Yeah, some of the objectives are also perfect for fighters: "Most wanted" used to be good (until you read the Errata in the FAQ), but Superior Position still works for fighters - every attack that causes damage gives you points, and you get a lot of attacks with fighters :-)

Gallant Haven is useful for "escort the ships" squadrons, not mobile strike force squadrons. So for those who hate Gallant Haven, you're probably using squadrons as mobile strike forces that leave friendly ships behind. That's a fine usage (done right) and GH will suck in support of that tactic. However, if you're running B-wings as companions to your ships, and use them to engage enemy ships when your own ships engage, GH becomes invaluable. The assault frigate weakness be a VSD is fewer dice. Well, the b-wings do a great job of making up for it. So much, that I'll use GH on a AFMk2a intending not to use it for squadron commands, but spam engineering commands letting Yavaris or a second AFmk2b to issue squadron commands. Works well.

I imagine my opinion will change many time during the life of this game.

With each subsequent wave of models and upgrades I will as I must change my opinion on what works and what doesn't. Ships will come into favour and fall out, Squadrons and Upgrades will too.

Right now, Rebel Squadrons are an afterthought, I take them to harass my opponent or limit the effect his Squadrons have on my fleet.

Agreed Amanal, I have no idea how much the game will change even in the next year. I'm already looking forward to wave 2 possibilities I'll tell you that.

Whenever I play rebels, I've found that I've had more success and lose fewer total points by not bringing fighters except tycho. I use him to lock down the imperials while my 4 ships do their thing. I usually find that 1 af2, 2 nebs, and a cr90 do quite well when the imps bring only 2 ships (1 vsd and 1 gsd) and the rest fighters.

Due to the 6 round limit, I usually have found that by locking down the imperial fighters for even 2 rounds is enough to complete the game's objective or to just flat out destroy both imperial ships.

I posted about this in another thread on IFF, so I won't rehash the whole thing here, but I think there are a few key points that are being missed here:

1 - Squadrons don't work against ships without squadron commands unless those ships are exceptionally slow. VSD? Yes, that you can probably get at for at least a few rounds. But against a GSD or any rebel ship, once they start moving, you get, at best, one shot at them. This means the worst nightmare for rebel fighters is actually a matchup against another rebel list: the CR90 swarm.

2 - Most squadron lists also suffer from two distinct weaknesses: the majority of objectives don't favor them (whereas ship spam has many strong objectives), and the ships in the squadron list are always, always, the key elements. How do you beat the Haven list? Ignore the squadrons and blow up Haven. Always. Ironically, if you took no squadrons yourself, this makes your job easier, as even if you lose a ship to do it, this trade usually wins you the game.

3 - Many of the rebel fighters are either deficient in a specific way (the B-wing is very slow, the Y-wing is both heavy and incapable of fighting squadrons effectively) or internally inconsistent (the X-wing is an escort, but a bomber, with a relatively weak bomber die). The only rebel ship that is both internally consistent and effective in virtually all situations is the A-Wing. While the Imperials have some of the same issues, their ships are much cheaper, so having one-dimensional Ties is less of an issue.

Thus, for squadrons to work as more than just a screen, you need a list tailored to maximize their strengths, you need to not get jammed on objectives, and you need to avoid certain matchups.

It's possible, but I think many of the lackluster results come from the list-building phase (synergistic upgrades and objective selection are paramount) and having to change playstyle significantly to play the squadron game.

Right now, Rebel Squadrons are an afterthought, I take them to harass my opponent or limit the effect his Squadrons have on my fleet.

That's not an afterthought, that's one of their primary missions. If your fighters are preventing your opponent's fighters from doing their job, then you're doing it right.

Problem with the objective game favoring ships is that the game mechanics of ship-squadron interactions naturally favor squadrons

Ships have pathetic natural defenses against squadrons, with even anti-squadron not being terribly useful without the ability to hold enemy squadrons down. Squadrons, meanwhile, can hammer ships far more efficiently than other ships can. 57 points of Neb barely scratches the paint compared to 4 generic X-wings, and tossing out a Squadron command on a command 2 ship will double (more than double, because of how tokens work against multiple attacks) the amount of red dice added compared to concentrate fire.

