maybe the scoring syatem is broken? It gives way to much for "tabling" your apponet without needing to kill ALL his fighters and not enough for real adjectives. that or fighters need to be better at damageing ships.

I think that if they simply didnt count the fighter points towards a victory when all ships are destroyed is one option but If this would be good or bad I dont know but something needs to be done or this game will devolve into ship vs ship. If I wanted that I would play Xwing.

Not counting Squadrons left on the table, but still having complete Ship destruction immediately end the game, invites more situations in which a player will score higher by running thier last ship off the table. Essentially they can score more points by forcefully conceding as opposed to attempting to play out the remaining rounds.

What about merging the ship and squadron phase entirely? All other rules would remain the same. Activate one ship or two squadrons. Squadrons require Rogue or Command to move and shoot in one activation.

Gives squadrons the one value they are missing, activations, and they're already point capped to prevent spam.

There isn't enough room to do what people are claiming to do with all-ship builds. It's really that simple. Perhaps some people will get really good at maneuvering their swarm of ships, and be able to line up tons of double arc shots on demand consistently; but one blocking move from your opponent can bring your swarm to a halt.

It is funny, to me, that people claim squadrons are mentally taxing: mirroring X-Wing in that most people like to take 2 powerful ships since 8 TIEs drains you mentally. Yet this is completely wrong. Squadrons are the thing in armada that give you freedom. Running 5+ ships is like running 8 TIEs in X-Wing, only much much worse...at least to fly well. You have to fly perfectly to bring all the dice you bought to bear effectively, and any mishap will set you back.

And, Lyraeus, you say that the goal is to smash my two ships? Of course, my goal is to smash all yours. I don't play for points with my balanced list, I play to table. I make it happen 3/4 of the time. The only all-ship list that annoys (doesn't even worry me, I just want my 10-0) are corevette swarms. They are like the Warhammer Fantasy Dwarves of SW: Armada in denying your opponent real wins.

I don't quite understand how people can take a well-established meta from X-Wing and come over to another game with similar objective realities (kill the ship for the points: favors fat turrets in X-Wing) and basically throw the concepts out the window in Armada cuz they think they're extra clever (when they're the opposite imo).

The bottom line is that you need to effectively use the points you spent on your list. A balanced list of: ships, upgrades, fighters, and bombers is the only way to pull this off. It is amazing, for me, to finally see a wargame that is set up in the exact way I wanted to play one...balance and options. Armada is the first game of this type to actually pull this off. X-Wing failed, but got close. 40k is the worst. Warhammer Fantasy is bad. Haven't heard of it in all the other games like Maulefaux, etc. So i'm just sitting here happy as a clam, seeing how this game is designed and wondering why everyone things they can play "wrong" and it be OK?

Time will tell, but I am more than confident that balanced fleets will win out to powergaming-theory lists.

I've been thinking of getting into this game some day. Not like I have with X-Wing but getting the Core, Wave 1 and Wave 2 only then stopping. I really can't afford another living game right now but I like the idea of mixed fleets of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and fighter/bombers in space. Plus it is Star Wars after all and reminds me of playing Empire at War (which I still play).

I'm waiting to see how balanced it is after Wave 2 hits but... I'm thinking of one each of everything. That should be enough fighters (interceptors, bombers, etc.) right?

But either way it'll be a while until Wave 2 hits the stores and reviews are out regarding balance.

Let me just put this into context so perhaps some posters can see the absurdity of some things being said.

You want FFG to change the fundemental rules of the game, because in the only non-local level event, some players had success with no Squadron builds. To add many reports from this event make note f the fact that more then a few of the reporting players opponents throughout the day were clearly either playing in thier first event, or really just playing at all for the first few times.

I think calls to change the base rules of the game on that basis are extremely premature and ungrounded, specifically when we are still playing at a point level other then intended, and with the smallest pool of options that will ever be available to us.

Results don't lie, but they also don't mean what some are building them up as.

...

