400 points is a very different story, since the fighter heavy lists get at least one more ship. That gives more flexibility in activating the squadrons.

The more ships = more activation is a real problem. I encountered that very problem when playing AT43 (also using alternating unit activation), the more units you brought the more activations you had, giving you a clear edge over the opponent. There were armies that could bring elite units only, so you faced 4-6 units vs 7-10. Back then I felt that there was a need for some kind of elite unit bonus, when you are finished with your units while your opponent still has a number of them to activate. We never came up with a good solution.

Armada has the same problem. Unless FFG comes up with some nifty upgrade card(s) to help the carrier fleet out I don't see how to fix that. With more activations than your opponent you can avoid to activate a ship that will bring you into bad position, until you are the only one left to activate.

I used to play ship only and was very successful. I just started to use squadron more now, trying to make it work. Against weak players the squadrons are incredible powerful, but if the opponent knows what he's doing it becomes an hard game.

Will 400 points make it different? Will the extra 30 points of available squadrons open up a new paradigm?

My guess would be that it would, though not so much because of the +30 points for squadrons so much as the +100 points for the fleet overall.

Edit: Shaadea beat me to it.

Fielding more than a token squadron force will run you somewhere between 70-100 points (Rhymer + 3 bombers + 2 TAs/Ints/TIE support/etc; B/Y-wings + X-wing escorts + A-wing(s) + Tycho). To field them effectively, you need a carrier, so that's normally another automatic 65 (Yavaris escort frigate) to 80ish (Vic I with Expanded Hangers + Corruptor; AFIIB + expanded hangers) at a minimum, not counting additional carrier-oriented upgrades you might want but may not need against full ship lists (Flight Controllers/Gallant Haven/Raymus Antilles/etc). Add that other ship you really like to field (GSD I Demolisher + ACMs; Vic I/II with Warlord/H9s or Dominator; AFIIs with Advanced Projectors/enhanced armaments/Intel Officer; Salvation with Xi7s; even a CR-90B Dodonna's Pride), plus your mandatory commander (20-38 points), and you've already spent the majority of the 200-230 points remaining to you in two ships. You can push it to three ships if you economize, but if you want to get to four ships there are hard decisions everywhere (five is possible... sort of). Run those two/three ship lists against 4-6 ship lists, and the activation disparity is sharp. This isn't to say that a two ship list can't win (individual fleet make-up, objectives, tactics, strategy, and even chance obviously affect the outcome), only that it's difficult. As Clauswitz cautions, defeating a force that outnumbers yours 2:1 does happen, but it's uncommon, especially if both commanders are equally competent.

At 400 points, things open up significantly, I feel. The same effective squadron groups at 300 (Rhymer ball + escorts; B-wing/Yavaris combos, etc.) should still be effective at 400 points, even without scaling them up (in fact, some may not benefit from scaling up--like the Yavaris combos, where your number of activations per turn is essentially hard-capped at 3). Another 100 points, though, is more than enough for another Vic/Assault Frigate, smaller ship(s) with other upgrades, etc., pushing decent squadron-focused builds into the 3-4 ship range comfortably, and even into the 4-5 ship range if you're inclined towards raw ship numbers over upgrades (another ongoing discussion elsewhere on the forums).

Sure, you can still run up against a spam ship list, but a 2:1 disparity should be far less likely, unless you're facing something absurdly gimicky. At the highest level of abstraction, a 4-on-3-with-squadrons or even a 6-on-4-with-squadrons is a far closer contest than the 5/6-on-2-with-squadrons extremes at 300 points. Sure, you could still see a 6-on-2-super-ships-with-squadrons, but there will be more options for balanced builds available.

The big caveat, of course, is Wave II, which will affect this calculus in unknown ways (6-shrimps-on-2-ISDs-with-squadrons? 7 Raiders with all rogue squadrons?). I've a feeling we'll be revisiting all of this again around Christmas as the Wave II playtests start coming in.