Positioning objectives that technically favor ships also force them to be predictable (by holding select positions) and lets you apply squadrons against them far more easily. there's always several sides to every engagement.

this applies double for B-wings (slowest squadrons in the game) as not only can they be positioned to intercept black-dice happy imperials, but they can also be positioned near objective tokens that the opponent will want to use to win the game. I heartily recommend B-wings, as they've basically carried my Nebs against the terrifying Demolisher that otherwise gives them quite a few problems. They do this by positioning where the Demolisher is most likely to go, either an objective or exposed Neb, and then ripping it into pieces after it does its thing

the weaknesses of squadrons (dependency on Squadron commands) aren't just straight flaws, as much as a necessary balancing factor to make them balanced rather than OP

the weakness of squadron-heavy lists is the same as any other skew: by leaning too heavily on a certain strength, they also open themselves heavily to certain weaknesses. This doesn't necessarily make them any better or worse than any other type of fleet; it's just something to keep in mind if one does not enjoy success with any type of skew list.

Myself, I prefer balanced lists so I can't really claim they're the way to run reb squadrons successfully, but I can claim that rebel squadrons are an essentially part of a balanced rebellion breakfeast fleet.

I don't personally overload on squadron support, because I'm personally drawn to all-rounders like the Escort Neb (one naked, one Yavaris, one support-refit Salvation) and the fattie (one Gallant, one Paragon). I have yet to fly Yavaris and Haven together and I don't use Adar.

With imperials I'm similar, though because I don't own GSDs I rely more on squadrons to overcome the shoddy maneuverability of the VSDs. Even so, I run one motti + flight controllers + hangar VSD (Motti's Flying Circus) and one VSD-2 dominator for straight ship-to-ship combat.

There hasn't been a single fleet yet I didn't feel I could overcome. There have, however, been a fair share of occasions where I realized how badly I've either misplayed or been outplayed

Problem with the objective game favoring ships is that the game mechanics of ship-squadron interactions naturally favor squadrons

I could not disagree more strongly about this. Ships have a natural defense against squadrons that squadrons will never have against ships:

Move.

Perhaps my view is colored by playing primarily rebels here, but if I have a ship moving at speed 3-4, unless you are consistently spamming squadron commands, you will hit me, on average, 1 turn per game with your squadrons, if that. And if you are spamming squadron commands? I will kill that ship first, and you still might not get to me at speed 4, especially not with B-Wings.

The correct defense against squadrons for many ships (perhaps excepting the Escort Neb B against things like Ties and A-Wings) is not to shoot them, it's to just not sit on top of them and let them bomb you repeatedly.

No bombers in this game are effective without squadron commands backing them up, after all.

My easiest games with my favorite list are against people who went heavy on squadrons (I am primarily playing a 4 CR90, 1 Neb B or 6 CR90 list these days).

if you're using "move" to counter squadrons in position based objectives, then you're ceding the objective and the squadrons are doing their job.

Otherwise, exactly 3 squadrons in this game are effective without the command

1 is Rhymer, who can deny a massive area with his ability

2 when Rogue comes out

3 If you're running black dice ships, you're going to run into command-less squadrons eventually if the player using them has learned how amazing of a deterrence bombers makes to those types of ships. True, a Demolisher will only remain there one round, but that one round of getting targeted by B-wing has been generally enough to tear them into pieces. 2 bomber dice per ship is no joke, especially not with Yavaris. If they don't die immediately, then they're so heavily crippled that they can be finished off by red dice.

But regardless, the Squadron command is an amazingly efficient command that far and away trumps conc fire (except on very specific ships, such as Paragon and Salvation, and only then when you don't have dedicated bombers to fling) . If you're running squadron heavy, there's no reason not to spam them. Unless you're a corv, getting away from them non-Bs entirely is nigh impossible. There's also the fact that, if you're high-tailing it away from rebel ships, you're flying right into their optimal engagement range.

The cR-90s you fly are the exception, but having played them I'm sure you can say they're not easy wins. Corvs are fragile little buggers wholly dependent on the player for success.

In general, though, if you "kill that ship [spamming squadrons] first," what's to stop the opponent from piling squadrons on top of your ships when they try to engage? Why doesn't the squadron ship, which has nothing to gain from directly engaging a superior ship, not gtfo while chucking his squadrons? Remember, even speed 3 squadrons have more than enough optimal range to catch ships firing at long range (medium range command + distance 3/medium range move + distance 1 range)

There's no reason, apart from how the two players interact on a strategic and tactical level. There is no built-in game mechanic that gives you automatic victory against Squadrons, they are exactly the same as ship heavy lists in that the player input decides their effective use.

