Today I played a casual 300-point game against one of the local players. I was Imperial and took a zero squadron list ( link to fleet here ).

The Rebel fleet consisted of an AF2 (enhanced armament and advanced projectors, Gallant Haven) and a Neb-B (the Yavaris). He also fielded an X-Wing, an A-Wing, two Y-Wings, a B-Wing, Tycho and Keyan. The Yavaris had Adar Tallon aboard and his Admiral was Garm Bel Iblis. The scenario was Superior Positions, Imperials were the first player. As the Imperials I went into this game intent to fly though his squadrons and kill his two ships thus winning the game by tabling him. It didn't go according to plan.

The game ran 6 turns and resulted in his Squadrons killing both of the VSDs. The GSD was unharmed. The Rebels lost the Yavaris but their AF2 escaped. Essentially a pretty decisive Rebel Squadron victory. If the game would have lasted another turn I am pretty confident that the AF2 would have been finished off. My flagship VSD was finished off with the last die roll of the game in the Squadron phase.

To me my experience lends ammo to the theory that: No Squadrons beats Few Squadrons. Few Squadrons beats Many Squadrons. Many Squadrons beats No Squadrons.

I hope he did not use Adar Tallon to activate a squadron 3 times in one Yavaris activation.

Squadrons are great and as it was said in the interview with one of the Armada developer's, the winning list never ran up against a squadron heavy list. There was also a squadron heavy rebel list that came in at 10th

At least until wave 2 hits the FLGS!

I took out a vsd with Monti on it with a yavaris and some xwings and y wings. And that was after he took my whale out in one turn in the second round with two very good rolls. I thought I was done for but my squads saved the day. I won the round and the tourney. I think squads are a great part of the game and people who never use them are really missing out on the full game experience

I hope he did not use Adar Tallon to activate a squadron 3 times in one Yavaris activation.

Nope, he didn't violate that rule.

Keyan is brutal when his buddies wipe out your shields and you make the mistake of just plowing through the squadrons so he doesn't have to move to blast you. 10 Hull can get drained pretty quick by a mob of squadrons.

My mistake was thinking I would just ignore the squadrons and obliterate him with my firepower.

same thing im thinking:

squads:

none > few > many > none. cirrrcle of life.

> is "beats".

none > few > many > none. cirrrcle of life.

> is "beats".

Hm, I like the simplicity of this, but how useful is it when some squadrons have bomber and others are meant for superiority?

none > few > many > none. cirrrcle of life.

> is "beats".

Hm, I like the simplicity of this, but how useful is it when some squadrons have bomber and others are meant for superiority?

Well lets look at it this way:

out of 300

If you took 100 points of fighters, you'd be a **** fool to make them all ints. So therefore, if you took 100 ish points of fighters (meaning "lots"), you have bombers.

Honestly, this is probably how the game is meant to be played... and, you'll probably blow up the "none" lists. AGainst the few/many lists, well. You got a game.

At 50 or so points, you could have only ints: You're DEFINITELY losing to no squadrons. (A-wings exception. As many have found out). A couple A-wings do pretty good. I like them.

50 points of bombers vs no squads. Hmm. That's a very interesting proposition, I think you'll win vs none. And die vs some ints.

none? Pretty decent if they take a small mixed int/bomber.

--

Again, abstraction. But, really, if the opponent plays right and their dice don't fail, this is likely going to happen on a small scale. You might be able to pull out a win regardless from objectives or some good carrier kills.

I was about to start a post about this. I played a game the other day (my first 300pt game, before that we just played the into game). My opponent had 2 VSD, 1 GSD, Soontir, 1 * TIE Interceptors and Howlrunner. I forget his upgrades, there was one Enhanced Armament and something that lets him shoot twice from the same hull zone, oh and missiles.

I had:

B Wing * 3
A Wing * 2
Y Wing * 2
Dutch Vander

Assault Frigate Mark II B
Gallant Haven

Nebulon-B Escort Frigate
Yavaris

Can't remember which ships these upgrades were on:
Expanded Hanger Bay
Flight Controllers
Mon Mothma
Raymus Antilles
Enhanced Armament

I can't remember the name of the mission, it was one where he set all his stuff up first, and you got VPs for shooting someone up the bum. I set mine up facing sideways so I could use my speed to swing round behind him, managed to get a lot of my squadrons into the fight with one of the VSDs (after finishing off his fighters in no time, of course) while his other ships took several turns to get in range to engage. By the end of round 6 I'd just killed one VSD, while both my ships and most of my fighters were alive

Well, I should mention all this is after my AS2 flew off the board in the first round as I'd underestimated how far it would move, but we pretended that didn't happen (as that would have been instant death and would have meant starting the game again, and as we were only two activations in we just saved time by moving the ship a bit).

