Admiral Chiraneau has defected? YES!

It depends. Smart money is on running more ships with capable stats. MC30s, CR90s, etc. You get more activations, more orders, spread your damage output over multiple attacks (to minimise the effect of defence tokens) and incoming damage is spread over multiple ships meaning your fleet remains effective and capable for longer.

Makes me wonder if larger ships will find a use for those cards that convert "something" to an accuracy? No brace for you Mr Sienfield.

I think that's an interesting point, and made me realise something that probably should have been obvious: FFG must have had at least as far as this wave planned out since before the release of the main game. I wonder what else will start to make more sense now that we're playing the game as intended (I'm inclined to say fighters, but they've always made sense to me).

Bold Mine:

This is exactly what I see. Look how each design convention seems to line up in different areas of each faction: medium, slow, powerhouse slugger on imperial side. Big, slow, powerhouse slugger on the rebel side. The AFKMK11 is the faster, but smaller warship while the ISD is the bigger, but faster warship. Look at how it is only Imperials that can get evade on their Large ship, when Rebels specialize in evade and the synergy with Turbolaser Reroute Circuits.

Especially when you look at squadrons does this jump down your throat: Rogues and the relative power of the "tiny ships". Take Boba or Han for example, each ship costs half-ish of the brawler ship for each faction, while giving you the firepower, against ships, of one of their meh arcs, but it counters that with unparalleled manueverability and a special ability that helps boost its powerlevel. That is to say: they can pop in behind a ship that's been redirecting shields and hammer an unshielded zone without the opponent being able to react with their ships, and defense tokens have been spent on the "big" attacks. So they end up with more hard choices; like burn my redirect or brace or take a faceup damage card and change?

This alone will cause, I feel, even the most stringent anti-squadron/all-ship players to considered a rogue or two...and this will push people to realize that pot-shotting these neuscances while they are free to unload on your ships wherever they please can't stand: enter the fighter screen to tie(heh) them down. Then you get the types of fighter screens/battles that are intended in the game since most people will likely wish to tie up rogues OR invest well into upgrades or ship types that allow them overwhelming firepower to down those pesky rogue pilots.

Fundamentally, in a tournament environment with MoV, fewer more expensive ships is a better for MoV, just like X wing. So I would expect to see dual ISD, depending on upgrade synergy.

( or more simply, it better to put EA on 4 ships than bring a CR90b.)

doesn't work out so well in Armada due to how activations work

there is no waiting till everyone's gone and just casually boosting out of range, if you're horribly outnumbered you can reasonably expect to be pincushioned while those defense tokens falter

Interesting, that: is fewer kitted out ships better or many naked ships better? Squadrons or no?

There's extremely valid arguments for every way of looking at the game...even more than I thought there would be in Wave 1.

My experience with the builders leads me to think that fleets will be hard pressed to press past 4/5 ships without major exploitable sacrafices and/or gimmicky play. The insane cost of Large ships will limit the majority of fleets flying around.

Once I am able to grab ahold of more wave II ships beyond prize kits I can be a little more forward in my fleet builds. I am tempted to field an ISD with 3-4 raiders and squadrons.

the ISD1s capability to launch 7 squadrons at once with boosted comms and expanded hangars, add flight controllers and im all in on round bases. I already was but now Rhymer and his hit squad (usually interceptors and TIEs for me) can just go blink away shields, letting the ISD rip into the ship. I am very excited to play ISDs and Villains. I know people are excited for small/med ship spam, Ozzel in particular seems nasty.

I hope that once Wave 2 is unlocked the meta shakes out to more than 2-3 lists per faction being the most competitive. Locally this happened but I am also sure it was part of the number of releases.

How can an ISD launch seven squadrons? It only have Squadron 5 with Expanded Hanger Bays.

He meant 6 with a token as well.

+++ First player all the way (396pts) +++

++ Rebel Fleet (Standard) (396pts) ++

+ Assault Frigate MkII (85pts) +

Assault Frigate Mark IIB (85pts) [Advanced Projectors (6pts), Gunnery Team (7pts)]

+ CR90 Corvette (108pts) +

CR90 Corvette A (58pts) [Heavy Turbolaser Turrets (6pts), Projection Experts (6pts), •Jaina's Light (2pts)]

CR90 Corvette A (50pts) [Heavy Turbolaser Turrets (6pts)]

+ MC80 Cruiser (161pts) +

MC80 Command Cruiser (161pts) [Advanced Projectors (6pts), Boosted Comms (4pts), •Admiral Ackbar (38pts), •Home One (7pts)]

+ Squadrons (42pts) +

B-Wing Squadron (14pts)

B-Wing Squadron (14pts)

B-Wing Squadron (14pts)