Squadrons being ineffective in games will be due almost entirely to either the opponent successfully playing around them, or the player not knowing how to effectively utilize them. The 2nd aspect isn't some "holier than thou" bull; Squadrons are a very unique gamepiece that I haven't seen replicated in any other game; no surprise that they take a while to come to grips with. Hell, I know I still **** up with them horribly. Besides, even if they do, Squadrons just might not be one's preferred playstyle.

It's very important to separate all these factors when attempting to assess the effectiveness of squadrons.

anyway, the point:

1. Mechanically speaking, there is no easy victory against Squadrons. Even at speed 3, they can "outrange" red dice shots from ships.

2. Tactically speaking, they can be avoided. Squadrons are reliant on capital ships issuing their commands and can be engaged by other squadrons; these mechanics allow you to predict them and heavily mitigate their effectiveness.

That is, of course, provided by squadrons cannot predict you. The player controlling the squadrons knows that ships are loathe to be around them, could know where ships want to go (based on optimal engagement ranges, speed, facing, objectives etc.), and can set squadrons up in positions that effectively counter-act their movements.

Basically, both players have the tools they need to outplay one another.

3. All told, this is a good thing to encourage game balance and player relevance.

if you're using "move" to counter squadrons in position based objectives, then you're ceding the objective and the squadrons are doing their job.

Otherwise, exactly 3 squadrons in this game are effective without the command

1 is Rhymer, who can deny a massive area with his ability

2 when Rogue comes out

3 If you're running black dice ships, you're going to run into command-less squadrons eventually if the player using them has learned how amazing of a deterrence bombers makes to those types of ships. True, a Demolisher will only remain there one round, but that one round of getting targeted by B-wing has been generally enough to tear them into pieces. 2 bomber dice per ship is no joke, especially not with Yavaris. If they don't die immediately, then they're so heavily crippled that they can be finished off by red dice.

But regardless, the Squadron command is an amazingly efficient command that far and away trumps conc fire (except on very specific ships, such as Paragon and Salvation, and only then when you don't have dedicated bombers to fling) . If you're running squadron heavy, there's no reason not to spam them. Unless you're a corv, getting away from them non-Bs entirely is nigh impossible. There's also the fact that, if you're high-tailing it away from rebel ships, you're flying right into their optimal engagement range.

The cR-90s you fly are the exception, but having played them I'm sure you can say they're not easy wins. Corvs are fragile little buggers wholly dependent on the player for success.

In general, though, if you "kill that ship [spamming squadrons] first," what's to stop the opponent from piling squadrons on top of your ships when they try to engage? Why doesn't the squadron ship, which has nothing to gain from directly engaging a superior ship, not gtfo while chucking his squadrons? Remember, even speed 3 squadrons have more than enough optimal range to catch ships firing at long range (medium range command + distance 3/medium range move + distance 1 range)

There's no reason, apart from how the two players interact on a strategic and tactical level. There is no built-in game mechanic that gives you automatic victory against Squadrons, they are exactly the same as ship heavy lists in that the player input decides their effective use.

Squadrons being ineffective in games will be due almost entirely to either the opponent successfully playing around them, or the player not knowing how to effectively utilize them. The 2nd aspect isn't some "holier than thou" bull; Squadrons are a very unique gamepiece that I haven't seen replicated in any other game; no surprise that they take a while to come to grips with. Hell, I know I still **** up with them horribly. Besides, even if they do, Squadrons just might not be one's preferred playstyle.

It's very important to separate all these factors when attempting to assess the effectiveness of squadrons.

anyway, the point:

1. Mechanically speaking, there is no easy victory against Squadrons. Even at speed 3, they can "outrange" red dice shots from ships.

2. Tactically speaking, they can be avoided. Squadrons are reliant on capital ships issuing their commands and can be engaged by other squadrons; these mechanics allow you to predict them and heavily mitigate their effectiveness.

That is, of course, provided by squadrons cannot predict you. The player controlling the squadrons knows that ships are loathe to be around them, could know where ships want to go (based on optimal engagement ranges, speed, facing, objectives etc.), and can set squadrons up in positions that effectively counter-act their movements.

Basically, both players have the tools they need to outplay one another.

