Played a game last night where my regular opponent and I both played fighters as part of our fleets. The seemed very fresh and very fun.

However, when we play seriously neither one of us brings any fighters... they just seem to be a liability.

We discussed reversing the fighter rule and requiring that every ship/fleet bring a mandatory amount of fighters. Not sure how the details would work but if every ship had to bring ~ 10% of its points in fighters with a minimum of a single fighter per ship.

I think this would bring diversity to fleet building as I really like both the added complexity fighters bring and the visual elements they lend to the table.

Not asking for FFG to change anything. I assume they have a plan that makes everything work eventually.

Just my 2 cents.

J--

That's one of the great things about house rules... if you guys all agree, then have at it!

I would much rather they do something to make fighters more desirable than force them into builds.

I love squadrons (namely my rhymer ball), but I do not agree with making them mandatory, at least for official tournaments. I like the fact that there are so many different lists that can be played. You can go squad heavy and run with a screen and bombers, you can run with just a screen, you can do just a small bomber wing, you can run with no fighters. It adds a lot more variety.

I feel that if squads were required, it limits what you can do. Essentially if they are required we will have an extra "tax" for our lists. We already have to take a commander, so that is at lease 20 of your points that are gone. Then if squadrons were required you would lose even more of your points, thus limiting options.

But with all that being said, when playing for fun you can pretty much do what you would like

Buff fighters instead of nerfing list-building and you'll wind up with a lot more happy players.

My squadrons in my last few games do amazing things. . . Then again I don't bring more squadrons then I can activate in a turn with my carrier ships so with 2 Assault Frigates that is 6 squadrons

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

Second part. . . Take upgrades?

ISD 1 with Expanded Hanger Bay has what a squadron value of 5? That is at minimum, 40 points of TIE Fighters that you are able to activate? That kills things

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

First part. . . No. I really dislike the idea of Turing this game into Warmachine.

Second part. . . Take upgrades?

ISD 1 with Expanded Hanger Bay has what a squadron value of 5? That is at minimum, 40 points of TIE Fighters that you are able to activate? That kills things

I've never played Warmachine, so I don't get that reference. And an ISD with a squadron value of 5 is still one squadron short of what ISDs are supposed to carry on a normal basis.

Play bombers when you play a serious game against your friend. With no fighters at all they'll rip him apart.

Or they could, I don't know, give you victory points for just what you kill......

Oh please don't bring squadrons

My bwings are ever hungry

I think the Rogues and Villains pack is going to have very powerful squadrons that people are going to want to play. In turn, other people will start using other squadrons in order to combat them. It will really open up the squadron meta.

Or it won't, people won't use the new squadrons either, and everything will be pretty much the same.

I've been thinking about this topic lately, too. Mostly I've been approaching it from an angle of trying to get more squads in without affecting list building or the depth that comes with choosing how to balance ships and squads in your build.

First things first, we kill that rule about kill all ships = 300pts. It's dumb, it really hurts the health of the game, and at best it saves us 10-20 minutes per match. Not worth it.

Here's the best I could come up with:

1. Your maximum squad value is based on the Squadron command of all your ships.
   • This replaces the 1/3 rule.
   • E.g., My list is 2 Vics, I can bring a maximum of 6 squads.
2. Squadrons do not count against your list total.
   • Your 400 point maximum is now spent exclusively on ships and upgrades.
   • E.g., if you're running that 2 Vic build, you could bring up to 6 squads of any combination. 6 TIEs or 6 aces; it doesn't matter.
3. Squadrons do count towards your victory point total when destroyed.
   • So if you ran a list with 400 points on ships and upgrades, plus ran 4 TIE Fighters, you opponent could potentially score 432 points if they table you.
   • If your opponent ran a 395 point list with 6 TIE Advances, you could potentially score 467 points if you table them.
4. You are not required to run squadrons in your list.
   • If you wanted to run a lean list that doesn't run any squadrons, you can. If you play well, you have an advantage on margin of victory as there are more potential points for you to score.

The list building strategy then revolves around how much you're willing to essentially gamble on squadrons, and it affects a couple of core strategic choices:

• If you invest heavily and get blown out, then you'll really feel it in the margin of victory. If you go cheap, you better be able to fly well.
• It increases the worth of the Squadron value on a ship because that value directly relates to the number of freenotfree squadrons you can bring.
• It increases the value of anti-squadron attack dice on ships. If you sink 120 extra points into squadrons that get chewed up by an Impetuous/Instigator pair, it's going to be much harder for you to win because your opponent has gotten better overall value for their points spent.

This certainly isn't a perfect set of rules, and I wouldn't advocate it to be official, but it's something I definitely plan to try out in a home brew some time.

Make fighters shoot than move that's what our circle has done down here. Makes them worthwhile.