Hmmmm. . . Not sure how I feel about the MC80 in this list. . . An Assault Frigate might just be better. . . But home One. . . And a huge base to block Los for jaina

Here's what I'm currently playing around with:

Battle Group I

Imperial-II Star Destroyer: 149 pts

*Screed

*Relentless

Raider II Corvette: 56 pts

*Overload Pulse

Battle Group II

Gladiator-I Star Destroyer: 85 pts

*ACM

*Engine Techs

*Ordnance Experts

*Demolisher

Raider II Class Corvette: 56 pts

*Overload Pulse

Support Group

Raider-I Class Corvette: 52 pts

*Instigator

*Ordnance Experts

This sits in at 398 points. This is still very much a work in progress, since I've obviously not been able to playtest it yet. I'll probably like to drop a few points, not quite sure where. The strategy is simple: in each battle group, the Raider will overload pulse the target, allowing its partner ship to deliver a hammer blow. The Instigator is there entirely to tie up Rhymer-Balls and other such threatening squadrons that might otherwise put a cramp in my day.

Somehow I missed the fact that this was five activations with an ISD II and Demolisher. Personally, I would probably tend towards taking Gunnery Team on the ISD over Engine Techs on the Demolisher, but wow... that's a lot of firepower.

Hmm... well, Splitting your fleet feels to me like you're handing your opponent a divide-and-conquer victory. Every time someone's done this I feel I always have the advantage of ganging up more of my ships against the fewer that come to attack me. Flanking against me sometimes works, when that ends up happening is I peel off one ship to engage the flanker while the other two continue pounding on the ship(s) I've engaged.

This is true if you can't unite your forces for an extended period of time. Deploying separately for the Empire was a nightmare in Wave I, because it usually meant a trailing Vic way off in the distance that didn't do anything in the initial fight, which either left it an easy picking or made it easy to flee from after the rest of the fleet had been dealt with. With speed 3 ISDs and Glads, and speed 4 Raiders and Glads + Engine Techs, separate groups that are deployed within half- to two-thirds of the deployment zone apart should be able to reunite by turns 3-4, unless they dally. Rebels have plenty of speed 3-5 ships to make this work, too.

The larger question is what strategic goal is accomplished by deploying one's forces in this fashion. One obvious advantage is to present two different fronts, where the opponent must choose to bring the majority (or all) of his firepower to bear in such a way that by doing so, he exposes a weak front to the second group of your forces (think Hyperspace Assault, with Demolisher or Insidious jumping behind the enemy after they have committed to an attack on your main force). The trick becomes whether you can bring your flanking forces to bear at the critical moment of battle, when the enemy is locked in, and your other forces are still strong enough to resist them.

Alternatively, focus-firing has been a predominant strategy in Wave I. I don't expect that much will change in Wave II, beyond the fact that (1) both sides now have cheap ships that permit more ships total in a fleet, (2) both sides now have bigger ships (and upgrades that amplify the firepower of existing ships significantly), and (3) we have more upgrades, titles, squadrons, etc. that debilitate enemy ships (APTs, NK-7s, Nym, Dodonna, Screed, etc), leaving them more susceptible to focusing. Activating pairs of ships in a group--even if they're deployed in the same general area--basically comes down to double-focusing two targets, instead of chain focusing one. Which strategy is more effective remains to be seen, of course.

He meant 6 with a token as well.

The ISD1 in the prview article has Squadron 5 but the real card has squadron 4.....this changes everything

Hmm... well, Splitting your fleet feels to me like you're handing your opponent a divide-and-conquer victory. Every time someone's done this I feel I always have the advantage of ganging up more of my ships against the fewer that come to attack me. Flanking against me sometimes works, when that ends up happening is I peel off one ship to engage the flanker while the other two continue pounding on the ship(s) I've engaged.

This is true if you can't unite your forces for an extended period of time. Deploying separately for the Empire was a nightmare in Wave I, because it usually meant a trailing Vic way off in the distance that didn't do anything in the initial fight, which either left it an easy picking or made it easy to flee from after the rest of the fleet had been dealt with. With speed 3 ISDs and Glads, and speed 4 Raiders and Glads + Engine Techs, separate groups that are deployed within half- to two-thirds of the deployment zone apart should be able to reunite by turns 3-4, unless they dally. Rebels have plenty of speed 3-5 ships to make this work, too.

Heh. What's funny is, I ran an Imperial List for both Sullest events. My list consisted of a VSD-II, a GSD-I Demolisher, and another GSD-I, with a few TIE fighter squadrons to tie up enemy squadrons.

