400 point tourney at local flgs. I ran:

VSD I with Screed, Intel officer

VSD I with Intel officer, xx-9

GSD, Demolisher, ACM, engine techs

GSD, ACM

GSD, ACM

398. No objective cards, as they were chosen randomly by the TO at the beginning of each round.

7 players, only two imperial.

First game, opponent had one frigate, two Nebs and three corvettes, no fighters. He was a bit inexperienced and went way too fast. Tabled him by end of five, 10-0.

Second game, two frigates, two Nebs, one corvette, some fighters. I charged directly across his fighter screen, took a few hits, and wiped him out. 10-0.

Last game, two frigates, one corvette, a ton of fighters. Frigates had both Haven and Paragon. First pass, corvette went down, end of turn five, both frigates went down. 10-0.

Second tourney in the bag. Still convinced fighters are inefficient in current rules set, which sucks because I love interceptors. Looking to wave two.

And all three GSD were the I variety.

Do remember to say that these not real games, tournament or not. Not picking objectives means the whole game is about who tables who first, it changes the game a lot.

Sounds like those you are playing against are not a challenge. I hope you are going to Worlds

It sounds like you are doing good work for the Empire.

What was the rationale for this odd game setup, with objectives determined at random?

Yeah, randomly choosing objectives really screws the second player.

Yeah, randomly choosing objectives really screws the second player.

While it seems fun to field such a large force of ships, I can't help but weep at the lack of squadrons. I don't even think they need to change the squadron rules. Honestly, the scoring system for tournaments is what's flawed. I don't believe you should be granted 300 points in kills if you haven't killed 300 points worth of stuff. I think that fix alone would help a great deal to combat the current "Ship zerg to table" mentality of the game's competitive scene.

While it seems fun to field such a large force of ships, I can't help but weep at the lack of squadrons. I don't even think they need to change the squadron rules. Honestly, the scoring system for tournaments is what's flawed. I don't believe you should be granted 300 points in kills if you haven't killed 300 points worth of stuff. I think that fix alone would help a great deal to combat the current "Ship zerg to table" mentality of the game's competitive scene.

That creates it's own set of issues. Since the game ends as soon as the last ship on one side is killed, then those fighters can become lost points. I don't think its fair to penalize players for wiping out all the enemy ships.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

You could just keep the game going to the full 6 turns regardless of ship losses.

Or introduce a minimum spend on squadrons e.g. a fleet must contain between 1/6th and 1/3rd of the players available points in squadrons. (numbers pulled randomly from the air as an example only).

I would be interested to see what happens if a card like flight controllers came out for bombers e.g. each squadron with the bomber keyword activated by this ship may add a black dice to its battery armament during this activation.

While it seems fun to field such a large force of ships, I can't help but weep at the lack of squadrons. I don't even think they need to change the squadron rules. Honestly, the scoring system for tournaments is what's flawed. I don't believe you should be granted 300 points in kills if you haven't killed 300 points worth of stuff. I think that fix alone would help a great deal to combat the current "Ship zerg to table" mentality of the game's competitive scene.

That creates it's own set of issues. Since the game ends as soon as the last ship on one side is killed, then those fighters can become lost points. I don't think its fair to penalize players for wiping out all the enemy ships.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

I mean, if you don't want them to be lost points, then don't ignore them. It's not really a penalty. You're not "losing" points. You're just not gaining points you didn't actually earn.

Yeah, randomly choosing objectives really screws the second player.

can't really build a list on anything other than tabling

To what degree do you actually build a list around anything else?

In your specific case, I know that you despise being 2nd player, and so as 1st player you have to be ready for anything that the 2nd player may have in his stack. Sure, you can (and should) have a general idea of what you would do with your list, in case your opponent has objectives X, Y, & Z, but that's not the same as building a list around the objectives.

I can see you building a list around three objectives if you're determined to be 2nd player and have a heft initiative bid to make it so. But that doesn't seem to be the current way people play.

The TO just wanted to do something different. It did not matter to me, as first or second doesn't matter to me, and I ALWAYS build my list to table the opponent. That being the ONLY objective I care about.

Objectives will always be secondary to me to wiping out my enemy.

I went first twice and second once. The round I went second it was advanced gunnery. The other two was most wanted and fleet ambush. In all three cases I had my opponent tabled by turn five, four in one case. The most difficulty I had was cornering those pesky corvettes, but wth three Glads it was simple.

I agree tourney rules need adjusting...I love squadrons, but currently they are not cost effective.

Yeah, randomly choosing objectives really screws the second player.

can't really build a list on anything other than tabling

To what degree do you actually build a list around anything else?

In your specific case, I know that you despise being 2nd player, and so as 1st player you have to be ready for anything that the 2nd player may have in his stack. Sure, you can (and should) have a general idea of what you would do with your list, in case your opponent has objectives X, Y, & Z, but that's not the same as building a list around the objectives.

I can see you building a list around three objectives if you're determined to be 2nd player and have a heft initiative bid to make it so. But that doesn't seem to be the current way people play.

Squadrons need a lot of practice to make effective. The issue right now is that we are almost 150 days into the game and people expect this to be easy or at least a mater of math. This game is so much more. Skill is a HUGE multiplier in this game. You can lose just by deploying wrong which makes this game all the more exciting!

Yeah, randomly choosing objectives really screws the second player.

can't really build a list on anything other than tabling

To what degree do you actually build a list around anything else?

In your specific case, I know that you despise being 2nd player, and so as 1st player you have to be ready for anything that the 2nd player may have in his stack. Sure, you can (and should) have a general idea of what you would do with your list, in case your opponent has objectives X, Y, & Z, but that's not the same as building a list around the objectives.