I don't like that limitation kippryon. Being tactically tied to having squadrons means that people will have to play more of the same lists and the same builds. Creativity will stagnant because you will entirely change and force the way people build their lists

...

The opening scene in a new hope

Your opinion is understandable.

BTW- Were there any Star Wars battles in which capital ships fought without squadrons?

I can't seem to find a single one.

If you know of any, please post the link.

Thank you sir.

Why don't you tell me what the has to do with this anyways. This is a game, if you want squadrons or fighters play X-Wing. This game is about the capital ships being the focus.

Look at it this way, your "house rule" is going to be taught to new players, those new players might want to go play in a tournament, they could possibly go into said tournament under the impression that people there will play like your play group so they will be expecting that style of meta. They will then be in for a very rude awakening when people play differently than what they expect. This can lead to them hating the game and that to me is just wrong.

guys, you can cite any "spirit of the game" and any fluff you want, but sadly gameplay always takes priority (because Armada is a game)

if people want to run squadron-free, they should be able to do so (can even be fluffy, such as a floatilla of cr-90s running blockcades)

now if it is proven that squadrons are not working well ito gameplay, then it has to be addressed by FFG itself.

Squadrons are a part of the game and no one can deny that. They're a part you can choose to ignore, but they're a part nonetheless. If they're a part you have to ignore to be competitive, then phone Houston (cause we have a problem)

Well I don't know about all that. His group has a house rule. I'm guessing they like it. Nothing wrong with that. if they get a rude awakening at a tourney, then they'll have a good learning experience!

Let me just put this into context so perhaps some posters can see the absurdity of some things being said.

You want FFG to change the fundemental rules of the game, because in the only non-local level event, some players had success with no Squadron builds. To add many reports from this event make note f the fact that more then a few of the reporting players opponents throughout the day were clearly either playing in thier first event, or really just playing at all for the first few times.

I think calls to change the base rules of the game on that basis are extremely premature and ungrounded, specifically when we are still playing at a point level other then intended, and with the smallest pool of options that will ever be available to us.

Results don't lie, but they also don't mean what some are building them up as.

While I hypothesized about the possible benefits of merging the ship and squadron activations yesterday, it was specifically in the context of the activation discrepancy heavy squadron builds face versus zero squadron builds. I was not advocating a rules change, and I agree completely with you that we have far too small of a sample size, from a highly competitive event with wildly varying skill levels, to draw any sort of conclusions. However, as the game matures if the zero squadron builds remain very strong, FFG will need to think about whether that's good for the game (competitively) and adjust tournament rules and scoring accordingly.

I doubt very much that they would make such drastic changes to the core rules of the game, so nobody should be seriously considering that as a possibility.

Merging the two phases would result in squadron spam for the sake of activation advantage. This would favor the imperials with one activation costing 16 points (2 TIE fighters) vs the rebel of 20 points (2 Y-wings). It would also make buying rebel fighter packs essential to spam Y-wings or A-wings. Hence it doesn't really solve the issue, just pushes activation spam in a different direction.

It would also lessen the power of the squadron command as then it no longer it needed to get squadron first strike status.

Merging the two phases would result in squadron spam for the sake of activation advantage. This would favor the imperials with one activation costing 16 points (2 TIE fighters) vs the rebel of 20 points (2 Y-wings). It would also make buying rebel fighter packs essential to spam Y-wings or A-wings. Hence it doesn't really solve the issue, just pushes activation spam in a different direction.

It would also lessen the power of the squadron command as then it no longer it needed to get squadron first strike status.

Agreed.

First: We definitely need more testing. I would not be ready to suggest changes to the game at this stage without more data.

Second: I think the least disruptive change, if we are talking rules changes and not producing cards with effects that are hard to guess in advance, would be to allow squadrons to move and attack ships (but not other squadrons) in the squadron phase. This would make them dangerous enough to ships that they cannot be ignored, and would incentivize at least taking fighter screens and commanding them long enough to tarpit opposing bombers. I feel that this would match the cinematic experience people have in mind (ships engaging, squadrons meet battling each other, and those that win/daringly break through go after the ships) and make squadrons worth taking. Again, too early to know in concrete fashion, however.