Rythbryt has it perfectly stated.

Personally I don't think we have all the things that will make squadrons good. Just like we don't have what the game will ultimately feel like at 400 points, we really don't have any idea what squadrons are supposed to be like.

So, cards on the table: I mostly without squadrons. I am, however, skeptical of the notion that squadrons are strictly inferior to ships.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but: the anti-squadron arguments advanced so far are not especially persuasive, at least the context they are made. If we accept that Serious People do not believe squadrons are worth using, and we expect to face Serious People across the table, then isn't a carrier unnecessary? Why load up a ship with squadron-buffing upgrades when you can load it up with anti-ship upgrades and then just use squadron commands? I don't need flight controllers because you're not bringing fighters. I don't need Gallant Haven, I don't need RAC, I don't need to concentrate squadron buffs on one ship in order to better crush opposing squadrons, because there aren't any. I don't want to concentrate squadron buffs because then you'll prioritize that ship. I can instead bring a couple ships that are focused on anti-ship fire, add on a bomber complement, and distribute squadron orders between them.

Or not? If not, what am I missing?

Yup it is a landslide effect. So because no one is taking squadrons that means more anti-ship and then when squadrons come out people don't have an answer. That is how Mets's work

Exactly Mxlm. People keep thinking you need all this nonsense to make squadrons work. Yet against all-ship lists its painfully easy to make squadrons the best thing in your list: bombers. Per your example: "best" players think all-ship is best, "best" players will be at regionals, therefore bring rock to counter scissors at regionals: bomber lists. Any of those terribad 2VSD1GSD or 1VSD3GSD lists would be utterly annihilated by a rhymer ball, or B-Wing horde. IF FLOWN WELL.

This is the self-correcting concept that squadrons WILL introduce. I'm starting from the end-point, myself, and I'll see you all here when you're forced to it

As to Lyraeus' point: that's the long-version is...

All-ship lists dominate due to netlisting.

People bring bombers to counter all-ships.

People get decimated by bombers.

People bring fighters to counter bombers so their ships can fight.

People bring all fighters on both sides and have pointless fighter engagements.

People spend less points on fighters to counter full-fighter lists and bring some bombers to punish ships.

Balanced meta emerges: balance of well-equiped ships and fighters to cover your bombers. Viola.

The only problem with your theory is the reality and actual evidence we have is the exact opposite of what you believe. Net-listing only can explain the initial distributions of ships/squadrons not how well they will do, and I dont think you want to say all 100 players did not bring squadrons. If anything you would be quite silly to not say, "Bringing less squadrons suggests you would do better", and unless you have a good fundamental reason to explain away this phenomena this is what holds. If anything, the post prior about the power of the blue dice supports the results. Of course, thematically I will always bring squadrons just for the fun aspect!

But in the end, winning this tourney without squadrons speaks for itself. There is your PROOF.

meh I still personally don't see it

since it seems the prevalent gripe against squadrons is how hard they are to use, and yet the winning list is a fleet that I consider far more difficult to effectively utilize than squadrons

basically, this isn't x-wing where something like fat han has clear tournament bias with m.o.v combining with PWT mechanics has you fighting an uphill battle over multiple rounds if you take anything other than a 2-ship build

more importantly, I really want to fly against these players and their lists. Seems like they really know how to put them to good use

meh I still personally don't see it

since it seems the prevalent gripe against squadrons is how hard they are to use, and yet the winning list is a fleet that I consider far more difficult to effectively utilize than squadrons

Do you think you can beat the guys who just won this tournament, then?

Or is it possible you are just wrong?