3. All told, this is a good thing to encourage game balance and player relevance.

This guy gets it.

some quick conversions on squadron ranges:

Distance 1 is the longest (1.5 a "distance") and 2 is the shortest (.5 a "distance"). Each range is 2 "distance"

Distance 1 + 2 = Close Range (1.5 + .5 = 2)

Distance 3 = Medium Range (1 = 1, I guess. Medium range is half close or long range)

Distance 4 + 5 = Long Range (1 + 1 = 2)

Squadron Base diameter is not included in the comparisons below (don't know exact ratio to "distance")

I. Using the squadron's initial position as the "origin" of the attack:

squadrons threaten their speed + .75 a "range" (distance 1) when commanded.

this means B-wings threaten ships from more than medium range away from their initial position

X-wings and Y-wings threat almost the length of the range ruler (4.5 out of 5 distance; 90%)

Tie Bombers (no rhymer) threaten beyond the range ruler

II. Using the commanding ship as the "origin" of the attack:

If squadrons do not move. You can command them to shoot at a maximum of (almost) Long Range (medium range command + distance 1; roughly 75% up to the end of the range ruler). This is the same range as a commanded B-wing.

If B-wings move, a squadron command already has them shooting at a maximum range beyond Long Range (medium range command + close range move = the entire range tool; add a distance 1 attack)

If Rhymer is commanded, **** just gets absurd. At his current maximum (i.e, Corruptor) Rhmyer is shooting targets that are 160% the length of the ranger ruler away (distance 5 move, distance 3 attack)

The rest is all about positioning (such as ensuring you don't overshoot command range next turn--remember the commanding ship moves afterwards--or that, if you do, you end up in command range of another ship or are threatening essential space to be able to hammer enemies without moving at all etc.) which is a highly complex amalgamation of considerations and decisions to be made.

Point is, speaking purely i.t.o command range + squadron speed + attack range, outrunning Squadroned squadrons isn't as easy as it sounds. If you are outrunning squadrons or otherwise avoiding squadrons, then pat yourself on the back because you're outplaying them

anyway, the point:

1. Mechanically speaking, there is no easy victory against Squadrons. Even at speed 3, they can "outrange" red dice shots from ships.

2. Tactically speaking, they can be avoided. Squadrons are reliant on capital ships issuing their commands and can be engaged by other squadrons; these mechanics allow you to predict them and heavily mitigate their effectiveness.

That is, of course, provided by squadrons cannot predict you. The player controlling the squadrons knows that ships are loathe to be around them, could know where ships want to go (based on optimal engagement ranges, speed, facing, objectives etc.), and can set squadrons up in positions that effectively counter-act their movements.

Basically, both players have the tools they need to outplay one another.

3. All told, this is a good thing to encourage game balance and player relevance.

Again, I think you are under-selling the difficulty with the squadrons. This is not to say squadrons are not good (they are, in my view, very good if and only if both objectives and list are designed properly around them), but I feel like they have more failure points than ship spam. In order:

1. Significantly higher probability of encountering poor objectives, especially when you are the first player.
2. Lower ship count making it easier to lose by being tabled, even when the objectives are very much in your favor.
3. Coordination dependent strategies meaning that your opponent exploiting break points becomes easier and/or you will run into more situations where your fleet is not capable of operating optimally.

Note I am talking about a situation where both players are skilled; skill is a major determining factor in this game (it took me a while to get good with the CR90 fleet, but now I haven't lost a game in a few weeks).

The reason I say this is partially what I wrote in my previous post I linked to about the objectives, partially that I believe the degree of difficulty in maneuvering squadrons is greater and thus you telegraph more of your intentions to your opponent (so you suffer from information asymmetry, especially when using B-wings, the dominant tactic against them being either shoot first at their controlling ship at long range or lock them up with throw-away interceptors to get close and obliterate their commanding ship), and partially that ship/squadron interactions require coordination in a way that ship-ship interactions do not (if you are locked into taking squadron commands, and I know that, and I focus fire your ship, you can't be spamming repair commands to keep it alive if you want the squadrons to do their jobs).

So my point is not that squadrons are not good. They can be very good; I also think the Haven + Yavaris + Rebel Aces and the VSDs + Rhymer Bomb lists are both in the top tier of lists in the game. My point is rather that the skill level required is higher, the opportunity to make mistakes and cost yourself the game is greater, and against an unfavorable matchup against an at-least equally skilled opponent, you are likely to have real problems if they understand how to attack you.

TL;DR - All ships is easier to play and list-build for, and more durable across all possible matchups. This is not to say squadrons cannot be played well, but there is a value to simplicity and durability that is often overlooked (especially when you consider "I'm dog tired and playing my 4th game in a single day at a tournament" tends to be a breeding ground for mistakes).

