Which would be more expensive... But not by much.

I guess we won't know until we get some playtesting done...

I don't think that many Glads will be useful. Currently they are the imperials cheapest ship, so you're buying Demolisher, the other Glad to box, and then two other ships.

Once we have the raider I don't think you'll see more than two Glads in a list very often.

Well, for me, its all about the money...

Triple ISD sets you back ~$150 US Retail

Quad Glads is only ~$120 US Retail

Actually now it would be 6 Glads me thinks

110 for ISD 1

26 for Screed

56 for GSD 1

7 for ACMs

10 for Demolisher

56 for GSD 1

7 for ACMs

56 for GSD 1

7 for ACMs

56 for GSD 1

7 for ACMs

I like this list

I think you guys are missing what Darth Ruin was actually saying. He never said the SHIPS of Wave 1 were invalidated, but rather the theorycrafting and strategies developed during Wave 1 must now be replaced by theorycrafting and strategies developed with Wave 2 in mind. And I totally welcome that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the local games were starting to feel a bit stale. The Imperial players have it the worst, since they only had two ship types to choose from, and there's only so many variations of that list you can play before you and everyone you know never want to see the phrase VGG again

None of that is gone though. The theory crafting is still there. The strategies are still there. They just have gotten upgraded.

Now we have large ships.

Now we have more ships.

Now we have more options.

I see this more as our first steps into the real game of Armada.

Up until now we've all been playing with an intentionally limited points ceiling and only two of three classes of ships. As of Wave 2 we have the real foundation of the respective fleets for the first time, and the points to wield them.

One day, we'll look back on the days of nothing but VSDs and Demolishers and laugh.

I'm laughing already.

I see this more as our first steps into the real game of Armada.

Up until now we've all been playing with an intentionally limited points ceiling and only two of three classes of ships. As of Wave 2 we have the real foundation of the respective fleets for the first time, and the points to wield them.

One day, we'll look back on the days of nothing but VSDs and Demolishers and laugh.

I'm laughing already.

By someone who only recently (last year) got back into tabletop gaming after a 15 year hiatus, I'm puzzled by this term 'theorycrafting'. When I look it up on Wikipedia it sounds like what MajorJuggler does in X-Wing, but I haven't really read much of that nature on the Armada forums. (Maybe I don't go to the fleet builds forum often enough?)

So, what theories have people crafted?

Or am I misunderstanding the relationship between theory and empirical evidence in the term 'theorycraft'?

Theories like the relationship between no fighters, some fighters, max fighters. It is a theory because there is not enough facts. Sure we have reports of games but there are also reports that contradict the same information with their wins and losses.

I prefer we stop diluting the word theory and use the proper term of hypothesis.

I believe the trifecta still will exist, however, of Full Squadron / Mix / No Squadron.

I a "meta" is having lots of squadrons, having some squadrons or having no squadrons, then there's no such thing as a meta.

Some people talk about there being a "meta". Seems like an article of faith with them rather than anything meaningful to me.

I prefer we stop diluting the word theory and use the proper term of hypothesis.

But they're not valid hypotheses, so surely supposition would be the better choice.

I don't think a meta has appeared yet. And maybe, and I hope, the game is well enough designed for there not to be one.

Theories like the relationship between no fighters, some fighters, max fighters. It is a theory because there is not enough facts. Sure we have reports of games but there are also reports that contradict the same information with their wins and losses.

I see what you're saying.

Yes, the Edsel-Blerg theory is a proper theory and indeed any evidence to support it is anecdotal at best. What I'm seeing in the vassal tournament thus far belies Edsel-Blerg, because no squadrons seems to be beating the pants off the other types, and not because the no-squadron lists are that much more plentiful.

Of course, I imagine that in the first round skill levels are going to be a much more determining factor than it will be in later rounds.

Also, while it's more plentiful than any other data we have (did anybody compile and make available the Nationals data?), it's still limited, and so we shouldn't draw too many conclusions from this data.

Except, of course, that the Empire is better than the Rebellion.

I prefer we stop diluting the word theory and use the proper term of hypothesis.

But they're not valid hypotheses, so surely supposition would be the better choice.

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it a theory. I know that the term theory gets a bad rap by people who don't understand or like science, but it's still a looser and more encompassing term than hypothesis. Also, they had a rationale behind it, which makes it more of a theory than a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is something that needs to be more carefully formulated into a testable proposition. In this case, Edsel-Blerg is three separate hypotheses, namely:

• EB₁: Lists with few squadrons are more likely to beat lists with many squadrons than vice versa (ceteris paribus).
• EB₂: Lists with many squadrons are more likely to beat lists with no squadrons than vice versa (ceteris paribus).
• EB₃: Lists with no squadrons are more likely to beat lists with few squadrons than vice versa (ceteris paribus).

The theory part of EB₁ is the notion that a few squadrons can tie up a lot of squadrons while the heavier ship component of the Few list can point the lighter ship component of the Many list.

The theory part of EB₂ is that No lists don't have adequate defenses against the squadrons of the Many lists.

The theory part of EB₃ is that the squadrons in a Few lists are insufficient to really be relevant against a No list, and the No list will have more powerful ships to destroy the ships of the Few list.

As a theory, it's quite elegant. It's simple and attempts to explain a lot with very little. It certainly makes logical sense. Even if we all know that the reality is a little more complicated, we don't yet know if the reality is so complicated that this theory is not good enough.