I would like to weigh in with My Opinion, granted I have not played a lot (20-30) games, but in my experience if someone brings 60+ points of fighters and the other doesn't bring any fighters, and they know how to use them, they can make a tremendous impact on the game on both sides games I have seen and/or played the squadrons made more impact then I thought. In addition the fighters are much harder to use effectively, sure they add flexibility but to consistently add their firepower it takes a lot of planning from both ships position and commands as well as previous fighter placement, especially if you are using B-wings, IF you can position them right, and you don't roll like I usually do, they can cause immense damage to ships but they require tremendous planning to get that right. Also I would like to congratulate every one who made top 4 that couldn't have been easy and I'm not saying they did anything wrong I'm simply saying squadrons are good they simply take a lot more practice to use correctly. In addition it has always been my opinion that objectives make more difference than anything, for example my next list I might try is 4 CR90s with some upgrades and 9 A-wings, why because the objectives are what will make the list win IMO. I only hope this game continues down its path and people continue to try new things. Again congrats to the winner and others who had a chance to play in the first nationals, If there is some imbalance in fighters it will inevitably change when wave 2 arrives so we will just have to wait and see which strategy plays out, if any. I would simply say don't underestimate fighters yet and keep flying, casually!

meh I still personally don't see it

since it seems the prevalent gripe against squadrons is how hard they are to use, and yet the winning list is a fleet that I consider far more difficult to effectively utilize than squadrons

Do you think you can beat the guys who just won this tournament, then?

Or is it possible you are just wrong?

if they can pilot those fleets well, I highly doubt it

that's why I want to play them

Every one just relax, play the game and wait for wave two.

That is when we will truly be playing armada the way ffg intended.

Hope my friends, hope.

Everyone keep in mind this is the internet therefore it is impossible to "win" a debate or discussion or argument. And with respect (as adding a due before it tends to mean the opposite) there is no way to judge anyone's skill on the inter webs unless their games are available for view or consistently place high in large tourneys. So let's try to avoid assuming that someone can beat the tourney winner... Or disparage someone because they very well might.

Currently it appears that ship heavy lists are appearing to have "the upper hand" in comparison to a squadron heavy list but things change. Particularly if someone views this as a challenge, builds a fighter heavy list and wins the next tourney, or wave 2 rolls through and everything is upended.

A lot of tactics put forth by those advocating squadrons, or at least that they aren't irrelevant, seem sound. And if squadron heavy, or balanced lists, are going to show up next time they start with sound theory. The biggest thing those of is who did not atted are missing is the how these tournament lists maneuvered.

As for a guess for the next major tourney lists, I will guess that a Rhymer ball list will show up.

In any case I am loving the debate, let's just try to keep it civil.... Though this is the internet.

I had this exact debate just after the game launched. As a tournament player for many games, I can summarize my feelings on squadrons in two very brief points.

1. Loss of activations. Having more ships during the activation phase is HUGE due to alternating activation.

2. Points your opponent doesn't have to destroy to table you. If I have 300 points of ships and you have 220 + 80 in squads, you have to destroy all 300 points for a full score, I only need to hit 220 and will get the bonus 80 for free if I get your ships.

Indomitable,

Sometimes in a debate with two sides, one side is just wrong. It's not a question of balance, or hope, or assuming things away. Right now:

• Tthe majority of the best lists at Gencon flew no or minimal squadronds.
• Several players on here who are already winning tournaments or placing well have all leaned no-ship, and this is often after experimentation with squadron-heavy lists.
• Several of these people also have shown a real willingness to revise their opinions as they accumulate more data.

The core argument I see being made by most people who are doing well in competitive play is not that squadrons are hard to use, but that mechanically they just don't work well. I find them easy to use; I just find they also suck because they are easy to counter. It's not an issue of "more skill" to use them.

This is back to the old analogy I used to use with racing:

If you can beat a guy around a standard track in a bone stock Honda Civic when he is racing a Corvette Z06, then you hugely outclass your opponent. If you switch cars, you will crush him through the floor. It's not an issue of one taking "more skill" to use, it's just one is worse. This is what I suspect is going on with vanilla squadrons, because using them almost always puts you at both an activation and coordination disadvantage when you get past the "small" amount of squadrons (the filler points where you didn't have a ship or upgrades).

