Hi Everyone,

I didnt remeber my old login or password so I made a new one but I have played and visited these forums since the release of armada and I keep seeing people post very unbalanced and game changing fixes to fighters. The problem that people keep missing isnt that fighters are bad, fighters are balanced you just need a carrier, Its how the game is scored by capital ships and carriers dont have the staying power against a battleship. So someone who takes 300 and soon 400 points of battleships has more staying power because they can't be tabled as soon and their ships can often take and give more punishment. With that said onto my fix;

With the new points cost I think that the increase ruling should be changed to; you are allowed 400 points of capital ships and the the usual amount of points in fighters in addition to the 400 points.

Example:

Let's say that someone brought 400 points of battleships, as people are sure to do once the 400 point level becomes standard, their opponenet brought 300 points of ships and 100 points of fighters. This means that the person who has 400 points of ships has an activation advantage because corvettes dont make carriers so no spam. This also means they have 100 points less of ship to worry about. Sure there are fighters but if all ships are gone then it doesnt matter and of those 300 points probably at least 2 of the main ships are carriers if they want decent squadron activation. With my idea they get 400 points of ships so those same two carriers in 300 point plus an additional 100 points for some more ships. Some people are thinking this sounds way to overpowered for carriers but they need to understand the 400 points of battleships also gets that same allotment of fighters and they can just take a bunch of counter fighters and try to defend their fleet that way. This idea gets fighters on the table for both sides in every game and opens up a ton of new tactial and strategic choices for list building and gameplay. It is also a fix that is already coming at some level it would need to be erratad.

Let's say that you have an imperial army and it is half vic and half glad at 400 points. Well now maybe you want to make a single vic a carrier and add a rhymer ball plus escort. You can do that. Same with the rebels. You can now take the escorts you think you are going to need without feeling that you are wasting points on squadrons.

I know some who are reading this are thinking "You never waste points on squadrons", i think that the tournament results say something different but regardless; this change, unlike the others doesnt affect balance or gameplay. This squadron fix only changes the amount of points you can take for each, which is something FFG is already doing. It doesnt alter balance because it doesnt change any of the rules, It doesnt change any costs for cards, and it doesnt give either side an advantage becuase no cards or relationships or mechanics involving squadrons are changed. It just lets everyone take squadrons and capitals in all of their lists because lets face it the only space battles in starwars not involving both was missing the capital ships, not the fighters.

With all that being said I have been playing this way with my group for about 2 weeks and none of us are ever going back. It has been so much fun but as always there are never enough points -.-

I am also curious to know if everyone thinks that squadrons with rogue are going to replace the others. With them being spoiled now I think my entire gaming group is only going to run them. Each Faction gets a single rogue or villian ship to replace the other 4 squadrons. Sure they are more expensive but the new ones don't rely on carriers.

Rogue is a crutch.

Its interesting, and HELPS squadron based fleets.

However, go sole rogues and villians and see yourself smashed in the next meta.

Get with it, squadrons as they are dont suck, use the new large squadrons is you like but not at the expense of older fighter squadrons, you will still lose vs savvy players.

the expectation of a "Carrier" ship is part of why squadrons are apparently hard to use

you do not need a carrier

bring an Escort Neb, naked or with Yavaris, and bam there's your carrier

naked VSD? carrier

Assault Frigate with Paragon? carrier

Demolisher? carrier (better than getting B-winged)

every ship can be a carrier at a moment's notice; dedicating a ship to do nothing but support squadrons is shooting yourself in the foot

squadrons don't need any outside help; they're quite simply misunderstood

not that they're particularly intuitive to begin with, mind. For example, which VSD to you reach for when using bombers:

1. Flight controllers +hangars

2. H9 + Warlord, or Dominator

you go for whichever one is more convenient, but if you really want to kill a thing in one turn you use Warlord because nothing you could buy for squadrons would put out more damage than upgrading the ship itself

Also, really, the no squadrons also is a problem because of tabling scoring. If they just took that out, it would be a balanced thing!!!!!!

I HATE HOW MUCH FFG **** UP THEIR GAMES DUE TO SCORING! IT MAKES ME SO MAD. ITS LIKE WAVE5 TURRETS ALL OVER AGAIN.

kinda the opposite of Wave 5 turrets (too many ships) and more Wave 0-3 Tie Swarm, but with Gladiators

Also, really, the no squadrons also is a problem because of tabling scoring. If they just took that out, it would be a balanced thing!!!!!!

I HATE HOW MUCH FFG **** UP THEIR GAMES DUE TO SCORING! IT MAKES ME SO MAD. ITS LIKE WAVE5 TURRETS ALL OVER AGAIN.

