I use X-Wings as an anti-squadron platform and leave the ship damage to Y-Wings and B-Wings

The x-wing has the second to lowest anti-ship damage per point spent. Only the TIE Interceptor is worse. (I'm such the broken record on this point...)

I use X-Wings as an anti-squadron platform and leave the ship damage to Y-Wings and B-Wing

Yep. Other than Luke, X-Wings are best used as fighter killers.

@Green Knight

The Rogue keyword appears to allow some of the Scum and Villainy ships to move and shoot entirely on their own. I don't remember if we have a clear shot of the text to know which phase it happens in.

If this spoiler from a few months ago is accurate, the "Rogue" keyword allows that squadron to move and shoot in the squadron phase. Could change, of course...

I use X-Wings as an anti-squadron platform and leave the ship damage to Y-Wings and B-Wing

Yep. Other than Luke, X-Wings are best used as fighter killers.

Love X-Wings for my fighter screens, one game i managed to pick off all of my cousins bombers and the 1 Tie-A squad (wedge does some great screen work) then i had two rounds of shots with squads that can still resolve crits against ships on top of the one B-wing i brought

I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to be jumping down the guys list of disadvantages throat, they were honest reasons and point to an entirely different play style that's kindve forced onto you to get the most out of fighters. I'd agree with him they could maybe be a point or two less on certain types, b wings definitely feel that way. If people are given fits by b wings attacking Vic's they just need to learn to use navigate commands, the extra click gives you the space to move around any fighters right in front of the ship. Which means b wings get 1-2 turns of shooting before the imperial player says peace and scoots off chasing an af2.

Personally I like the way it plays when both sides take squadrons, it feels very tactical, but in the grand scheme of things if my opponent took 2 ships and 100 pts of squadrons to my 4 ships, I just have to kill his 200 pts of ships to get 300 pts destroyed. Sure 12 tie fighters or 9 y wings can* do enough to win, but is it consistent and worth the activation disadvantages, as well as the risk of tabling. If you want to see more fighter lists outside of extreme skew ones like 9 y wings, just say your tabled after losing all capital ships but only get points for what's destroyed, so squadrons can act as a bank for MOV on losses.

I've been playing bombers (b-wings) quite a lot recently and they do take a bit of getting used to - I use a carrier to direct them rather than let them operate alone.

The best way to think of them (IMO) is an an extension of their controlling ship, so that in that ship's activation it gets use it's fighters/bombers to attack and then follow up with it's own attack.

The trick I find is that positioning of the squadrons is critical.

If you are closing with an enemy ship, then I position my bombers in front of the approaching ship (as far away as distance 1 will allow) rather than going for s side arc, this means that the other ship will have to overfly me in their activation that will usually set me up for the next turn's shooting too.

Failing that it can disrupt an incoming ship if they maneuver to avoid them.

If I am already close, then I will shoot first and them move them - again to the front of the target ship to set things up for the next round.

The move to set up the next turn has the effect of giving me more options with them:

1. Concentrate on the same target - shoot, and then move for the following turn

2. Attack a new target - can move and shoot

3. Attack without an order - I've had it happen that I lose my carrier or that I have to move out of order range. But if I've done things right, I won't have "lost" my next turn with the bombers.

I had been running Gallant Haven as a carrier (Mk2B), but have switched to Paragon to get more follow up firepower. I'm also trying out a Nebulon (Salvation) with Raymus as a secondary carrier should the primary be lost.

I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to be jumping down the guys list of disadvantages throat, they were honest reasons and point to an entirely different play style that's kindve forced onto you to get the most out of fighters. I'd agree with him they could maybe be a point or two less on certain types, b wings definitely feel that way. If people are given fits by b wings attacking Vic's they just need to learn to use navigate commands, the extra click gives you the space to move around any fighters right in front of the ship. Which means b wings get 1-2 turns of shooting before the imperial player says peace and scoots off chasing an af2.

Personally I like the way it plays when both sides take squadrons, it feels very tactical, but in the grand scheme of things if my opponent took 2 ships and 100 pts of squadrons to my 4 ships, I just have to kill his 200 pts of ships to get 300 pts destroyed. Sure 12 tie fighters or 9 y wings can* do enough to win, but is it consistent and worth the activation disadvantages, as well as the risk of tabling. If you want to see more fighter lists outside of extreme skew ones like 9 y wings, just say your tabled after losing all capital ships but only get points for what's destroyed, so squadrons can act as a bank for MOV on losses.

Artifixprime, you have it right. Now that many people are figuring out that squadrons are just ship extentions, they a becoming deadlier and far better used.