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

To make this type of change FFG would have to go back and re-cost litterally everything.

That isn't going to happen one Wave in, or at all likely, but certainly not one Wave in especially since we aren't even playing at the intended point level.

Make fighters shoot than move that's what our circle has done down here. Makes them worthwhile.

At first, I was going to disagree with you because I thought you were suggesting the usual "make them act like they've been given a squadron command all the time" we often hear (as in, they can always move and shoot). I dislike that idea because it completely invalidates the purpose of squadron commands, thus making carrier ships useless, which would require a major rule/functionality rework, which ultimately means it's not a super elegant or easy solution.

Then I reread what you said, and I actually kind of like it: make them follow ship activation rules of first attack then move (fixed order). Squadron command would then let them move and shoot in any order, so it's not pointless. Diminished certainly, but not pointless. Throw in more cards like Flight Controllers and Admiral Chimchimney and you'd still have some reason to use squadron commands.

You can't make this sort of alteration on the fly. This type of change would be an intrinsic alteration to the costing structure of the game and would completely invalidate the costing they have in place.

To make this type of change FFG would have to go back and re-cost litterally everything.

That isn't going to happen one Wave in, or at all likely, but certainly not one Wave in especially since we aren't even playing at the intended point level.

How so? You'd still have to fit your squadron total into your provided squadron amount. As it stands now, you have to choose between more ships, bigger guns (upgrades), or a handful of fighters. In the SW universe, that's never (rarely) the case, as the bigger ships always come with some fighters. This gives you that opportunity, and turns your point allocation into a two part process: 1. More ships vs upgrades, and 2. Cheap fighters vs Expensive fighters. The point value of destroyed fighters would still count against you, so I'm not seeing how this would shake up the game to the extent you seem to believe it would.

I've been thinking about this topic lately, too. Mostly I've been approaching it from an angle of trying to get more squads in without affecting list building or the depth that comes with choosing how to balance ships and squads in your build.

First things first, we kill that rule about kill all ships = 300pts. It's dumb, it really hurts the health of the game, and at best it saves us 10-20 minutes per match. Not worth it.

Here's the best I could come up with:

• Your maximum squad value is based on the Squadron command of all your ships.
  • This replaces the 1/3 rule.
  • E.g., My list is 2 Vics, I can bring a maximum of 6 squads.
• Squadrons do not count against your list total.
  • Your 400 point maximum is now spent exclusively on ships and upgrades.
  • E.g., if you're running that 2 Vic build, you could bring up to 6 squads of any combination. 6 TIEs or 6 aces; it doesn't matter.
• Squadrons do count towards your victory point total when destroyed.
  • So if you ran a list with 400 points on ships and upgrades, plus ran 4 TIE Fighters, you opponent could potentially score 432 points if they table you.
  • If your opponent ran a 395 point list with 6 TIE Advances, you could potentially score 467 points if you table them.
• You are not required to run squadrons in your list.
  • If you wanted to run a lean list that doesn't run any squadrons, you can. If you play well, you have an advantage on margin of victory as there are more potential points for you to score.

The list building strategy then revolves around how much you're willing to essentially gamble on squadrons, and it affects a couple of core strategic choices:

• If you invest heavily and get blown out, then you'll really feel it in the margin of victory. If you go cheap, you better be able to fly well.
• It increases the worth of the Squadron value on a ship because that value directly relates to the number of freenotfree squadrons you can bring.
• It increases the value of anti-squadron attack dice on ships. If you sink 120 extra points into squadrons that get chewed up by an Impetuous/Instigator pair, it's going to be much harder for you to win because your opponent has gotten better overall value for their points spent.

This certainly isn't a perfect set of rules, and I wouldn't advocate it to be official, but it's something I definitely plan to try out in a home brew some time.

No thank you. The balance of the game is good right now. I don't want to be forced to take squadrons if I don't want to.

Squadrons are going strong in the Portland area. We have just gotten to the point where we know how much is too much. In fact I have won my last couple of games with squadrons. In fact, 2 A-Wings and 4 B-Wings.

Last game was a 7-3 game and the one before that was 8-2. I lose squadrons but that is how it works.

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

First part. . . No. I really dislike the idea of Turing this game into Warmachine.

Second part. . . Take upgrades?

ISD 1 with Expanded Hanger Bay has what a squadron value of 5? That is at minimum, 40 points of TIE Fighters that you are able to activate? That kills things

I've never played Warmachine, so I don't get that reference. And an ISD with a squadron value of 5 is still one squadron short of what ISDs are supposed to carry on a normal basis.

Because we were explicitly told that a squadron value is based on how much they can hold and not officers tracking and passing orders along to those squadrons.

In warmachine, from what I have heard based on an earlier form of this same topic a few months back, people stopped taking WarJacks (the soulless automatons controlled by the warcaster) so the designers gave every caster free points to take these Jacks. It changed the dynamic of the game. It changed how the Meta developed for that game.