In terms of validity, I'm still waiting on more evidence. We're clearly not ready to reject the null hypothesis on any of these, but for right now EB₁ and EB₃ seems to not be rejectable based on the available data. EB₂ is the one that looks to be in trouble.

I prefer we stop diluting the word theory and use the proper term of hypothesis.

So hypothesis crafting. Okay. Sure can we shorten that?

Maybe,

Hypocrafting

Then it sounds like we're manufacturing underground needles.

Can we use this thread in order to predict what the meta will be like as long as more Wave 2 are released ? Obviously, we don't know all the cards yet, but based on the spoilers...

Or should we start a new, more dedicated one ?

Alright, let's go crazy !

Theories like the relationship between no fighters, some fighters, max fighters. It is a theory because there is not enough facts. Sure we have reports of games but there are also reports that contradict the same information with their wins and losses.

I see what you're saying.

Yes, the Edsel-Blerg theory is a proper theory and indeed any evidence to support it is anecdotal at best. What I'm seeing in the vassal tournament thus far belies Edsel-Blerg, because no squadrons seems to be beating the pants off the other types, and not because the no-squadron lists are that much more plentiful.

Of course, I imagine that in the first round skill levels are going to be a much more determining factor than it will be in later rounds.

Also, while it's more plentiful than any other data we have (did anybody compile and make available the Nationals data?), it's still limited, and so we shouldn't draw too many conclusions from this data.

Except, of course, that the Empire is better than the Rebellion.

Except, of course, that the Empire is better than the Rebellion. There is the Motti Scale theory to consider as well.

Maybe it's early in the morning, but I'm not sure what he's describing, but let me see if I can parse it and then formulate hypotheses as best as I can understand the concept.

I'm quoting MoffZen as the author of the theory, I'm underlying the clauses I'm referring to below.

I've found that for 300 points games, the minimal count of Ship value under which you start putting your fleet at a high sustainability risk is 4 and the maximal amount of ships that you can fit is 5-7, the former for the Imperials and the latter for Rebels.

So there are two falsifiable statements here, one of them is interesting and the other factual.

The first idea is that if you dip below a Motti value of 4, for example, by running a 3xGSD list, you're asking for trouble. Anecdotally, I've certainly had trouble with a 3xGSD list, but I was most thoroughly beaten by another 3xGSD list. But it's a testable hypothesis.

The idea that you can't get over a 5-7 Motti value at 300 points, with 5 for the Imperials and 7 for the Rebels, because you simply can't do it at 300 points is simply not true. You can easily build a 3xVSD list (Motti value of 6) and have room to spare for a commander (even Tarking) and upgrades. So, maybe I misunderstand what he means here.

Anyway, the first idea is one we can turn into a falsifiable hypothesis is:

• MST₁: A list with a Motti value less than 4 will be more likely to suffer a total fleet kill in any given game than a list with a Motti value of more than 4.

Is that how I am to understand the testable aspect of Motti Scale theory?

Well let's look at your last 2 tournament lists.

In the last tournament you had a Motti Value of 4 with 2 VSD's. You did well against my Motti value of 6.

In the tournament prior you have a Motti Value of 3 with 3 GSD's and had issues with a Motti Value of 5 from both me and the TO.

Your third game was against a Motti Value of 3 and you had issues there are well.

Yes, but the empirical aspect is not the issue here, other than that it would be better to have a lot more data.

The problem is that the theory needs more specification, because as it is stated it might mean a number of things.

Obviously, if you have 300 points wrapped up in a low Motti value, you're putting a lot of eggs into a few baskets. But if it is about that, then we might be looking at a simple linear function that says: the more-bigger the better. Because his upper limit is defined by the ability to fit discrete values of ships into 300 points, it's not articulating a diminishing return on Motti values.

If that's the case then it implies that one should get more ships rather than upgrade ships. However, I don't think he's intending that. It strikes me that he wants to describe a curvilinear function with a diminishing return on more ships.

That is your opinion. Once we get more information compiled, the theorycrafting called Motti Scale may actually be pretty accurate

That is your opinion. Once we get more information compiled, the theorycrafting called Motti Scale may actually be pretty accurate

?

Are you following what I am saying?

Well more ships does not equal quality of ships. This is why your Motti Value of 4 had a head on my Motti value of 6. You had squadrons and other variables. This is a theory not a quality that is in the game.

Bigger is not always better true. The Motti Scale is more than that though. It is measuring the capacity to withstand a punishment and keep on going. It does boil down to the breakdown of ship sizes though. For instance. A VSD 2 can one shot a CR90. That means in a CR90 swarm their Motti Value of 6 just went down to 5. That lowers their capabilities to survive now by that much.

Are you being at odds with me just for the sake of being at odds with me?

The Motti scale is simply about more+bigger=better. It is a scale that accumulates two variables: size and quantity. It says nothing about quality. It is a rough estimate of survivability that puts the CR90 in the same category as a GSD. That's fine by as long as we're comfortable with the notion that in the whole scale of the game from CR90 to ISD the difference between a CR-90 and a GSD is roughly equivalent.

So, if you're embracing the Motti scale as being predictive/explanatory of outcomes, as you do in post #47, then you're saying quality does not matter. You state the reverse in post #49. Both of these posts are written in disagreement with me, when my posts are trying to make sense of what MoffZen is saying.

Again, this may be about my misunderstanding of what 'theorycrafting' means because it is a concept that is native to gaming, when my background is in social science. But, if so, please clarify.