Ficklegreendice, your info is a pleasure for a squad favoring player like me to read.

Late to the party, and not read all posts so sorry if this has been said.

I nearly always max out my squadron points. On the few occasions I've gone light with fighters I've always lost. On the other hand, I nearly always win when I have lots of squadrons and good support for them. My favourite and most successful list is Rebel Aces: all the named fighters, Yavaris + Raymus, and an AF2 with varying upgrades. I have taken out VSDs multiple times with this list (esp with Luke and Keyan getting 2 attacks a turn).

I think some of the success comes down to choosing the right objectives, and some of it is due to individual play styles.

I love the fact that many points I bring up in my B-Wing videos are getting talked about here.

I have only been able to play 8-10 games and am not nearly as experienced s many of you, and am finding this debate very informative from both sides, but I have found fighters to be an important part of every game.

The later posts are very interesting !

From what we can infer, the more points you work in squadrons, the more points you'll have to work in ships that support squadrons rather than the other way around. It's very interesting and matches up with my limited experience of Armada. I've ran fleets with 6 to 7 Rebel Squadrons where I only had Gallant Haven and Adar Tallon as support and many points felt were "wasted". Well, not wasted per se but felt like they could make much more impact if spent in several upgrades.

Something very interesting to meditate on indeed I'm going to go purposefully squadron light in my next Rebel game, with a "Rogue Squadron" feel to it with 2 X-Wing Squadrons, Luke and Wedge and see how it goes Mixing the fighter screen and bomber wing role with the two Aces that each buff one aspect of the X-Wing.

the points invested in squadrons v squadron support follows the same metric as most miniature games, that being "don't spend points on it if you're not going to use it"

There is no mechanical favoritism to any concentration of squadrons, be it squadron heavy (squadrons kill all the things), balanced (squadrons and ships kill things), squadron-lite (I got a few sh*tty A-wings to tie up the enemy), and "squadrons? you mean this squadron of CR-90s I brought?"

what matters the most is that the player understands what they're bringing and why, lest they waste points on it. For example, if you're kiting out your ships to kill enemy ships, you're probably not going to have squadrons pull most of the weight and can forgo dedicated support.

i.t.o rebel squadron support, here are the available upgrades:

[Commanders]

General D: indirect squadron support, as in his ability a.) happens to work with bomber and b.) he himself is the cheapest commander, letting you invest in more things; potentially squadrons.

Take When: you want less commander, more stuff. Works with anything, really, including squadrons.

Garm: very indirect squadron support. He gives X tokens on the 1st and 5th round; one of them can be a Squadron Token.

Take When: you're running Afmk2s, basically. Maybe Nebs.

[Offensive Retrofit]

Expanded Hangars: increases Squadron by 1; cheap. Generally, the more squadrons you can throw at once, the better because they'll all get to piggy-back on your activation before your opponent can react. Does not favor anti-ship or anti-squadron; flexible.

Take When: you have enough squadrons to fling around to justify the upgrade.

Squadron Level: Squadron heavy or balanced

[Weapon's Team]

Flight Controllers: increases the anti-squadron armament of commanded squadrons by 1. Cheap. Purely anti-squadron; worthless as anti-ship. Can be combined with Hangars for often greater returns. Ace pilots may have devastating abilities, but the more squadron you're throwing, the more dice FC is adding.

Controllers + Hangars raises the total cost of squadron support to 11 basically dedicating your ship to squadron support.

Take When: you want your (preferably sizable amount of) squadrons to kill other squadrons.

Squadron Level: Squadron heavy or balanced. If paired with Hangars, it leans towards the heavy.

[Officers]

Adar: expensive bugger (costs a whole EA), lets a single squadron activate again after being commanded. Because it is only a single squadron, Adar heavily favors aces (more bang per buck) or, at the very least, B-wings (only 2-dice anti-ship in the game, so far). Neither explicitly anti-ship or anti-squadron.

Combos hilariously when on a ship that is partnered with Yavaris (Adar's ship moves the squadron; Yavaris can then activate the squadron after it has moved and ideally squeeze out 2 more attacks for a potential total of 3).

Take When: you have a rebel ace (and/or B-wing) and really want to kill **** with it. Specialized and expensive.

Squadron Level: almost always Squadron heavy.

