So basically. Its a little too hard to tell. But not skewed in the mass fighters favor massively it seems. That bodes ill.

I won both my games because the objectives chosen benefit ships over squadrons. If objectives went the other way, and did not buff my capital ship directly, the game probably would of gone the other way.

The Following objectives benefit Capital Ship heavy fleets:

Advanced Gunnery

Most Wanted (since FAQ)

Opening Salvo

Contested Outpost

Firelanes

Fleet Ambush

Dangerous Territory

Intel Sweep

The Following objectives benefit both Capital Ship heavy and Squadron heavy fleets:

Hyperspace Assault

Precision Strike

Minefields

Superior Positions

The Following objectives benefit Squadron heavy fleets more than Capitals:

You could argue Superior Positions sits in the last category since it's easier for fighters to get to the rear than capital ships, but that's far less convincing as an advantage than the many objectives that can only be scored by capital ships in the first category above.

I have played no fighters Vs mass fighters 300 point games send my victory forward and send my glads off to the sides the victory has a chance of dying but for the most part it it does its job as the avail and the to glads act as the hammer the key for me is to kill two or three ships then break off and our maneuver the rebel player at the end of the game I normally have the win. When I take mass fighters I feel I'm a disadvantage as those fighter points can be used in upgrades. I have also tested this with triple victory and its a little harder cuz they are slow but I would say I never felt like I was going to loose. I can't wait to test it on imperial Star Destroyers. If the imperial 1 is under 100 points this could be awesome.

...my personal experience to date is that there is a greater advantage given by having more capital ships and a higher number of activations than there is by having multiple squadrons.

That's an important point: it's not just "capital-only" that matters, it's "activation advantage". Two tricked-out VSDs are still going to lose every time against four naked GSDs.

...my personal experience to date is that there is a greater advantage given by having more capital ships and a higher number of activations than there is by having multiple squadrons.

That's an important point: it's not just "capital-only" that matters, it's "activation advantage". Two tricked-out VSDs are still going to lose every time against four naked GSDs.

I don't believe this is the case: try 2 AFs + upgrades vs 3Glads: 72x2 144. 56x3 = 168.

I doubt very much this will be an easy battle.

I made some posts regarding the 2 rounds of the vassal tourney that you guys might want to check out.

I had a split experience in a recent tourney

I took:

AFIIB: Gallant Haven, Hangars, Flight Controllers, Adar Talon, ECM

Escort Neb-B: Raymus, Yavaris

2xB-Wing

Keyan Farlander

Luke

Wedge

X-Wing

Faced a balanced Rebel list with 4xA-Wings that tied up my bombers pretty good. Lost 1-9.

Faced an all ship Rebel list. With nothing to stop my B-wings (and that he chose my hyperspace assault obj while I was 2nd player) I put some serious hurt on him. Won 8-2

Final game played a VGGG list and lost 2-8 when the Gs swarmed my AFII and blasted it to bits, then turned on my Yavaris. However, with Hyperspace assault (and my being 2nd player again) I killed a full health Vicky-I with Luke, Keyan and a B-Wing being double tapped with Yavaris in the rear arc.

In summary, it seems like a crap shoot, but a balanced list and good play by a ship list will break you because there aren't enough hull points to soak up the damage multiple ships can put out.

I had a split experience in a recent tourney

I took:

AFIIB: Gallant Haven, Hangars, Flight Controllers, Adar Talon, ECM

Escort Neb-B: Raymus, Yavaris

2xB-Wing

Keyan Farlander

Luke

Wedge

X-Wing

Faced a balanced Rebel list with 4xA-Wings that tied up my bombers pretty good. Lost 1-9.

Faced an all ship Rebel list. With nothing to stop my B-wings (and that he chose my hyperspace assault obj while I was 2nd player) I put some serious hurt on him. Won 8-2

Final game played a VGGG list and lost 2-8 when the Gs swarmed my AFII and blasted it to bits, then turned on my Yavaris. However, with Hyperspace assault (and my being 2nd player again) I killed a full health Vicky-I with Luke, Keyan and a B-Wing being double tapped with Yavaris in the rear arc.

