One thing I've been considering lately, with our squadron debates, is this: perhaps the squadrons themselves aren't the issue, but rather, their support isn't quite good enough?

Consider if you will: Imperials have the VSD to use as its squadron support ship. Even a VSD-1, with Expanded Hangers and Flight Controllers ends up running you a solid 85 points. Add on top of this the cost of your squadrons, which can range anywhere from 32 to 70ish points, you're spending a huge block of your points. Now, of course, you get some decent bang for your buck. However, the VSD's firepower isn't adequately brought to bear in this build, though you're still paying through the nose for all those attack dice. In order to be truly efficient with its squadrons, the VSD should be activating Squadron commands pretty much every turn after the first.

That all being said: I definitely believe there's a place in our lineups for a dedicated carrier ship. Cheaper but as hardy as a VSD, though with less firepower to off-balance its cost. This way, you don't lose the efficiency of your points by putting them into attack dice that are a secondary consideration to your primary role as a fleet carrier.

So, what ship would work well for this? Any thoughts?

VSD works just fine

12 points isn't a whole lot relative to the ship (costs one tie advance), and the points you spend on squadrons are just points spent on squadrons. There are no other ways to add that much firepower to a VSD that is both a.) that long ranged (even without rhymer) and b.) that arc independent.

imo, the VSD-1 is the ideal carrier because of how well Squadrons make up for its horrid lack of maneuverability. The Neb is a bit different with its lower Squadron Value, higher anti-squadron dice, and yavaris; the fattie can run as a carrier very well but it's also just a great broadside ship.

Personally I think it is a waste to do a carrier as it where. Personally what I have been doing is use trying to take the ships that have the Squadron value likeep the MS II or the escort neb B. Then Antilles, Adar Tallon, Admiral Chiraneau maybe Yavais depending on the fighters I take and what I am trying to achieve, then take max fighters.

I do not think you should take every Squadron upgrade card you can just because you want to go squadron heavy, because then you are sacrificing your ships to. You need full strat for your fleet. What general did you take, what are your objectives etc.

I agree, more than that I think a carrier class ship could do things like extend the range from which squadrons cam activate and or hand out free moves without need of a command token or some such. There is a lot of room for squadrons to grow

Personally I believe a carrier (specific) ship will change the state of squads and really fix what people ***** and moan about using them without changing any rules. Something with a squad 5 or 6 with minimal firepower. Something that if you maneuver skillfully can just unload a world or hurt through it's compliment but if you put in a dumb position it will die in short order.

I wish they had gone for a different approach then the current method of each fighter being optional and costing you x points. Like every ship having a certain amount of "free" base fighters (x-wing for rebels, tie-fighter for empire) with you only paying points for the fighters when you decide to upgrade some of your base fighters or include extra squadrons. Obviously, the ships would have to cost more points depending on how many 'free' fighters they come with.

As for dedicated carriers, perhaps a rule that increases their command range?

There is an escort carrier from the west end games imperial source book....from the description of it is 500 meters long...stil want an torpedo sphere and an interdictor;)..

I'll bet a full set of whichever wave it is that finally has them, that within Wave 5 we will see a dedicated carrier for both the Imps and Rebels. My hunch is that it'll be a Quasar Fire for the rebels and a Imperial Escort Carrier for the Imps, but who knows with Episode 7 around the corner.

As for 'Extending range of squadron commands' my guess is there might be an Offensive Upgrade or Weapons Team upgrade - something like "Tactical Holoprojecter" or "Command and Control Refit" that extends how far you can execute Squadron Commands, but my guess is there will be one title for each side that provides that functionality.

If you're able to field several ships that can essentially project 8 or 10 dice to beyond-red range, the game balance would fundamentally change. All anyone would do would be run their carriers around the edge of the map while a dozen Y-Wings pummel the opposing capital ships who can do nothing but perform single-blue-die anti-squadron attacks.

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

I agree, more than that I think a carrier class ship could do things like extend the range from which squadrons cam activate and or hand out free moves without need of a command token or some such. There is a lot of room for squadrons to grow

There's a card in the Here They Come article that is barely visibile, but I believe it will allow you activate at long range. Very much a guess at this point though since most of the card is covered. First row of the imperial star destoryer cards, third from the left. The first word appears to be Boosted, and its an offensive retrofit. Sure looks to me like it will let you activate squadrons at long range.