Raymus: indirect squadron support (bugger does a lot of things). Raymus is a force multiplier for ships, heavily improving the capabilities of some (such as making Salvation hit like a ton of bricks, making the Tantive IV not suck, and making anything move as if inertia didn't exist). When used with the squadron command, he acts as an expensive, sh*tty Expanded Hangar that can either stack with Expanded Hangars or be put on a ship that usually can't take them (looking at you, Nebs).

Take When: if you're using Raymus on a Squadron support ship, you're basically going full squadron. Most often found on Yavaris because it's ridiculous (we'll get to it), can also bring a fattie to a total of 5 Squadron.

Squadron Level: Squadron Heavy or Balanced (dude's expanded hangars)

Veteran Captain: sh*tty Raymus; less than half as expensive and not unique. Given how cheap it is, you can slap it on a ship without dedicating a powerful, expensive upgrade (Raymus) to it

Take When: same as Raymus, but only for one glorious turn and therefore can be used with less specialized builds. After all, if you run out of squadrons to throw, then your captain's either already gone or you can use it to augment your ship.

Squadron Level: Balanced or Light. For Squadron Heavy, more resources can be dedicated to more specialized, consistent support.

Weapon's Liason: If you're not spamming squadron commands on something, odds are you aren't running a dedicated squadron build. The Liason opens up a lot of flexibility for builds that can use it.

Take When: you have some squadrons. Either you aren't sure what to do with them, or you're using them defensively and keeping your trigger finger on the Liason Squadron Command until the right moment.

Squadron Level: Balanced or Light. For Squadron Heavy, more resources can be dedicated to more specialized, consistent support.

Defense Liason: the "oh ****" button for when things go wrong

Taken When: you're spamming squadron commands, but want easy access to the acceleration/brakes or a screwdriver when things go **** up.

Squadron Level: Balanced or Light. For Squadron Heavy, more resources can be dedicated to more specialized, consistent support.

[Titles]

the creme de la creme of rebel squadron support

Gallant Haven: The "I win" button of the squadron war. Almost purely anti-squadron, Haven does jack **** to protect your other ships or herself from harm. What she does is make Howlrunner + Flight Controller interceptors look like absolute pansies, even in the face of generic X-wings.

Synergies with rebel aces to a hilarious degree. Because Haven's effect kicks in after damage mitigation, you have to do 3 damage to an ace to do even 1 damage. Anything less gets braced down to 1 and then Havened out of existence. Still, if you're palling around with X-wings, Haven's effect by itself is enough to swing things inexorably in your favor after even one round of benefiting from it.

The distance 1 restriction limits Haven, especially since it's a fattie that wants to run around and be a massive pain in the ass, which relegates it to one of two roles.

Taken When: you want either

1. special delivery of normally slower Rebel squadrons (so far, all of them bombers); something that can laugh in the face of incredibly fast anti-squadron such as Interceptors. Normally, when used like this, Haven (bearing Adar) is paired with Yavaris for an incredibly potent Squadron-heavy list.

2. a roving fortress of "nope" that just dares anyone, ship or squadron, to get close. This use necessitates a balance between ship and squadron capability. If you're squadrons are too powerful, then you're really just helping your opponent by keeping them away. If your list packs some incredible long range firepower, however, Haven can be exactly what you need. She keeps interceptors off your squadrons and your squadrons keep demolisher off her.

Squadron Level: Squadron Heavy (use 1) or Balanced (use 2)

Yavaris: jesus jumping jack christ. One of the most overlooked titles on one of the most overlooked ships in the game, Yavaris is an absolutely disgusting and disgustingly cheap upgrades that makes imperials wonder just how in the hell Rebels managed to invent PocketStarDestroyers^tm

Yavaris lets your commanded squadrons attack twice if they did not move. This does not favor anti-squadron nor anti-ship since you can double up on either (or get one of each), but it does favor squadrons with lots of dice to throw. 2 Yavarised Y-wings will throw four anti-ship dice. 2 Yaravised B-wings will throw eight.

While Yavaris does favor the aces that can throw out more/better dice (esp if you get to live the Wedge or Keyan dream) or Dutch (dutch + initiative = well, two of those squadrons you're so proud of are doing **** all this game) the damage increase it provides will have any generic performing far beyond its usual capabilities, and far beyond what enemies can handle. The main advantage that generics provide over the aces is simply more bodies, which means more chances to catch something at distance 1.

Yavaris works amazingly well with either squadron heavy builds (working off the higher damage output of expensive aces, often bearing Raymus and working off of synergy with Adar) and balanced builds (doing more than enough work with generics, especially Bs and Xs, to justify its incredibly economic cost).