As I said, 9 y wings is a skew list. It's very design is to take something so far that the average counter to it no longer works. That's not to say its a bad list, but its used in a very different way from a more balanced approach to even rhymer ball or b wings/Luke plus a wings. And as far as player use and ability, that tends to be a. Subjective and b. Anecdotal. Who's to say there might be something being done wrong with the no squadrons builds. Often if you use navigate commands more you can dodge b wings entirely, and in a VGGG build going against a dual carrier imperial or 2 af/ 1 corvette you have activation advantage to abuse. Triple af can also have an activation advantage and if they have initiative can focus fire a carrier down pretty quickly removing a large amount of threat.

Like I said before, they arnt terrible and simply with a change to scoring you'd see them alot more and they'd probably be more consistent in events as it'd be harder to poach 10-0s from them. There's also the issue of it being usually a low MOV game if two squadron based builds go against each other since fighters do a pretty good job of neutralizing each other

I have used many squadrons to pick apart a No squadron GenCon Special. It's not hard. You don't send your squadrons out to make the attack, you let them come in then hit them with 3 to 5 squadrons and then your ship hits it. GSD's die to this. VSD's can be mortally wounded to this.

You say it is anecdotal but maybe the people in your meta don't play squadrons well or don't play them at all. Unless you have been to another 40+ player tournament recently, I don't know if your information is as accurate as you say.

gotta say, the VGGG gen con special was a complete pushover to B-wings

ships that have to get close versus uncontested B-wings is like lowering a quadruple amputee baby lamb (lathered in blood based bbq sauce) into shark invested waters.

squadrons, just as the rest of the game, rely heavily on foresight and positioning. Knowing where the opponent is going is key to positioning your ships and their squadrons successfully.

I do agree about the # of ships, though. Having 3 activations is huge, and I don't enjoy using two specialized carrier ships at all. Too much focus on any one element of a fleet leaves you heavily restricted, and I'd much rather fly Paragon with Yavaris (and a naked Neb) than Haven and Yavaris.

flexibility is key, and skews (in either direction) have very little of it

Maybe not hate them, but they certainly don't love them!

Compared to what they can do ATM I feel fighters are a bit too expensive.

- That max 1/3 points on squadrons rule seems something of a joke, no?

No

- they need squadron commands to work

No, they do not, they are just extreemly effective WITH a squadron command. People who think otherwise are NOT planning ahead. You always need to invision where ships will be in 2-3 turns. If you're simply reacting to what just happened in the current turn, you're doing it wrong.

- squadron commands have limited range

Yes, because otherwise it would be overpower.

- each squadron command is a 'wasted' command (well, not completely wasted, but close to it)

You're obvisouly not playing very well then. If you use a squadron command on a ship that can activate 3 squadrons that is THREE seperate attacks against a capital ship. THREE dice rolls means that while the damage might not be high, it will small but it is HIGHLY unlikle your opponent will use their defensive tokens to stop one damage which means for every hit your squadrons do, it's one less shield your capital ship has to punch through, and one less shield your opponent can redirect to.

- squadrons get engaged easily

Yes, if they didn't I would spam tie fighters and destroy your shields as noted above. Trust me, you would be bitching if they did not become engaged.

- squadrons may be the premier squadron-killers, but they still take several rounds to do it

See above, if my ties blew through your screen in one round you would be bitching about that.

- squadrons have limited range compared to capital ships.

Not really, they fly pretty fast (except b-wings) and have 360 degree line of sight.

- squadrons can only fire at limited range

Would you like them to be able to shoot from across the map? No.

- squadron upgrade cards mitigate some of the above, but are costly

It's all part of fleet building, cost / benifit.

- they don't give you activation

Moot point, it's not x-wing, this is Armada.

- they don't help with most of the objectives

Irrelevant. They are either a offensive tool or a defensive tool.

- they gain little benefit from admirals

That we currently have, yes. We don't know what others are coming out. And irrelevent, would not be wise to have a commander which benifited 1/3 of your fleet and who were also the easiest to kill off.

- they don't help if all your capitals are destroyed

Then use them as a screen to prevent the other squadrons from engaging your capital ships, or use them to bomb the other capital ships before yours get destoryed.

It's not any one - or two - things that limits squadrons. But all of the above. The sum total is that I'm very skeptical of squadrons.

You're playing squadrons wrong, and are not thinking about the big picture.

There are FAR too many people on this forum who are very very narrow minded in the sense they are only looking at the number of dice being rolled by a squardon and not thinking of the whole turn. With squadrons you will get 3,4,5 dice against a capital ship followed by 1-2 shots from your capital ship. That's up to five sheilds your capital ship won't have to deal with or less defense tokens for your capital ship to deal with.