I agree the tournament scoring could be done better. The trouble is that FFG are balancing the game duration, and venue expectations as to completing a tournament. A small shop couldn't allocate its full gaming space to a group of 12-18 players for a complete weekend and many of us just don't have that time any more. (or ever)

How would you propose to change things and get a 3-4 round tournament done in a day?

(My first preference is to drop MOV as the score and use wins, then if players are tied use the result they had if they played, then the MOV they scored + the MOV of their opponents to factor out who had the best run in results and the most difficult opponents. And like you I believe the MOV should be scored as is.

I'm not so sure a win/loss system would be so great. I think it would encourage very cautious play, long-range fire, maneuvering, not risking your fighters etc. Not much fun at all.

Also, really, the no squadrons also is a problem because of tabling scoring. If they just took that out, it would be a balanced thing!!!!!!

I HATE HOW MUCH FFG **** UP THEIR GAMES DUE TO SCORING! IT MAKES ME SO MAD. ITS LIKE WAVE5 TURRETS ALL OVER AGAIN.

Have you been getting enough ketchup? You know, ketchup has natural mellowing agents that makes a game's frustrations easier to manage. One good dose a day can prevent internet raging and hypertension.

(Brought to you by the Ketchup Advisory Board.)

as I have said elsewhere the scoring is the issue. I think FFG may have been worried worth leaving points on the table like that though. I agree with them that the game should end if one side loses all of its ships but it could cause for some weird scoring situations. Were you brought no fighters the opponent brought max he takes you down to your last ship but you kill his ships but no squadrons ending the game, but he could have more points than you. Doesn't seem right

as I have said elsewhere the scoring is the issue. I think FFG may have been worried worth leaving points on the table like that though. I agree with them that the game should end if one side loses all of its ships but it could cause for some weird scoring situations. Were you brought no fighters the opponent brought max he takes you down to your last ship but you kill his ships but no squadrons ending the game, but he could have more points than you. Doesn't seem right

Yet I have killed more points than you, why shouldn't the score be a 5/5?

I'm not so sure a win/loss system would be so great. I think it would encourage very cautious play, long-range fire, maneuvering, not risking your fighters etc. Not much fun at all.

Maybe, but wouldn't the threat and often times the need for the tie break also cause for some effect on the way players establish themselves on the match?

It's a fleet game, not a squadron game, and I feel the current rules really reflect the fluff of Star Wars.

Take the Imperial Fleet for example : Most of their fighters are not equipped with hyperdrives, so if all the carriers are destroyed, they're effectively stranded there in deep space forever.

In terms of gameplay, squadrons wings are one type of ship, and much like no ship is designed to carry the game, neither will squadrons. When used effectively (and proper positioning is paramount !), they are an excellent support.

Like FickleGreenDice said, squadrons are very misunderstood. You don't even need Carrier ships to get the most of your squadrons. Actually, most of the time, Squadrons will only need 1, perhaps 2 squadron commands per game to really get them into position and start rampaging through stuff..

Last game I played (400 points of Rebels), my carrier Gallant Haven (which didn't even have the Expanded Hangar Bays... Shocking !) was spending half its commands on squadrons and the other on Engineering, alternating each turn. And no squadrons ever found themselves not shooting at things.

As long as you can predict where the enemy ships are going to go, then the squadrons don't really need too much support, and the extra squadron command really helps to get maybe one shot when repositioning, or break a squadron screen then repositioning.

Also, one thing I've noticed in my meta is that squadrons are usually used in the hopes of a single decisive strike, and are disappointed when the squadrons underperform. But, due to them mostly having single dice and a highly unreliable damage output (even Bomber Black dice will only average 1 damage per squadron), they shouldn't be looked at as anything else than support.

Support, to add that extra damage to enemy ships. Support, to control the flow of the enemy fighters. Support, to earn points by killing off enemy fighters.

But, the ships in your fleet need to have the means and the position to inflict damage on enemy ships. Because, alone, 100 or 130 points of squadrons will really have trouble killing off a VSD on their own (due to the bulk) or a Gladiator (due to the speed).

as I have said elsewhere the scoring is the issue. I think FFG may have been worried worth leaving points on the table like that though. I agree with them that the game should end if one side loses all of its ships but it could cause for some weird scoring situations. Were you brought no fighters the opponent brought max he takes you down to your last ship but you kill his ships but no squadrons ending the game, but he could have more points than you. Doesn't seem right

Yet I have killed more points than you, why shouldn't the score be a 5/5?

I'm not so sure a win/loss system would be so great. I think it would encourage very cautious play, long-range fire, maneuvering, not risking your fighters etc. Not much fun at all.

Maybe, but wouldn't the threat and often times the need for the tie break also cause for some effect on the way players establish themselves on the match?

I think you might be missing my point sorry toured it while half asleep. My point was you could take your opponent ships causing the game to end and you would still lose.