This was taken around the midpoint of turn 3.

none > few > many > none. cirrrcle of life.

> is "beats".

Hm, I like the simplicity of this, but how useful is it when some squadrons have bomber and others are meant for superiority?

If you took 100 points of fighters, you'd be a **** fool to make them all ints. So therefore, if you took 100 ish points of fighters (meaning "lots"), you have bombers.

I'll admit that a Rhymer ball of Rhymer and 9 TIE bombers is going to give a 'None' list a very hard day.

I want to coin the phrase: 'RhymerBall T' (T for TIE).

But how many people have invested into the 5 packets of imperial squadrons that's necessary to make such a list? (Only 4 packets for the rebel equivalent.)

So, let's say that someone opting for the 'Many' option is going to have a mix of bombers and fighters. I'd say that with the None list being so dominant, you're be a **** fool to take less than 61 points of bombers (Rhymer+5). The rest you spend on escorts of some type. That still means you are not really doing a Many Squadrons option with less than 3 packets of Imperial squadrons. (Rebels may vary - go math out your own options, insurrectionist scum!)

Okay, my brain is out of wisdom right now (lack of sleep; maybe lack of brain too), so where the discussion should probably go next is the degree to which an '>' is determinative. Obviously, it ain't a '>' if the odds are less than 50%, but let's not go and say that it's 100% either. I don't think there are auto-wins in this game.

But what do you think?

To me my experience lends ammo to the theory that: No Squadrons beats Few Squadrons. Few Squadrons beats Many Squadrons. Many Squadrons beats No Squadrons.

Theory or not, actual events counter it. Top tables at last half of GenCon, 90+ participants, handful of squadrons in TOTAL.

What was the final score of your game?...by FFG Tournament scoring. Don't forget points from Superior Positions.

The "none, few, many" distinction is misleading and lacking info at best, useless and retarded at worst.

I've already touched on this numerous times. Squadrons are not squadrons...fighters and bombers are so important to your squadron loadout that to say "squadrons" alone is simply meaningless.

The issue is all-bomber lists have a decided advantage against all-ship lists; but if they see a list with ANY fighter support it instantly losses ~1/3 of its ability to fight. Hence you throttle back bombers to add superiority fighters.

Any list with ALL fighters, is at a decided disadvantage against most lists...only mirror lists it ties with.

The idea is to either:

A.) use a split of bombers and superiority fighters. My opinion is 1/4 of your squad points, at most, on bombers, rest on fighters.

B.) spam one squadron that does it all: A-Wings, B-Wings, or TIE/adv.

C.) all ships...I still feel this is still at a disadvantage to any list with decent squad-batteries. Though it might trump balanced lists and force black-dice-non-bomber spam like As and TIE/advs.

To me my experience lends ammo to the theory that: No Squadrons beats Few Squadrons. Few Squadrons beats Many Squadrons. Many Squadrons beats No Squadrons.

Theory or not, actual events counter it. Top tables at last half of GenCon, 90+ participants, handful of squadrons in TOTAL.

What was the final score of your game?...by FFG Tournament scoring. Don't forget points from Superior Positions.

I don't see the results of the first major tournament conclusively countering this theroy at all. For one, how many dedicated bomber lists were there?

In any testing my local group has done in the lead up to our own National event, a list very similar to the Gencon winner has been extremely effective vs other minimal/nil squadron builds. It has, however, lost badly (9-1, 10-0 & 10-0) on the three occasions bomber lists have been used against it. Ymmv, but I don't think I am quite ready to discount an entire playstyle this early in the life cycle of the game.

To me my experience lends ammo to the theory that: No Squadrons beats Few Squadrons. Few Squadrons beats Many Squadrons. Many Squadrons beats No Squadrons.

Theory or not, actual events counter it. Top tables at last half of GenCon, 90+ participants, handful of squadrons in TOTAL.

What was the final score of your game?...by FFG Tournament scoring. Don't forget points from Superior Positions.