Contrast this to people who basically have been repeating the same arguments since day 1 and still won't accept that someone just won the largest tournament to date with no squadrons, and as best we can tell from reports, the entire raft of top tables featured no or minimal squadrons.

At some point, real-world evidence should carry the day, especially on the internet, where as you said, everyone can be full of it.

At some point, real-world evidence should carry the day, especially on the internet, where as you said, everyone can be full of it.

Perhaps, but that point is not after the first meaningfully competitive event in the game's history. Is it suggestive, sure. Is it something everyone needs to account for in their arguments, sure.

It's nonetheless a long way from being unassailable proof that squadron lists are strictly inferior to ship lists.

At some point, real-world evidence should carry the day, especially on the internet, where as you said, everyone can be full of it.

Perhaps, but that point is not after the first meaningfully competitive event in the game's history. Is it suggestive, sure. Is it something everyone needs to account for in their arguments, sure.

It's nonetheless a long way from being unassailable proof that squadron lists are strictly inferior to ship lists.

Fair, but I would like to see theory from the pro-squadron crowd on how a squadron-heavy list will tangle with something like 1xVSD / 3xGSD or the 2x whale 1x CR90 list with A-wings to troll the squadrons.

As in, things like not how do B-wings work in isolation, as an example, but how do you engage with them when your opponent has superior activations or when they have long range interceptors that can lock up the B-wings at range before approaching.

Perhaps another avenue of argument, that no one seems to be discussing, is objectives. All of the discussion (and from the pic I saw, it was telling) is on straight up 40k-style combat: line up and shoot till dead. Said match picture, a few pages back, had a red going on. Seems like people are looking to put ships on the table and shoot eachother all day.

I wonder how much these objectives would alter things if building lists around them? I find it odd that first players seem to be content taking the Reds that are often heavily stacked against them in pure combat. Perhaps 2 ship lists are hamstrung hardcore by reds when compared to 4 ship lists?

Objectives are one of the major considerations to Armada, imo, and that all the tournament discussion and details center around: "These all-ship lists pewpew the best when flown well" is telling. Anyone notice how often non-red objectives cropped up?

I initially hailed this game on how well its objectives steered the game away from the standard 40k "line-em-up-and-shoot-till-dead" mentality...yet people still did this at GenCon (from all accounts heard so far). Either I was wrong and shooting-till-dead with the most guns IS the best way to play; or these competitive players are just bringing their past baggage to the table and missing other options entirely. Maybe we need more options for objectives to effect the game while contending with an opponent who only wants to table us?

I didn't see any interceptors in the winning list Typically, though, in the case of interceptors, you could also have...interceptors (it's a matter of initiative, usually)

That, plus the fact that they're not trivially priced. Even 4 As is already running you the value of a cr-90a, and they're a lot easier to kill when the enemy has squadrons than when he does not. They are not an auto-win button; if not properly coordinated with the main offensive of the fleet, they can end up just being free points for the opponent (Especially if you engage a body of squadrons, only to have one enemy ship activate some of them and blow away the engaging interceptors, and then have another enemy ship activate the bombers as if nothing happened).

now if we're talking serious anti-squadron (interceptors, howlie, flight controllers) things get more complicated, but seeing as how the tournament is stressing minimal interceptors or ship-pure that doesn't seem to be a problem yet. with that kind of dedication, you have enough points wrapped up in squadron anti-squadron that the strategy shifts from enabling bombers to killing the interceptors (preferably with anti-ship fire, or some ship enabled upgrade such as haven).