Take when: Have squadrons? Have a Nebulon? Yavaris.

Fickle should start his own tactics blog or something. Some great stuff posted.

Yep, there's some good points here !

Fickle, could you describe what you mean by squadron Heavy/Balanced/Light ? Both in terms of points and number of squadron (obviously it's a generic guesstimation, specifics will change according to the lists ).

I don't have a set points rubric for Balanced

Balanced as I see it is a fleet that is geared to kill enemies with both squadrons and ships. Generally, this means going splitsies on ship specialization.

One of the most popular balanced builds is Vsd-1 (Skreed, cheri, hangars, controllers) and Gsd-1 (demolisher, acm, techs etc.) with a near full squadron allotment. The VSD-1 is geared to be pure squadron support (Though that doesn't decrease its utility as a horrifying area denial tool) and the GSD-1 is a pure "**** your face" ship. The squadrons I see are often also split specialized, one arm being Howlie interceptors and the other Rhymer bombers.

I myself run triple Nebs with 94 points of squadrons as Neb Escort (General D, Yavaris), Neb Escort (naked), and Neb Support (Raymus, Salvation) followed by 4 x-wings; 3 b-wings. It's got a load of squadrons, but the only real dedicated squadron support (apart from the 6 points spent on support --> escort) is Yavaris (aka "all you need"). 3 ships provide solid firepower, especially the dedicated ship-to-ship Salvation refit

The least amount of squadrons I've ever run is 81 points (5 X-wings and Dutch) running in support of double fatties. These fatties are upgraded out the ass with Intel Agent, EA, and titles; purely long-range ship to ship firepower, apart from the Haven title on one of them. The squadrons' job in the list is usually purely anti-squadron--to hang out around Haven and pick off enemy bombers and squadrons etc.--unless the enemy ships get close enough and then Haven can threaten them with a face-full of bombers.

Squadron Heavy is the skew, nothing but 100 points of Squadrons and ships kit out the ass to support them. The quintessential rebel squadron-heavy build is something like

Fattie-B

*General D

*Adar

*Controllers

*Hangars

*ECM

*Haven

[128]

Neb-B (Escort)

*Raymus

*Yavaris

[69]

All the rebel aces or something

neither ship has a single anti-ship upgrade. It's all about the squadrons.

Squadron Light is basically an all-ship list that takes a few expendable A-wings/Interceptors for the sole purpose of temporarily tying up enemy squadrons.

I took the time to read your point about the Gallant Haven in more details and you make a really strong case here. It does work really well with having lots of squadrons (actually more than you can activate in a single round). So that you can choose which one you want to activate and then keep the other ones "in reserve" near the Gallant in case they're going to be intercepted.

Because it's true that throwing your squadrons far away in attack prevents them from taking advantage of the Gallant Haven. So, by having the Gallant Haven, too many fighters than you can activate in one round with that ship, you can spam squadron commands while still having something to do and squadrons that are in shape. Giving you wave after wave of squadron commands while focusing less on ship-to-ship combat. But you need much fighters because indeed a 3-4 aren't going to do much. 5-6 seems to be the minimum here so that you have at least 2 decent waves of squadrons.

Thanks for giving me the inspiration, now I need to write a mock up list

I've played games, both purposely set up and coincidentally where a Bomber heavy list (Think 4 TIE Bombers plus Rhymer) faces off against a ship-only list, and the Bombers tend to do very little even unopposed.

See, black Bomber dice are great statistically, but are extremely unreliable. You are equally as likely to throw 5 Bomber dice at a ship and result in 10 damage with crits as you are to result in 0. In Armada, just like in X-Wing, points investments are critically competitive due to the standard game rules. You can't invest 50 or 60 points in something that has a very real, unmitigable chance of doing nothing and expect to win against players who spent those points on reliable damage.

So of course Bombers are potent when they work, but there's no mechanic to improve their likelihood of working as there are in plenty for Ships. When you bring a Ship, there's myriad upgrades to turn statistically bad rolls into average rolls or turn average rolls into fantastic rolls. Bombers don't have a Warlord effect, Leading Shots, Screed, Salvation, Concentrate Fire, etc. Even just a Gladiator under Screed has little to fear from poor rolls.

Lists that want to use Squadrons of any type to threaten Ships will have to wait for a Flight Controllers style upgrade for attacking ships, or for some kind of Swarm reroll for battery armaments.