On top of all of that, the number of people thinking that FFG would actually destory fighters playability before we have even seen what the MC30 can do, not to mention the Wave II Squadron pack is baffeling. If you took a few seconds to think it though, why would the raider say "as if it were engaged by two squadrons?" Sounds like some abilities are going to change how engagment can work, or how you can become disengaged via a new mechanic in one of the expansion packs. It would mean that you would need a larger fighter screen to stop bombers, making it easier for a player to split their force up and make the screen too small to stop all threats.

The game is not broken.

I totally second your affirmation about too many people not seeing the large picture but rather just considering how many dice a ship can toss the next round, which by the way is the farthest one they can foresee.

Surely a ship whose command structure empowers you to "send commands" directly to the next turn is worth some other shortcomings but, heck!, this game is about strategy and planning moves in advance!

My point is: those of us whom were "lucky" enough to foresee the great utility of fighters gained an advantage in games played so far; what should they (we, actually do to adapt to the moment when the meta shifts to a greater use of fighters?

I am trying to prepare myself by leaving aside Rebs for a while and playing Imps list based on squadrons --- what I my mind is ravelling on, at the moment, is:"Okay, my list is ready to pinch through enemy anti-squads defences (i.e. Admiral Chiraneau) and to prepared to shoot down enemy squadrons (i.e. Flight controllers) but.......WHAT IF the list I have to confront uses no squadrons at all?". Paradoxically, my tactical advantage would turn into a strategy-buster....or crippler.

Advice is welcome.

Well I agree with this but at the same time, 2 Assault Frigates are more than dedicated carriers

Well I agree with this but at the same time, 2 Assault Frigates are more than dedicated carriers

well, I can't disagree with that

catching them is easier said than done when they are the zoidbergs of Armada

I think superior positions works better for a squadron heavy list

While you are right, B-Wings are slow and unlikely to get to the rear. However, one can use them to drop shields for a nice punch from the activating carrier

Wish you could have seen my tourny this weekend got 135 off of SP 75 from b wings

I had a game in my last tournament (last weekend) that I gained 23 superior position tokens...

I had a total of over 500 points after ships and mov of 395ish so yea, my fighters were pretty great:)

Which were attacking at medium range right?

sometimes, I had rhymer, 2 bombers, 2 advanced, fel and mithel. He had VVVG + motti (299 points all naked) he is new to the game and put superior position in his objectives so I picked it, flung my bombers at his ships turn one then let him run them over while I flung my fighters. Some of the shots where medium range but most of them were distance 1.

Mate, may I ask you the rationale for picking 2 Bombers and 2 Advanced?

Why the two advanced? To maximise your squadrons adaptability to mixed confrontation against ships AND squadrons?

As for Fel and Mithel: I guess Fel was there to maximise effectiveness against squad screens (don't attack me? a free damage for you) but am wondering whether you also use Mithel in conjunction with Corrupter, that is keeping Mithel engaged with some squadron then activating him and just moving him by 1mm thus to dispense 1 free damage to all the squadrons around.

Thank you!

Well I agree with this but at the same time, 2 Assault Frigates are more than dedicated carriers

well, I can't disagree with that

catching them is easier said than done when they are the zoidbergs of Armada

I think superior positions works better for a squadron heavy list

While you are right, B-Wings are slow and unlikely to get to the rear. However, one can use them to drop shields for a nice punch from the activating carrier

Wish you could have seen my tourny this weekend got 135 off of SP 75 from b wings

I had a game in my last tournament (last weekend) that I gained 23 superior position tokens...

I had a total of over 500 points after ships and mov of 395ish so yea, my fighters were pretty great:)

Which were attacking at medium range right?

sometimes, I had rhymer, 2 bombers, 2 advanced, fel and mithel. He had VVVG + motti (299 points all naked) he is new to the game and put superior position in his objectives so I picked it, flung my bombers at his ships turn one then let him run them over while I flung my fighters. Some of the shots where medium range but most of them were distance 1.

Mate, may I ask you the rationale for picking 2 Bombers and 2 Advanced?

Why the two advanced? To maximise your squadrons adaptability to mixed confrontation against ships AND squadrons?

As for Fel and Mithel: I guess Fel was there to maximise effectiveness against squad screens (don't attack me? a free damage for you) but am wondering whether you also use Mithel in conjunction with Corrupter, that is keeping Mithel engaged with some squadron then activating him and just moving him by 1mm thus to dispense 1 free damage to all the squadrons around.

Thank you!