Sorry, don't want. Right now the game is diverse. No squadron lists have issues against squadron lists. I like that dynamic.

Squadrons take practice and experience.

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

You can't make this sort of alteration on the fly. This type of change would be an intrinsic alteration to the costing structure of the game and would completely invalidate the costing they have in place.

To make this type of change FFG would have to go back and re-cost litterally everything.

That isn't going to happen one Wave in, or at all likely, but certainly not one Wave in especially since we aren't even playing at the intended point level.

I agree with this.

You just gave free points away. Now you are playing a 500+ point game and people just max out on ships. Yay diversity!

The right way would be to errata the point values for squadrons a bit and then somehow provide new cards with the corrected values in re-prints and as an extra in expansions..

Probably one point less for each would go a long way.

I'd like to see players get a certain amount of "free" fighters, based on what their ships can carry. You could give 10 pts (or however many) free towards fighters per Squadron value point of the ship. Players would be free to add more fighters than that, but there wouldn't be the fighter-less fleets you see now. This could be integrated into the game pretty easily too, as a moderately expensive upgrade card installed on one ship could do this for the whole fleet, while still costing a few points so people don't go ridiculous with their builds.

Also, if FFG would introduce a dedicated carrier or two, with a high squadron value, and an upgrade card that let's them direct squadrons from long range, it would help improve squadrons immensely.

You can't make this sort of alteration on the fly. This type of change would be an intrinsic alteration to the costing structure of the game and would completely invalidate the costing they have in place.

To make this type of change FFG would have to go back and re-cost litterally everything.

That isn't going to happen one Wave in, or at all likely, but certainly not one Wave in especially since we aren't even playing at the intended point level.

Total over reaction which is really common and of the sort that really irritates me. It's always funny to me that you see these reactions. On one hand, there seems to be a really high faith placed on the publisher while at the same time fear that some crazy idea will get made official by the same sensible publisher.

My suggestion to you is to write a rules set or get involved with a few play testing projects for publishers. You'll find that points for units are actually not that exacting in most systems and that changing things can help nearly often as hurt. You don't know until you test.

First, what you think will happen is often wrong. Second, the first couple rounds of tests will often have biased results based on the what the testers think will happen. By round three you start getting the real results.

My prediction is that in wave one it would unbalance the game, but after wave two it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal. You just wouldn't see low squadron ships taken. The problem would move from no squadrons to no little ships. I think FFG could release carrier variants, and unless the new stuff really changes things I would predict upping the squadron point limit wouldn't break anything especially if tied to squadron values in some way.

At any rate, shutting the door on ideas for improving games like that is really counter productive. If you aren't interested in variants and/or conversations like this, just stay out. Only the cream rises to the top, and very little of it gets into games.

I think the next wave will include some kind of expansion that forces you to buy capital ships to boost your fighters - probably by bundling capitals and fighters together, as was discussed in another thread.

I really oughta point out how effective squadrons are, and how the only legitimate complaint I've heard is how the tournament system handles m.o.v for wiping out all opposing ships because everything else can be overcome with practice

...but I want my free Mon Cal/ISD

so yeah, squadrons suck. never fly them

Mooniac, I have been involved with playtesting process for a number of games and a number of different publishers.

That posters suggestion is a massive upheaval in regards to the valuation of the Squadron stat.

The Squadron stat, as is, is one of fairly low value. Not in the sense that it can't be used as an effective stat but in the sense that it likely doesn't necessitate a large increase in cost as to utilize it you also have to then spend more points on Squadrons. Unlike every other stat (non-Upgrade bar) inherent to a ship it has no value without an additional expenditure of points.

That posters suggestion is to give free points of Squadrons on the basis of the Squadron stat, so now rather then the Squadron stat requiring additional expenditure of points it instead grants you points. That type of stark reversal now makes the Squadron stat significantly more valueable, which is not at all what it is costed at. You've now disproportionately added value to ships with large Squadron stats compared to those without.

Moreover, this is a suggestion being made on the basis of play with just the Core and Wave 1 at 300 points. We haven't even seen the game at it preferred point level and now with the Large class of ships. That is why any suggestion to alter the rules in a fundemental manner can't be anything but pre-mature, which is exactly what my statement to that poster said.

FFG is not GW, the point costs are not something just picked out of a hat. Now are they WizKids in which they only adhere to a formula. They do have inherent valuations of various stats and such and they do make edits to cost based on playtesting.

I really oughta point out how effective squadrons are, and how the only legitimate complaint I've heard is how the tournament system handles m.o.v for wiping out all opposing ships because everything else can be overcome with practice

...but I want my free Mon Cal/ISD

so yeah, squadrons suck. never fly them