The next problems squadrons face is Ship overkill factor. As players get better and learn the standard card pairings, it's increasingly common to see ships like the Assault Frigate or VSD go from full hp to zero in a single attack. Since Squadrons under command activate before the Ship attacks rather than after, you end up with many situations where your Bombers dealt 2 damage cards and a crit to a ship, but then your ACM Gladiator or XI7 Salvation blow it away by dealing 5 or 6 damage single handedly, putting the Bomber points to waste again.

Finally, Squadron lists suffer from disruption. Against a player of similar skill, it's not unlikely to find that one A-Wing or Interceptor ties up your Squadrons easily. Sure, it'll be destroyed promptly that round, but you may have lost out on 1 of the probably 3 rounds your Bombers could have been shooting at their intended targets.

The points people like ficklegreendice have been making about Squadrons needing proper investment and synergies in upgrade cards are completely true, but Squadrons, Bombers especially, don't really have much to synergize with them currently. And the little that does can be interrupted by very simple plays by your opponents. Ships, on the other hand, don't have this problem.

bomber black dice are neither more nor less reliable than ship dice (They are, in fact, exactly the same). The only difference is bomber dice come in at one per attack, meaning they are far more difficult to mitigate with defense tokens (Especially brace).

mechanics that improve re-rolls and dice fixing may seem to offer greater reliability (because of the raymus re-roll), but there's a catch.

Take Salvation with Raymus for reliability (one re-roll), a 65 minimum point investment. It's an incredible ship that deals an average of some 6 (unmitigated) damage, but it also costs 6 Y-wings. You have to be very unlucky for all those Y attacks to crap out less damage after defense tokens.

There is, however, one existing upgrade that improves damage output reliability (not counting Keyan) and that's Yavaris (you get more reliable output with more output ). Not only that, but B-wings pack very reliable blue dice to help improve attack consistency.

The problem with going after the command ships is, as covered previously, that squadrons flung from the command ship simply have greater range than enemy attacks (even B-wings, on the first engagement). As player skill increases, assuming it increases across all players and not just those not using bombers, so too will player's abilities to use that greater range to avoid scenarios where a command ship can be concentrated down in one round. Going down in "a single attack" is not possible without some hilarious luck; you need to bring multiple assets to bear on anything besides a close range cr-90 to get it down in one round. To get a ship down in one activation (before the enemy can react), well there's no better way to add damage than commanded bombers piggybacking on your activation

As for list disruption, again the issue of skill is a 2-way street. Allowing many squadrons to get tangled by a single A-wing (or even having that one A-wing tie up squadrons for an entire round rather than just getting blown up by a few shots) is something that is mostly the fault of the engaged player. As for the strategy itself, it's not consequence free (Squadrons cost points and give up victory points when destroyed)

again, not advocating for one method over the other, nor am I overly fond of skews but it'd be strange to think of squadron to ship attacks as anything but incredibly useful.

I don't even advocate bomber spam (X and B-wings are amazing, but Ys and Ties are very skewed in application and very vulnerable to enemy squadrons) because of their inherent weaknesses and because they cater to two different needs in each faction

Rhymer is an incredible long range (longest range ever) threat even when followed by a gaggle of advances or fighters, but the imperials also need anti-squadron (because their ships suck at it) and they have plenty of close range firepower in both stardestroyers. This close range firepower is also, however, what makes it easier for Imperial ships to move in closer to the enemy fleet to get back into command range of rhymer in case they need to fling him around again. Going too bomber heavy sacrifices both the security in the close range strength of imperial ships and the security of Tie anti-squadron capabilities

B-wings are the single greatest source of damage output in the game (yavaris, baby!), but relative to rhymer their range is limited. They are the rebel's thus far only source of hilarious close-range firepower, able to smack around VSDs and GSDs alike, but they are not terribly great at chasing down ships that don't have to engage you. after the initial engagement (medium range from commanding ship + more than medium range move & shoot) they move slightly more than medium from their initial position, making it possible for fast, long range ships such as CR-90as and Fatties to strafe. Rebels have more reliable sources for convincing long range firepower than their squadrons (apart from maybe A-wings) can offer; leaning too heavily on B-wings forgoes that advantage.

Basically, they sorta work off of each other

Imperials love bombers because bombers compensate for their long range deficiencies, but bombers love imperials because their close range capabilities let them get close for repeated commands

Rebels love B-wings because B-wings compensate for their close range deficiencies, but B-wings love rebels because their long range capabilities force the enemies to get close