But you have to consider how many people brought squadrons to begin with. And good players at that. If the vast majority of experienced players brought squadron-light lists due to netlisting, then your natural result is going to be a handful of squadrons at the top tables.

none > few > many > none. cirrrcle of life.

> is "beats".

Hm, I like the simplicity of this, but how useful is it when some squadrons have bomber and others are meant for superiority?

If you took 100 points of fighters, you'd be a **** fool to make them all ints. So therefore, if you took 100 ish points of fighters (meaning "lots"), you have bombers.

I'll admit that a Rhymer ball of Rhymer and 9 TIE bombers is going to give a 'None' list a very hard day.

I want to coin the phrase: 'RhymerBall T' (T for TIE).

But how many people have invested into the 5 packets of imperial squadrons that's necessary to make such a list? (Only 4 packets for the rebel equivalent.)

So, let's say that someone opting for the 'Many' option is going to have a mix of bombers and fighters. I'd say that with the None list being so dominant, you're be a **** fool to take less than 61 points of bombers (Rhymer+5). The rest you spend on escorts of some type. That still means you are not really doing a Many Squadrons option with less than 3 packets of Imperial squadrons. (Rebels may vary - go math out your own options, insurrectionist scum!)

Okay, my brain is out of wisdom right now (lack of sleep; maybe lack of brain too), so where the discussion should probably go next is the degree to which an '>' is determinative. Obviously, it ain't a '>' if the odds are less than 50%, but let's not go and say that it's 100% either. I don't think there are auto-wins in this game.

But what do you think?

I like you a lot. That's what I think.

Anyway.

none beats few beats many beats none.

This is only a guideline. Again, composition of squadrons does make a difference too.

A wings are pretty down and dirty for anything.

You could say, this theory gives you only a slight edge. say 15%. For most of us, we haven't played this game that much (lets face it, this game takes 2 hours per game at the minimum), neither of us are taking maximally optimal lists (that come from netdecking and total metagame experience). Therefore our own efficiencies as players are maybe only 20% out of 50%. Let's say that a little dice luck adds a 10% variance.

Player A is not that skilled, averaging say under 25 games. His skillxbuild efficiency is about 15%. He's taking some wonky build. or a build he doesnt quite understand completely. He has a theoretical advantage of say 15% (which is a lot).

Then his expected efficiency is 30%.

Player B is in love with Armada, but somehow has a disadvantage in build to player A via metagame. He has a skill efficiency of 25%.

Thus: 30% vs 25%. With a 10% plus minus. Can go either way.

However if both palyers are equally skilled....

Then its 40% to 25%, with a 10% plus minus. As you can see. That has to requrie some egregious mistakes.

To me my experience lends ammo to the theory that: No Squadrons beats Few Squadrons. Few Squadrons beats Many Squadrons. Many Squadrons beats No Squadrons.

Theory or not, actual events counter it. Top tables at last half of GenCon, 90+ participants, handful of squadrons in TOTAL.

What was the final score of your game?...by FFG Tournament scoring. Don't forget points from Superior Positions.

One event hardly makes for a meaningful sample size.

Theory or not, actual events counter it. Top tables at last half of GenCon, 90+ participants, handful of squadrons in TOTAL.

What was the final score of your game?...by FFG Tournament scoring. Don't forget points from Superior Positions.

If the game would have gone 7 turns the AF2 would have died since it was badly hurt and the GSD was in an optimum (double firing arc) position. But of course only the situation at the end of turn 6 counts.

It would be interesting to try this game again using a GSD heavy build. But the GSD being more fragile I don't know it it would have worked much better. If they could outrun the Squadrons, maybe. Alternatively a slightly weakened Imp ship force with a few squadrons might have been able to breakup the rebel bomber squadrons.

The "none, few, many" distinction is misleading and lacking info at best, useless and retarded at worst.

I've already touched on this numerous times. Squadrons are not squadrons...fighters and bombers are so important to your squadron loadout that to say "squadrons" alone is simply meaningless.

That's rather overstating the matter. Edsel62 's theory is very simple, which is exactly what a theory should be. I agree that there are sub-types of each that matter, but if you're explaining this to someone who's just gotten into the game, then I think it's a worthwhile way to explain the matter.

Anyway.

none beats few beats many beats none.

This is only a guideline. Again, composition of squadrons does make a difference too.

A wings are pretty down and dirty for anything.