I can see you building a list around three objectives if you're determined to be 2nd player and have a heft initiative bid to make it so. But that doesn't seem to be the current way people play.

A smart player is prepared to be in an unfavorable position. As such when I run my Space Potatoes, having a card like Fire Lanes, Advanced Gunnery, or Intel Sweep is a huge advantage. Fire Lanes gives me a huge amount of possible points, other objectives have their advantages. I will be going over those in videos later on.

Squadrons need a lot of practice to make effective. The issue right now is that we are almost 150 days into the game and people expect this to be easy or at least a mater of math. This game is so much more. Skill is a HUGE multiplier in this game. You can lose just by deploying wrong which makes this game all the more exciting!

Agreed.

But to the original point, it seems like people build around a general idea of how to crush your enemies (see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women), rather than building around objectives. I think this was also a subject matter in a recent IFF podcast.

I've also noticed that, when given the choice, people have been deciding to opt for first player more often than not recently. When we first started doing tournaments in our area, at the 180pnt level, the winning players chose 2nd player with a significant initiative bid to do so. Part of that is understandable: the victory points from the objectives were a greater incentive at the 180 point level than at the 300 point level, and so objectives used to be more important than they are now.

Anyway, the point being: who really builds their fleet around objectives any more? It's mostly just an afterthought for me anymore.

Dano has stated that he adds in objectives that fit his list and play style after a build which is what I do as well, but as I get more experienced with the game in general, list building seems to flow much easier. As such, when I build the objectives are added in as a piece of the puzzle.

"oh look at that, my Guppies have Enhanced Armaments, Fire Lanes works well with that." situations like that occur all the time. Objectives, while they may be at the end of my build, they take as much thought process as the rest of the build itself. This manifests itself into thoughts around how I can benefit from the objectives over my opponent while developing my strategy and movement plans.

Now others like DrunkTarkin and WWPDSteven have stated they have built around objectives and it can be done. My issue is that having an objective randomly picked is actually a detriment to being second player. All of a sudden something like Intel Sweep gets picked out of no where and there goes your chance to even use the objective to bolster your MoV.

Let's take second place US Nationals example. He had a game where he got somewhere around 140 some odd points from Fire Lanes throughout his game. That is a HUGE point advantage on top of his win. Situations like that help keep this game balanced.

Now this means little to Lupine since he usually ignores the objectives and goes for the kill but I also think that is an issue with who he is playing against as well. He likely out skills most all of his opponents which is great for him but can be aggravating to his opponents if they are unable to learn quickly on what mistakes they have made.

While it seems fun to field such a large force of ships, I can't help but weep at the lack of squadrons. I don't even think they need to change the squadron rules. Honestly, the scoring system for tournaments is what's flawed. I don't believe you should be granted 300 points in kills if you haven't killed 300 points worth of stuff. I think that fix alone would help a great deal to combat the current "Ship zerg to table" mentality of the game's competitive scene.

That creates it's own set of issues. Since the game ends as soon as the last ship on one side is killed, then those fighters can become lost points. I don't think its fair to penalize players for wiping out all the enemy ships.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

I maintain that wave 2 is going to solve some of the problems. The problem isn't so much squadrons as it is bombers. If you fix bombers, TIE interceptors, TIE fighters, and A-Wings have a job again. The Rhymer ball is pretty good when used properly right now. The extra range really helps with that. Add Intel into that equation, and you've effectively eliminated the hard counter. Take Rhymer, 3 bombers, a TIE advanced, and whatever the Imperial Intel squadron is going to be and you've got 4 black dice firing at medium range that can't be stopped without getting through the TIE advanced and the Intel ship. Assuming it's somewhere around Jan Ors in points, this whole ball would cost around 74 points. That's worth it to me.

The Rebels are where the problem is. Even when you throw Jan Ors into the equation, Y-Wings and B-Wings can be easily out-maneuvered because they have nothing like Rhymer that can reach out and touch things. I'm still holding out hope that there is something other than Jan in Wave 2 that will help us out. The MC80 Independence looks like it might have something from the little text we've seen. However, I think the best solution is a commander card for the rebels that grants Rogue to all the squadrons in the fleet. It fits with the extensive Rebel use of squadrons, who are far more independent than their Imperial counterparts. How many stories are there in the expanded universe of rebel squadrons being asked to hit an Imperial capital ship without any support? It would be powerful, so it would have to be in the 30-40 point range. Such a fleet would still be at risk of tabling as well, off setting what could be a very big advantage in the squadron phase.

One title from the MC80 pack has a squadron icon or at least had. Both the ISD and MC80 have the same squadron upgrade card. . . . By the all spark!

I just tried reading the upgrade that they both have. . . It is the "Boost__" that is an slot with the Expanded Hanger Bay. Of I am correct it is a signal booster that let's you activate squadrons at close to long range. That is going to be amazing. . . Though I wonder if it will be worth the slot for Expanded Hanger Bays. . . Now if the ISD 2 and MC80 command version have 2 of those slots. . . Oh baby

I agree that wave two will change things. How, we shall see. One of my opponents at the tourney is actually quite skilled....or so he says. Either way, I want my ISD!

Well wave 2 has what seems to be a card that will let squadron commands work out to long range. That is a huge effect as is.

Well wave 2 has what seems to be a card that will let squadron commands work out to long range. That is a huge effect as is.

That sounds awesome. Where did you find that little nugget if I may ask? From the preview articles?

Well wave 2 has what seems to be a card that will let squadron commands work out to long range. That is a huge effect as is.

That sounds awesome. Where did you find that little nugget if I may ask? From the preview articles?