In summary, it seems like a crap shoot, but a balanced list and good play by a ship list will break you because there aren't enough hull points to soak up the damage multiple ships can put out.

I would say that you need at least 3 ships in a 300 point game, even if that 3rd ship is a 39 point CR90B with nothing on it, you can use it primary for movement order and helping you control the movement of battle. That way you can hold off on activating your big carrier on the inital pass (2nd or 3rd turn) until when they move close enough to be in bomber range.

2 ship carrier based builds are too easy to focus down and kill. 3 at least can make it a challenge and gives your fighters and bombers more time to chew through your opponents.

I had a split experience in a recent tourney

I took:

AFIIB: Gallant Haven, Hangars, Flight Controllers, Adar Talon, ECM

Escort Neb-B: Raymus, Yavaris

2xB-Wing

Keyan Farlander

Luke

Wedge

X-Wing

Faced a balanced Rebel list with 4xA-Wings that tied up my bombers pretty good. Lost 1-9.

Faced an all ship Rebel list. With nothing to stop my B-wings (and that he chose my hyperspace assault obj while I was 2nd player) I put some serious hurt on him. Won 8-2

Final game played a VGGG list and lost 2-8 when the Gs swarmed my AFII and blasted it to bits, then turned on my Yavaris. However, with Hyperspace assault (and my being 2nd player again) I killed a full health Vicky-I with Luke, Keyan and a B-Wing being double tapped with Yavaris in the rear arc.

In summary, it seems like a crap shoot, but a balanced list and good play by a ship list will break you because there aren't enough hull points to soak up the damage multiple ships can put out.

I would say that you need at least 3 ships in a 300 point game, even if that 3rd ship is a 39 point CR90B with nothing on it, you can use it primary for movement order and helping you control the movement of battle. That way you can hold off on activating your big carrier on the inital pass (2nd or 3rd turn) until when they move close enough to be in bomber range.

2 ship carrier based builds are too easy to focus down and kill. 3 at least can make it a challenge and gives your fighters and bombers more time to chew through your opponents.

Yep, that was my analysis of the results. I was too focused on getting the max bombers and upgrades rather than survivability. I also somewhat suffered, strangely, from Hyperspace assault, as it divided my already squishy force, rather than letting them screen each other and hitting the somewhat squishy Glads with a Series of Alpha Strikes or Yavaris double taps. My opponent ran Motti though, so they still would have been a challenge.

My current rethink of a bomber list is:

AFIIB: Gallant, Adar, Expanded Hangar, Dodonna

Esc Neb-B: Raymus, Yavaris

Sup Neb B: Leia, Redemption

3x B-Wing

1x A-Wing

Precision Strike, Contested Outpost, Dangerous Territory

Game plan is ships go in slow with the Bs around them while the A does its best to lock down enemy fighters. Redemption tries to keep the other two alive and does some long range sniping, when possible focus away a ships defense tokens with a B-wing strike and normal gunnery, Adar one of them, double tap with Yav, then next turn double tap the rear arc if possible. I'll have to see how it works out though before I try it in a tournament.

I've run a dual VSD carrier list that featured 2 TIE Advanced, 4 TIE Bombers, Vader and Rhymer (8 Squadrons). I fought against a Rebel no squadron fleet that had a pair of AF2 a Neb-B and a Corvette. I ended up winning though it was close. If I recall the end VP total was something like 173 for me vs 107 for the rebels. It has been a while so I don't remember much of the particulars.

I really think that it matters what sort of fighter-heavy list we're talking about. In the current no-squadrons dominant meta, I'm having a field day with my massive RhymerBall of TIE Bombers.

Just as Lyraeus anticipated, I brought a RhymerBall list to this tournament. It consisted of Rhymer, 5 TIE bomber squadrons, Vader and Soontir. It was accompanied by two Vic-Is, that were really just carriers (Expanded Hangars and a Flight Controller, just in case). Vader and Soontir and the Flight Controllers have been inefficient because nobody has been bringing squadrons for them to chew on. The Vic-1s had Advanced Concussion Missiles that never fired. By the time the star destroyers would have been in range, the targets were already pounded to pulp by the bombers.