You could say, this theory gives you only a slight edge. say 15%. For most of us, we haven't played this game that much (lets face it, this game takes 2 hours per game at the minimum), neither of us are taking maximally optimal lists (that come from netdecking and total metagame experience). Therefore our own efficiencies as players are maybe only 20% out of 50%. Let's say that a little dice luck adds a 10% variance.

Yes, it's possible to put this theory into context, and it's possible to develop the theory about squadrons more deeply.

Unless there's a higher learning curve on squadrons then on ships (or vice versa), then it's easy just to say 'all other things equal' in terms of putting it into context.

In terms of developing the theory more deeply, let's consider that 'squadrons' in the original formulation refers to a balanced squadron complement. If so, it's debatable if Many > None , because a number of those squadrons (ie. the fighters) will be less efficient at tackling ships than those that have more/better battery dice. (ie. the bombers).

But it's certainly a proposition that deserves testing.

One event hardly makes for a meaningful sample size.

This particular sample probably represents the best grouping of Armada players in the country. So, no, it's not a representative sample, but it is a tournament from which those who keep track of such things will take their cues.

I used your exact same fleet (except for objectives) in a local OP last month and won with no losses. 2 things I'm curious about.

1) were you doing random objectives or did you choose superior positions?

2) what kept you from keeping you 2 victories closer together?

I found in my test games that the best way to take out a Vic is to isolate it. In your pic they seem to have accomplished just that.

Remember DPT (damage per turn) needs to be efficient. If you have 10 Y-Wings but can only put out 12 damage after 6 turns, was that 100 points worth more than a Assault Frigate?

Right now at 300 points I think the games are not favorable to squadrons. They can work well but they have an issue of getting those 9 to 1 and 10 to 0 wins which is currently what is needed. Now there are counters to the Gladiator box but 3 ships are a must. If you are letting your opponent get 2 activations on you. . . Well bad things occur

Right now at 300 points I think the games are not favorable to squadrons.

I've been reading a lot of suggestions that the whole game is going to change once we go up to 400 points. Obviously, it's going to change a great deal with the added material of Wave 2, but people are tying their arguments to the 300->400 points.

What do you believe are the laws of diminishing/increasing returns that make the 300->400 points so critical in regard to squadrons? Is it the case that 100 points is simply too little to have a squadron-heavy list that can compete with squadron-light/none lists. What's so magical about that 100-point ceiling?

I have found 400 to take maybe 20 minutes longer at best and squadrons do very well. They have more support when needed and combat continues on. At 300 points combat seems to be hit and runs for the most part

Remember DPT (damage per turn) needs to be efficient. If you have 10 Y-Wings but can only put out 12 damage after 6 turns, was that 100 points worth more than a Assault Frigate?

Right now at 300 points I think the games are not favorable to squadrons. They can work well but they have an issue of getting those 9 to 1 and 10 to 0 wins which is currently what is needed. Now there are counters to the Gladiator box but 3 ships are a must. If you are letting your opponent get 2 activations on you. . . Well bad things occur

I think this has a lot to do with the misconception of fighters. Because ultimately you do raise a very valid point. Point for point fighters are worse than cap ships for sticking damage. However damage isn't the only thing squadrons bring to the table, by a long shot. For one squadrons have a lot more staying power than caps do against caps. For two, squadrons blank a lot of enemy points (actual points spent on things). For instance, that loaded down GSD with buckets of dice and rude crits is suddenly 70ish points for 2 or 3 blue dice a turn. You also have to consider objectives which, believe it or not, squadrons and their proper use can affect in a tremendous way. For three, 6 instances of a single point of damage can be better than a single instance of 6 points of damage. Those braces and evades suddenly don't exist.

At the end, squadrons, even more than cap ships, require a lot of planning and foresight to use efficiently. Note this is less true with the Empire. The tie bomber ball of doom coupled with being able to move your bombers regardless of engagement means you can be a lot more reactive than the rebels can. Which as a side note for me anyway, means if you are going to run a carrier group Empire has the skills to pay the bills.

Yea and no, while you have a point that the 70 point GSD is bad against squadrons, you have to remember that if you lose all your ships I get 300 points. So why would I care about your squadrons? They can kill a ship or 2 but if you only have 2 ships I go twice as much as you. With more DPT than you.

I agree and which is why I have shied away from squadron heavy Rebel builds. I would rather have 3 Space Potatoes