I almost wonder if it worked like this in testing, and that was the genesis of the 1/3rd squadron limit... (otherwise 24 Y-wings, hide one corvette with Dodonna in back is a real list).

Merging the two phases would result in squadron spam for the sake of activation advantage. This would favor the imperials with one activation costing 16 points (2 TIE fighters) vs the rebel of 20 points (2 Y-wings). It would also make buying rebel fighter packs essential to spam Y-wings or A-wings. Hence it doesn't really solve the issue, just pushes activation spam in a different direction.

It would also lessen the power of the squadron command as then it no longer it needed to get squadron first strike status.

Agreed.

First: We definitely need more testing. I would not be ready to suggest changes to the game at this stage without more data.

Second: I think the least disruptive change, if we are talking rules changes and not producing cards with effects that are hard to guess in advance, would be to allow squadrons to move and attack ships (but not other squadrons) in the squadron phase. This would make them dangerous enough to ships that they cannot be ignored, and would incentivize at least taking fighter screens and commanding them long enough to tarpit opposing bombers. I feel that this would match the cinematic experience people have in mind (ships engaging, squadrons meet battling each other, and those that win/daringly break through go after the ships) and make squadrons worth taking. Again, too early to know in concrete fashion, however.

I almost wonder if it worked like this in testing, and that was the genesis of the 1/3rd squadron limit... (otherwise 24 Y-wings, hide one corvette with Dodonna in back is a real list).

It's an interesting idea. I guess my hang-up is that squadrons can already do this in the ship phase. As long as you use squadron commands, your squadron can move and shoot at any target it likes, ship or squadron (unless it's engaged, of course... though I'm assuming this revision wouldn't alter the way "engagement" works).

Maybe I'm missing something, but if this change is made, what would be the use of the squadron command? Getting the first volley in against enemy squadrons you're already engaged with, I guess... and not much beyond that?

Right now, I wholeheartedly believe that we need to see what Wave 2 brings. Squadrons have a lot of issues in wave 1 for sure. Here are the disadvantages I see:

- Squadrons have trouble dealing damage to fast capital ships without squadron commands.

- Squadrons as a result end up being very Command hungry.

- At 300pts, dedicated carriers are rather pricey. 56pts minimum for Squadron 2 (Gladiator I), 72pts for Squadron 3 (AFmkIIb). At those price points, your carriers need to be pulling double duty and attack enemies.

- Within 300 points, spending enough points on bombers to be truly decisive means likely playing with an activation disadvantage ship wise.

Notice how a lot of this is a function of available points? Wave 2 should help quite a bit though.

-400 points means there is room for a decent fighter force with command support without giving up as much versus an all ship fleet.

-The ship activation meta is likely to change. Large ships appear to be able to put out crippling firepower while both sides will have a light vessel to 'activation sink' with. Being down a GSD or two is much less bad when you have and ISD that can crack them open and a few Raiders to block or otherwise sink activations.

-Additional upgrades to improve dedicated carriers, coupled with a higher point cap, should improve squadron support.

I think Wave 2 likely kills the all ship build stone dead. Based on the spoilers so far, a base Firespray rocks up with 2 blue anti ship dice, Rogue and Bomber keywords and looks to be under 20 points. 6 or 7 of those largely cripples a Gladiator level ship every single turn, isn't tied to squadron commands and can move and fire.

Right now, I wholeheartedly believe that we need to see what Wave 2 brings. Squadrons have a lot of issues in wave 1 for sure. Here are the disadvantages I see:

- Squadrons have trouble dealing damage to fast capital ships without squadron commands.

- Squadrons as a result end up being very Command hungry.

- At 300pts, dedicated carriers are rather pricey. 56pts minimum for Squadron 2 (Gladiator I), 72pts for Squadron 3 (AFmkIIb). At those price points, your carriers need to be pulling double duty and attack enemies.