Normally I run 3 bombers+rhymer in this list Which is the other reason I bring advanced since I only have 4 bombers, this time I decided to put engine techs on my glad so I only had 3 bombers

sometimes, I had rhymer, 2 bombers, 2 advanced, fel and mithel. He had VVVG + motti (299 points all naked) he is new to the game and put superior position in his objectives so I picked it, flung my bombers at his ships turn one then let him run them over while I flung my fighters. Some of the shots where medium range but most of them were distance 1.

Mate, may I ask you the rationale for picking 2 Bombers and 2 Advanced?

Why the two advanced? To maximise your squadrons adaptability to mixed confrontation against ships AND squadrons?

As for Fel and Mithel: I guess Fel was there to maximise effectiveness against squad screens (don't attack me? a free damage for you) but am wondering whether you also use Mithel in conjunction with Corrupter, that is keeping Mithel engaged with some squadron then activating him and just moving him by 1mm thus to dispense 1 free damage to all the squadrons around.

Thank you!

Fel gives you auto damage because the squadrons can hit him with your advanced around him, which is nice.

In regards to your question

WHAT IF the list I have to confront uses no squadrons at all?". Paradoxically, my tactical advantage would turn into a strategy-buster....or crippler.

I tend to just bring Rhymer, bomber and two advanced for my ball. If the enemey has no squadrons or a weak force, the advanced will at least throw black dice at medium range with Rhymer. They can't crit, but they stand to have a 75% hit chance with the black die versus an interceptor or TIE's blue die at 50%. So the advanced protect, have better surviviablity, and have a better chance to deal damage.

Personally, I love when my opponent brings no fighter support.

Four Bombers being thrown distance 5 on turn one is always a fun surprise for a small ship before it even activates.

A powerful enough Rhymerball can exercise a lot of control over the movement of the ever-popular Gladiator, seeing as how with a good enough Rhymerball you can drop it in a single round's worth of shooting.

Threaten the same area with Rhymer and a VSD and watch the Glads scurry.

One more thing:

- the squadron token is pretty much the worst kind of token there is

Huh? It's actually one of my favorites. I can order a squadron in to hit some shields before my ship attacks. It is stronger than a concentrate fire token.

My fav is the Maneuver token.

Re the squadron token - it's not that it's useless, but most of the time I'll be sending fighters out from ships with a high squadron value... it seems very limiting to have to set up my Vic or AF to bank tokens just to get 1 extra fighter away. With Tarkin the story is slightly different...to a lesser degree with Garm. And of course Yavaris + Raymus. But generally speaking I find I use the squadron token least of all.

That single squadron can lockdown bombers and save your capital ship ass.

Most discussions i have seen involving a Yavaris + 3 Bs supported by raymus/Garm end badly.. And i love to have them around when there is an overly affectionate Demolisher around trying to hug my Neb..

That single squadron can lockdown bombers and save your capital ship ass.

When I fly Rhymer I use Admiral Chiraneau and Corrupter -- NOTHING locks my bombers down, aside from overwhelming squadron power from the other player. My friends use a decent ammount of squadrons, however I don't think many in my area do, so I'm not too worried about that.

That single squadron can lockdown bombers and save your capital ship ass.

When I fly Rhymer I use Admiral Chiraneau and Corrupter -- NOTHING locks my bombers down, aside from overwhelming squadron power from the other player. My friends use a decent ammount of squadrons, however I don't think many in my area do, so I'm not too worried about that.

But you fly 3 instead of 5. So my statement stay, this could save your capital ship ass.

And not everyone run Chiraneau + Corrupter.

Is it just me or can ships in general be faster on the move than Squadrons?

I mean I.e. B-wings can only move 2, while the coming ISD can move 3 and can therefore basically leave B-wings in their wake.

CR90 or Raider is just as fast, if not slightly faster, than the TIE Interceptors or A-wings.

I always had the perception, that Starfighters (Squadrons) in the Star Wars universe always could outpace larger ships.

I know the relative confined gaming area, means that both sides ships in essence, have nowhere to run to, but how much influence thus this abstract difference in speed between Ships and Squadrons have on the game and should squadrons be able to move further per turn than they do now.

Especially when the gaming area has to be larger due to the up-sizing in points.

So please any one enlighten me, a rather baffled Kiwi Rat.

Game Balance.

ISDs were always touted as being fast.

A-Wings still outpace them, being fast.

Your question is only a bit loaded becuase of your choice of fighter - the slow as all-crap B-Wing, which is slow for game balance.

Speed also isn't just "Speed"... Its the ability to accelerate, Decelerate and Turn...

In that motif, Squadrons are blindingly fast in comparison to capital ships.