Here's the thing: there were a large number of points spent on useless things, and it was not a list that I took a lot of time putting together. I just wanted to test the proposition that a ton of bombers could present a significant challenge to no-squadron builds, which I anticipated would be plentiful, given the current meta. The proposition has certainly not yet been disproven.

For full data on the builds at this tournament, go to the HNN report:

I am now sure that if I had gone first I would have won. . . The capacity to move my ship the farthest back to force you to activate and move a ship into my range and then I attack that ship and then later move the ship that attacked next turn out of danger is a HUGE advantage. Plus I then would not have to worry about to force multiplying your activations with squadrons before I could get free

Oh Mikael, I would have put Gunnery Team on instead of the missiles.

Oh Mikael, I would have put Gunnery Team on instead of the missiles.

Quite true. Like I said, I threw this list together just to have a list. I wasn't even hoping to play - I hoped that we'd have a larger tournament and I could just be the TO/cheerleader.

But the point is; I had a very inefficient list, but those bombers really did the trick - when the opponent wasn't actively running away from them.

I am now sure that if I had gone first I would have won. . . The capacity to move my ship the farthest back to force you to activate and move a ship into my range and then I attack that ship and then later move the ship that attacked next turn out of danger is a HUGE advantage. Plus I then would not have to worry about to force multiplying your activations with squadrons before I could get free

I learned this too, that's why I now always stick a cheap CR90 in my lists, purely for activation flexibility. It has actually set me up some great shots and assisted me in the tournament online more than anything else.

Ironically, placing my ships in a conga line setup nearly screwed me that first game. Sure I got so good shots with the conga line, but it was not nearly flexible enough. I now however have a better setup and movement option that I will keep a 7th fleet secret for now, until the vassal tourney is over.

I am now sure that if I had gone first I would have won. . . The capacity to move my ship the farthest back to force you to activate and move a ship into my range and then I attack that ship and then later move the ship that attacked next turn out of danger is a HUGE advantage. Plus I then would not have to worry about to force multiplying your activations with squadrons before I could get free

Perhaps you would have. We'll never know. This starting from the rear is problematic with your usual conga-line set up, though. You'd have to control for that.

But this thread is about many squadrons vs. no squadrons. Given that a many squadrons list is very likely to have fewer ships than a no squadrons list - all things being equal - what you're saying is true. The no squadrons list can minimize the impact of the many squadrons list's ships by moving the furthest ship first. However, the real damage dealer in the many squadrons list is not the ships' turbolasers, but the bombers' ordnance.

With or without being first player, the no squadrons list still has to move fairly fast in order to not get beaten up for too many rounds by bomber squadrons.

WWPDSteven actually gave me the idea that makes it work. Keeping speed around 2 or so and having enough space for a speed 1 maneuver fixes the idea.

WWPDSteven actually gave me the idea that makes it work. Keeping speed around 2 or so and having enough space for a speed 1 maneuver fixes the idea.

Well, I really hope that you're going to bring this to the Sullust tournaments.

WWPDSteven actually gave me the idea that makes it work. Keeping speed around 2 or so and having enough space for a speed 1 maneuver fixes the idea.

Well, I really hope that you're going to bring this to the Sullust tournaments.

WWPDSteven actually gave me the idea that makes it work. Keeping speed around 2 or so and having enough space for a speed 1 maneuver fixes the idea.

Well, I really hope that you're going to bring this to the Sullust tournaments.

Lots of practice before then

Hopefully you'll get it in. I'm going to be gone for two weeks.

I think the main reason no-squads are the early rage is because it's early. Easier to learn to play no squads well. There is a big diff between building 200pts in ships then tacking on 100 pts of squadrons, and building a 300pt focused squadron list (bomber or air superiority), and it's more complicated to herd a big batch of fighters than to just maneuver ships.

There is also a lot more variety when building squadron-heavy lists. Full bombers could mean being engaged for most of the game by a few fighters, half fighters half bombers could lead to my fighters idling around, throwing their unimpressive anti-cap fire at a no-squadrons list with little effect. The synergies with upgrades, titles and commanders all work well on paper, but require a lot of positioning and anticipation. A no-squadron list is easier to create and to manage, as you "just" have to max-out your instagib or staying ability..