I agree, more than that I think a carrier class ship could do things like extend the range from which squadrons cam activate and or hand out free moves without need of a command token or some such. There is a lot of room for squadrons to grow

There's a card in the Here They Come article that is barely visibile, but I believe it will allow you activate at long range. Very much a guess at this point though since most of the card is covered. First row of the imperial star destoryer cards, third from the left. The first word appears to be Boosted, and its an offensive retrofit. Sure looks to me like it will let you activate squadrons at long range.

That tactic would only be viable if you were facing off with a fleet without a fighter or destroyer screen.

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

Stasy : First off, I am with you. I do not (generally) like rules "ret-conns" -- for lack of a better term. However much I like your idea, the points of the fighters for the dedicated carrier will need to be included in the ship's point cost -- or I fear the dedicated carriers will suddenly be the only thing anyone brings to the table. Based upon my reservations r/e a new, dedicated carrier, I am not clever enough to figure out a way to ensure fighters in every fleet without a ret-conn. Yet the fluff & feel of Star Wars really dictates use of fighters.

What would happen to the game if 1) every ship came with a compliment of "basic" fighters equal to its command rating, 2) current base ship points were unchanged, 3) basic squadrons could be upgraded by paying the difference in points between the basic model and the upgrade, & 4) Squadrons are capped BOTH at 1/3 of points AND/OR Squadrons = Total Command Rating (whichever is met first).

Point 2 is the biggest potential issue. Since the basic fighters should clearly be those in the core box, Imperials will be slightly penalized due their basic fighter being cheaper. (I/e: Rebels get more "free" points added to their ships.)

This would ensure some fighters made it to the table in every game. The current champ 1 V, 3 G list would gain 9 squadrons of basic TIE's.

Thoughts? Am I completely out of my mind? How would you "fix" this? Is there anything to fix?

The thought of squadrons being underwhelming is an issue that some people are having while others are not. In my fairly large group we have players that use fighters like a surgical blade, and we have others that despite trying, never seem to get anywhere with them. The problem is with individuals not the squadrons. Many people have trouble balancing the squadron command into their play. Most tend to over use it when fielding large numbers fo squadrons, while I have watched others take a swarm and never use it at all because they get distracted by the ship to ship fighting. Another general trouble I have seen is that people have this concept of a carrier, and they rely on that ship to move all of their squadrons. Every ship can move squadrons, and sometimes that corvette using its 1 command to move that ace or B-wing into position changes the entire game.

I believe that it simply comes down to game experience, on both sides of the table and the ability to multi-task. There is a lot going on during a game, and squadrons simply add one more layer of difficulty for both sides. Master it and benefit.

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

No. Force players to buy a ship and work it into their squads so that the squadrons (and their underlying game mechanics) that they got in their core box are worth using?

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

Stasy : First off, I am with you. I do not (generally) like rules "ret-conns" -- for lack of a better term. However much I like your idea, the points of the fighters for the dedicated carrier will need to be included in the ship's point cost -- or I fear the dedicated carriers will suddenly be the only thing anyone brings to the table. Based upon my reservations r/e a new, dedicated carrier, I am not clever enough to figure out a way to ensure fighters in every fleet without a ret-conn. Yet the fluff & feel of Star Wars really dictates use of fighters.

What would happen to the game if 1) every ship came with a compliment of "basic" fighters equal to its command rating, 2) current base ship points were unchanged, 3) basic squadrons could be upgraded by paying the difference in points between the basic model and the upgrade, & 4) Squadrons are capped BOTH at 1/3 of points AND/OR Squadrons = Total Command Rating (whichever is met first).

Point 2 is the biggest potential issue. Since the basic fighters should clearly be those in the core box, Imperials will be slightly penalized due their basic fighter being cheaper. (I/e: Rebels get more "free" points added to their ships.)

This would ensure some fighters made it to the table in every game. The current champ 1 V, 3 G list would gain 9 squadrons of basic TIE's.

Thoughts? Am I completely out of my mind? How would you "fix" this? Is there anything to fix?

This should have been the rule straight out of the core set. As it is, we have a problem because the ships are priced considering the value of their squadron command, however if we're not using squadrons then you can completely ignore this number and that value is wasted. If you do use squadrons, then you'd need to pile on upgrades (incurring opportunity cost of not using ship-enhancing upgrades) to make them viable.

I agree that each ship fielded should automatically deploy a number of squadrons. Not sure how that works lore-wise with the CR90s and other ships without hangars, maybe explain it as hyperdrive-enabled escorts? X-wings and TIE Fighters would be 0 points for each point of squadron command, and the other squadrons would have an additional cost. I would go further and say that you can only deploy hyperdrive-enabled squadrons in surplus of your cumulative squadron command total across the fleet (thus making carrier ships for Imperials important in future waves).