- Within 300 points, spending enough points on bombers to be truly decisive means likely playing with an activation disadvantage ship wise.

Notice how a lot of this is a function of available points? Wave 2 should help quite a bit though.

-400 points means there is room for a decent fighter force with command support without giving up as much versus an all ship fleet.

-The ship activation meta is likely to change. Large ships appear to be able to put out crippling firepower while both sides will have a light vessel to 'activation sink' with. Being down a GSD or two is much less bad when you have and ISD that can crack them open and a few Raiders to block or otherwise sink activations.

-Additional upgrades to improve dedicated carriers, coupled with a higher point cap, should improve squadron support.

Definitely agree that right now squadrons need to be properly supported with squadron commands to be effective. Going even further, I would say that in my experience their performance is very polarized : either you support them with Squadron Commands from dedicated ships and they are absolutely devastating (3 X-Wings and Wedge, on a Gallant Haven with Expanded Hangar Bays and Tallon by killing all the enemy fighters then doing a total of 5 damage (shields + hull) on a VSD), or you don't support them with squadron command from ships and they are mainly a screen where its value lies in smart positioning.

The fact that they can't keep up with super fast ships without squadron commands is a bit of a bummer currently (because they can get out of the Command range of their carrier quite easily if it's a slow carrier) indeed.

At 400 points (having my first 400 points game tonight, ironically with only one Neb Escort as a carrier ship), they seem to be easier to both field and support. Points aren't as tight and it is quite pleasant

Merging the two phases would result in squadron spam for the sake of activation advantage. This would favor the imperials with one activation costing 16 points (2 TIE fighters) vs the rebel of 20 points (2 Y-wings). It would also make buying rebel fighter packs essential to spam Y-wings or A-wings. Hence it doesn't really solve the issue, just pushes activation spam in a different direction.

It would also lessen the power of the squadron command as then it no longer it needed to get squadron first strike status.

I think having squadrons be able to dock, repair, and launch would be a better solution. If the huge ships can replace lost hit points then so should squadrons if they want to be competitive pieces. Now I know that the hit points are more like ships being lost and not just damage but again with all the abstractness of the ship I'm sure there is a way to abstract repairs.

Maybe but will you actually have time in a match to do that? Better to just have an upgrade like Hangar Bays that lets you replenish squadrons HP by say 2 when you use a Squadron Command. Kinda like Flight Controllers.

I dont feel there's much wrong with squadrons themselves....my gut feel is that the problem is in the tournament scoring format.

If you only scored for the ships you actually killed, rather than getting a full 300 for tabling just the capital ships, how would this change things? Genuine question, i dont have enough serious tournament experience yet to answer this.

Would only getting 200pts for killing the capital ships hurt enough that suddenly those fighters seem like a good investment?

The tournament scoring format is garbage. And i say that as someone who's TO'ed and judged 7 tournaments so far.

My main problem with squadrons is that the activation range is too short. Should have been out to long range. Carriers, especially rebels, have to be too close to activate squadrons.

Personally the easiest solution if the game DOES favor squadron-less lists too heavily is to force you to bring a squadron for every Squad value on your ships. Keeps ship spam down. But i'm hesitant to force this until we see whether or not squadron-less lists do in fact dominate.

In 2 tournaments I've seen Squadron-less lists get ripped to shreds by bombers.

300 points is not much to field squadrons with punch. That might have been the problem. I recently had success with a fighter and a bomber wing, both five strong and ace-heavy. But that was a 450 points game and even then I couldn't take everything I wanted.

Would only getting 200pts for killing the capital ships hurt enough that suddenly those fighters seem like a good investment?

As mentioned somewhere else, the difficulty in going that direction is that suddenly you create an incentive for someone to table themselves. Okay, if the match keeps going to the bitter end, I could lose my 200 points of ships plus fighters. If, on the other hand, I drive my ship off the board right now my fighters don't die and don't give my opponent points.