they'll think, "Hmm, maybe I should change something about this."

I am assuming here that they don't like losing. That's why I believe that predictability is a self-correcting problem

I suppose the point is that if you are taking a Gladiator why not take the Demolisher upgrade. Being predictable over a list or over tactics is bad as it allows players to hammer out a response over time (as you demonstrated in your previous post).

I think there is some very misleading stuff being said here.

Whether I take a GSD as part of a GSD/VSD/Squadron fleet or as part of a 3xGSD fleet, one of them will have demolisher on it. The flexibility it gives is too great, the cost is reasonable and there are not a ton of choices competing for the same slot/points - certainly few if none that are better buys for the points.

So, since the GSD became available, at least til the advent of Wave 2, and maybe beyond, every fleet I play will have demolisher on it. Does that make me predictable? No - not tactically. Does my opponent tonight know I have demolisher as a fleet upgrade? yes, he does. Am I concerned that he knows I have it? No. He's no idiot or newbie. He knows what cards are out there and what they all do, which ones are good and which ones suck. I am not going to surprise him, and quite frankly, much prefer to play people who will not be surprised by fleet choices. I certainly have all the capacity on the world to teach new gamers. But playing competitively, I want to play against the best and the best are not going to be shocked by me choosing demolisher...lol

Because I have demolisher, am I going to run one of my GSDs out unsupported and let it get killed by return fire? Of course not. Demolisher does not require me to use it when I activate and does not require me to not have a plan for return fire when I do. The idea that taking demolisher means I will automatically be stupid in using it, or feel I have to use it no matter what, is...well...laughable.

Am I bored that there are basically two sound fleet designs for imperials? Not really. Its early in Armada's life cycle. I would have preferred imperials had the same number of choices as the rebels instead of always being one behind, but it is not that big a deal. If basic fleet designs stay limited and we see the same competitive structures over and over, will that bother me? maybe, but for sure I won't hold the players responsible. If what is good is limited, that is the company's fault, not my fellow players.

When you play with this line up, I'd love to read an AAR. I've been toying with something similar, but not sure if I'm ready yet to buy two more Glads.

You wanted it, so here it is:

I had:

Glad II, Screed, ACM

Glad I, Demolisher, ACM

Glad I, Insidious, ACM

Soontir Fel

4x TIE Advanced

Opening Salvo, Hyperspace Assault, Superior Positions

Opponent had:

Nebulon Escort, Salvation, Random stuff I didn't take note of.

Assault Frigate B, Dodonna, Enhanced Armaments, Advanced Projectors, XI7 Turbolasers

Keyan, Luke, Tycho, 3x B-Wing

Most Wanted, Hyperspace Assault, Superior Positions

He gave me initiative and I selected Superior Positions as I figured I could fly right past him and exploit the range bonus on the Insidious. I set up in a row with my fighters in front of my G2 and Demolisher. He lined up across from me. I charged forward at speed 2-3 while he moved his AF at speed 2 and his Salvation at speed 1.

My fighters engaged his bombers using squadron commands on turn 2 but inflicted very little damage. His Salvation returned fire on the fighters, dealing 7 damage across 4 stands.

On Turn 3, I started turning toward him with my two outside ships to get better arcs and plinked at him a little bit. My Insidious on the right side managed to get a solid volley against the AF, dropping a lot of shields. His Salvation caused yet another 6 damage to my fighters and his B-Wings did a surprising amount of damage, killing off Soontir and 2 stands of Advanced. This disengaged my last two Advanced and I moved them in so I could take shots at Luke on turn 4. His AF and Salvation laid into my Insidious, dropping my shields and dealing 3 cards of damage. He tried to finish it off with Tycho+ Adar Tallon and hit once but rolled a blank on the second shot.

On Turn 4, I dropped the rest of the Salvation's shields and did minor damage with my G2. I also managed to get a medium range rear shot with Insidious dealing 4 cards through a brace and redirect. He then flew forward right in front of the Salvation waiting for the inevitable detonation. His Salvation inflicted further shield damage to my Demolisher before colliding with the Insidious, destroying it. My Demolisher finished off the Salvation and used its second shot to damage more of his bombers. My two remaining TIEs rolled very well and did 4 damage to Luke through the brace tokens. His remaining squadrons easily finished off my heavily damaged TIEs in retaliation.

Turns 5 and 6 were uneventful. He could not get his squadrons into position to hit my two remaining Gladiators, his AF was at speed 3 so I could not get arc and range to hit it. This had me fire random shots at his squadrons just to rack up some points. When it was all over, I won by 25 for a 6-4 victory.

In the end, I have decided that I do not like triple GSD. I have found it to have problems similar to frigate swarms regarding movement lanes. It was very difficult to keep them from bumping into each other, especially with the need to be within close range to fire. GSDs are amazing at picking off strays but if the enemy stays balled up it is very had to use their firepower efficiently. It kept me from getting a lot of arcs and I flew headfirst into the fighter furball because of it. I am lucky it caused me little damage, even after his Nebulon absolutely obliterated my fighters. I can drop two TIE Advanced to trade the GSD II for a Victory II with a Gunnery Team to act as an anchor for my GSDs to pivot around as well as to act as area denial with its absurd front arc output.