Now the main issue - we have ships expansions that do not come with fighters in the box, so this can never happen. But could be houseruled, I guess.

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

Stasy : First off, I am with you. I do not (generally) like rules "ret-conns" -- for lack of a better term. However much I like your idea, the points of the fighters for the dedicated carrier will need to be included in the ship's point cost -- or I fear the dedicated carriers will suddenly be the only thing anyone brings to the table. Based upon my reservations r/e a new, dedicated carrier, I am not clever enough to figure out a way to ensure fighters in every fleet without a ret-conn. Yet the fluff & feel of Star Wars really dictates use of fighters.

Easy fix already in the rules. Kill the carriers, win the game. Rules dictate that squads don't 'count' so to speak, so to table your opponent, you'd only need to shred a few carriers. So bring a whole bunch of soft targets! Yeah it's a lot of dice via fighters, but you can't take an entire fleet out with just fighters (unless you are playing a completely incompetent player).

I'm thinking for comparison's sake, a VSD I with Expanded Hangars is 78 pts. It will control 4 squads with a command, and lets take the average cost of 4 Imp fighters as 10 each. This ship also has a total of 10 shields/8 hull and tosses 3.5 dice/ on average attack. So to run the VSD as a carrier it ends up running you 118 points.

Let's consider a carrier that controls 6 squads... ok, so that's 60 points of fighters on average. I'm saying you'd want to keep that target of 118pts or less. That's roughly a cost of a GSD-I. The real trick is keeping the carrier dependent on other ships to protect it or just running the carrier's compliment like a gelatinous screen of damage to prevent the case in which you fear. So that would be offset by severely neutered self-offensive capability and/or less shied/hull value than that of the VSD or GSD.

Asking for rules "ret-cons" when the game isn't even being played at what will be the standard format moving forward is, in and of itself, asinine.

That's why I don't think changing the rules is necessary. Just provide a ship cheap enough that could justify the price of the fighters it will ultimately command.

No. Force players to buy a ship and work it into their squads so that the squadrons (and their underlying game mechanics) that they got in their core box are worth using?

Honestly, if there were a problem, FFGs response would almost certainly be in the form of another release that players had the option to buy. Examples of this in X-wing include releasing Aces packs for A-wings/interceptors, auto thrusters release with the StarViper, and most recently, the Imperial Raider with the attached Tie Advanced.

I think it is pretty unlikely for FFG to make wholesale changes to a game mechanic for a system not yet a year old and still not being played at the intended points level.

Asking for rules "ret-cons" when the game isn't even being played at what will be the standard format moving forward is, in and of itself, asinine.

Asking for rules "ret-cons" when the game isn't even being played at what will be the standard format moving forward is, in and of itself, asinine.

Nonsense, I don't need to eat my whole steak to have a valid opinion on the taste. Besides, we are just freely discussing aspects that in our opinion could be improved upon. That is hardly the same as 'asking for retcons'.

Besides, if people don't state now that the game would be better if X, Y or Z were included in the rules, they will never be able to say that they have been advocating for X, Y and Z rules changes since the beginning. That is a huge bragging right for a wargamer, especially on the off chance the rules do get changed some day.

How about this approach: Once wave 2 (or possibly 3...) gets here, if there still appears to be an issue, let FFG issue Carrier versions of the ships to that point.

These cards could be sold with a dedicated carrier in the following wave -- 3, 4, or whatever. The Dedicated Carrier rules would come with the expansion. One Carrier variant GSD, VSD, & ISD card would come with the Imperial dedicated carrier. Etc.

Are we sure there are carrier variants of those ships? In the EU it seemed pretty common for Star Destroyer scale designs to come in pairs with one focused on solo combat and the other focused more on carrier capacity.

The Victory class was combat focused while the Venator class was carrier focused. The Imperial class was combat focused while the Secutor class was carrier focused. The Nebula lass Star Destroyer was combat focused while the Endurance class Fleet Carrier was carrier focused.

Guys.

We will get that fix.

Eventually.

It took 6 waves of expansions to fix Xwing Tie Advanced but they did it. So that proves FFG is listening (yea i know xwing as a ship still sucks:D).

Given that squadrons are nr1 bi1c3ing topic in armada forums i say wave 3-4 max, gonna give us so solid fixes.