the rest depends on how you define "squadron heavy." Personally, I don't enjoy skews in either direction so I avoid putting everything into squadrons and instead grab some 80-90 points (4 xs or As, 3 bs or wedge+luke+dutch and 2 xs have so far been my favorites; going heavier with rhymer + 1 bomber + 3 advance and 1 interceptor and 2 ties for imperials) of squadrons and some limited tech (Yavaris or haven, have yet to put them together). It is very possible to construct these lists while still having squadrons contribute meaningfully in ways other ships simply cannot (long range fire from rhymer which imperials can't match, close range fire from b-wings which rebels can't match; anti-squadron utility in engagements ala interceptors & a-wings). As I don't like squadron-skews, I can't really speak for them apart from the theory.

back to ships v squadrons:

when your opponent has "superior activations" you have "superior range." GSDs especially have no way to get in range of a commanding ship without first getting into range of a b-wing. CR-90s and fatties are harder to pin down with their long range, but you can position b-wings coinciding to the enemy facing. Unless they're running directly away from the commanding ship (in which case they're exposing very sub-optimal rear arcs), you should be able to nab them with more than medium range (especially if you're hiding your commanding ship behind the medium command range, forcing the enemy to get closer to you)

squadrons themselves have a sort of "superior activation" in that you get one "super activation" by piggy-backing off of the commanding ship. Before the enemy activates, the commanding ship can throw essentially 2-ships worth of firepower (from squadrons and then from itself). Unlike ships, which have to be positioned prior in order to overcome "shoot, then move" unengaged squadrons have very flexible positioning and no arc-dependencies when it comes to unloading their anti-ship dice

most importantly, though, is that not only will ships try to ignore the squadrons; they sort of have to. It takes a painfully long time for a single anti-squadron blue die to amount to any significant damage, giving squadrons even more free reign of positioning in an enemy squadron-free environment.

Looking for the positives (from a wanting squadrons perspective) there was a limit to the activation advantage. The 6 CR-90 list didn't win everything, just did really well. Also, the second place was a 3 ship list. So activation advantage is powerful but not everything. So if you want to make squadrons relevant, you need a list that maintains activation relevance (so not too few ships) but then takes advantage of the damage spike that squadrons offer.

For example, in the 2nd place list the guy had A-wings and reported they did a fair amount of damage. The squadron command meant that he could get an extra 3 black (limited) dice on a critical turn. Even better is the banked squadron token, giving a "free" extra die in addition to a CF command.

Looking for the positives (from a wanting squadrons perspective) there was a limit to the activation advantage. The 6 CR-90 list didn't win everything, just did really well. Also, the second place was a 3 ship list. So activation advantage is powerful but not everything. So if you want to make squadrons relevant, you need a list that maintains activation relevance (so not too few ships) but then takes advantage of the damage spike that squadrons offer.

For example, in the 2nd place list the guy had A-wings and reported they did a fair amount of damage. The squadron command meant that he could get an extra 3 black (limited) dice on a critical turn. Even better is the banked squadron token, giving a "free" extra die in addition to a CF command.

Indeed. I think people keep piling too much into one aspect of the game or another. Claiming "activations are god" really doesn't follow; as, like you said, CR-90 swarms really aren't competitive...just annoying as hell to play against. You need agency to back up your activations. You also need to not have "too many" as you risk running out of actual places to put the ships to actually use them: the DR of 4+ GSDs for example.

And, as i've mentioned and you point out here, people seem to view the use of Squadron commands as a simple waste of an activation for their ship. I can't fathom the reasoning for this when you can simply see your VSD with NO squadron upgrades ushering 3 black-dice-wielding ships into the exact arc you want to shoot (SupPos rear shots, unshielded far side, etc) which is objectively better than adding a single die of your choice to ONE of your (potentially) two shots.

Funny, that, as I've never really considered this point until this very discussion. I too, saw squad commands in leu of CF as a waste, but that can never be the case imo unless you're down to only fighters. And the only reason I have said fighters is to allow my bombers to do work if the opponent has fighters. If people insist on this trend of all-ships...I guess the best course, in Meta-listing, is to take ~4 advances instead of any fighters/interceptors at all, so that the few lists that run around with fighters can be held up while my bombers can still do work; and against all-ship lists I have a metric-ton of black dice to add to my offense that are much more effective in focus-firing than another GSD imo.

EDIT

So instead of:

Howl

2x TIE/ln

2x TIE/int

Vader

Rhymer

TIE/sa

I would, due to meta, run:

3x TIE/adv

Vader

Rhymer

3x TIE/sa

8 black dice at medium range...that I can add to any of my activations, or just sit on a medium-range swivel with Rhymer. A ball that can't really be killed by AA fire very well at all. Not to mention you'll have to contend with choice of SupPos or Prec Strike if you're first...and You'll eat all these dice turn 1 if you choose ambush.

I'm sorry if people think I'm insulting the top players, I'm sure they're amazing players and I'd give anything to play them; I just am convinced they are missing something in their zeal for competitive play. I think that years of other wargames have informed their thought processes on how to play "effectively"...and I honestly feel that FFG is the first company to succeed in creating a game that breaks this "meta" thought on wargames.

If I find i'm wrong, well then i'll be beyond disappointed but I'll get over it cuz pushing Star Wars ships around a board is fun even with bad rules (and even if the 40k mentality wins out here, the rules are FAR from bad...so we all win )

I find mm cr90 swarms to be highly competitive

Just not easy to play

I find mm cr90 swarms to be highly competitive

Just not easy to play

I don't think they have the agency to effectively win (consistently against enough lists). Essentially, Warhammer Fantasy Dwarves in space

Of course, I could be wrong; and they do kind of shred TIE/lns and ints like no ones business since they have so many **** arcs

Every one just relax, play the game and wait for wave two.

That is when we will truly be playing armada the way ffg intended.

Hope my friends, hope.

Exactly, above results only apply to wave 1. TBA on the future.

I had this exact debate just after the game launched. As a tournament player for many games, I can summarize my feelings on squadrons in two very brief points.

1. Loss of activations. Having more ships during the activation phase is HUGE due to alternating activation.

2. Points your opponent doesn't have to destroy to table you. If I have 300 points of ships and you have 220 + 80 in squads, you have to destroy all 300 points for a full score, I only need to hit 220 and will get the bonus 80 for free if I get your ships.

I had this exact debate just after the game launched. As a tournament player for many games, I can summarize my feelings on squadrons in two very brief points.

1. Loss of activations. Having more ships during the activation phase is HUGE due to alternating activation.

2. Points your opponent doesn't have to destroy to table you. If I have 300 points of ships and you have 220 + 80 in squads, you have to destroy all 300 points for a full score, I only need to hit 220 and will get the bonus 80 for free if I get your ships.

Bingo! I played a 300 point tournament yesterday day and he had a TON of squadrons, I played 2 Assault Frigates and 2 Support Frigates. I tabled him even though he killed one of my Assault Frigates. I won and got 300 points for killing 2 ships and ignoring his squadrons. Sure those squadrons shipped shields and did some damage but they were useless once I killed his second ship.

That...makes me really sad. So the objectives didn't matter either? It just came down to killing the other force? I'll be honest, that's kinda bull to me. I was really interested in this game because of the manuever aspect and the objectives meaning it didn't always have to be about a straight up fight. If that's not a valid way of playing Armada right now...maybe I've invested my money poorly.

I think we're getting a little hyperbolic if we ever sat the objective didn't matter. At the very least the obj compels players to move a certain way.

I've played about 15 games so far. Not a whole lot, I know. But at all theses games only one was not decided by the objective (got myself tabled), all other games I won thanks to the objectives (mostly 300 point games, the last 4 were 400 points though). For me that's a very important part of the game, if it moves away from that than Armada will not be attractive anymore (I rather play more X Wing then). In my opinion 400 points is the most you can do with the objectives rules as they are, in larger games the impact of the objectives is too small.