In my first four games (I played two events) with this list, I was first player (eight point initiative bid), and chose Superior Positions each time. In each deployment, I set the Demolisher 2/3 to one side of my deployment area, and my two other ships 2/3 to the opposite side. In each game, my opponent would always then load all of his ships to one side of the field, either going after the Demo or the other two.

In the games where they went after the Demo, I kept him at speed 3, while my Vic and Glad moved on a flanking course at the same speed. The Demo with its engine techs simply speared up between two enemy ships in their line, fired a shot, then activated first next turn, fired, and was suddenly behind them where it was pretty much safe. My opponents were then left out of good assault position against my flanking Vic and Glad, since they'd been focused on taking out the Demo. The Vic and Glad would go toe-to-toe with their weakened fleet, and the Demo would make its turn in time to deliver one last finishing blow on turn 5/6.

In games where they went on the side of the Vic and Glad, I slowed the Vic down to speed one, and the Glad to two. The Glad would circle towards the board edge, the Vic moving straight for the enemy fleet. The Demolisher, meanwhile, speared across the field. By turn three, the Vic was right in front of the enemy fleet, tanking their initial fire, the Glad was flanking up the board edge side, and the Demolisher was already behind their fleet.

In all four of these games, I tabled my opponent. Lost the Vic in one game, and the Demolisher in another. Went 10/0 in all four games. The only game I lost during the Sullest event was against almost an exact copy of my list, where our objective was Outpost, he deployed it in his corner, and went at speed one to make me have to come to him. Might have won that game, but the Demo was moving at speed 3 and just barely touched the edge of the map (literally a 1 or 2 mm over the playing edge). Had he stayed within the field, he would have been behind the enemy fleet and munching on them. Possibly would have won, but, meh.

Anyway, moral of the story is: Divide and conquer doesn't work well in this game (unless your opponent is really really dumb). In the case of my initially proposed strategy, if you did deploy your battle groups separately (which wasn't something I said, but w/e), then either you slow down your slower-moving group so your fast moving group can flank, letting both strike near simultaneously, or if it's a fast moving group they're going after, speed up to max and get past/through them to avoid front/side arc damage, and leave them hopefully out of position for your slower, heavier hitting group to hit from optimal positioning.

He meant 6 with a token as well.

The ISD1 in the prview article has Squadron 5 but the real card has squadron 4.....this changes everything

squadron 4 is honestly just dandy

it gives you a hefty amount of squadrons without forcing you to flood your fleet with them

thinking practically, Rhymer & 3 bombers is adding four black dice to your activation; bringing your ISD to a total 12 dice or even 16 (double arc)

that's plenty scary as is; no upgrades needed; though Relentless is probably too good to pass up for a "Squadron" ISD

As for the bit of Vic vs. Imp debate that's been going on, here's my two cents on that:

My previous post gives my reasoning why speed is so important in this game. The Vic's speed 2 vs the Imp's speed 3 is the main reason I'd take it. Especially after watching Vics move at their lumbering pace all through wave 1, many people are going to be caught off guard by the Imp's ability to move across the field. Red dice and evades on those board-skirting rebel ships is going to mean very little when your enormous Imperial and crotch-punching Glads actually have the speed to chase them down and bring the fight to them in a mean way.

This really was my way of thinking for Sullest. I ran 3-4 squadrons of TIE-Fighters. They were there solely for the purpose of pissing off my opponent. I fought several bomber heavy lists, and each time, my opponent expressed his exasperation at one stinkin' TIE fighter locking up a couple of bombers at inopportune moments.

Hmm... well, Splitting your fleet feels to me like you're handing your opponent a divide-and-conquer victory. Every time someone's done this I feel I always have the advantage of ganging up more of my ships against the fewer that come to attack me. Flanking against me sometimes works, when that ends up happening is I peel off one ship to engage the flanker while the other two continue pounding on the ship(s) I've engaged.

This is true if you can't unite your forces for an extended period of time. Deploying separately for the Empire was a nightmare in Wave I, because it usually meant a trailing Vic way off in the distance that didn't do anything in the initial fight, which either left it an easy picking or made it easy to flee from after the rest of the fleet had been dealt with. With speed 3 ISDs and Glads, and speed 4 Raiders and Glads + Engine Techs, separate groups that are deployed within half- to two-thirds of the deployment zone apart should be able to reunite by turns 3-4, unless they dally. Rebels have plenty of speed 3-5 ships to make this work, too.

Heh. What's funny is, I ran an Imperial List for both Sullest events. My list consisted of a VSD-II, a GSD-I Demolisher, and another GSD-I, with a few TIE fighter squadrons to tie up enemy squadrons.

In my first four games (I played two events) with this list, I was first player (eight point initiative bid), and chose Superior Positions each time. In each deployment, I set the Demolisher 2/3 to one side of my deployment area, and my two other ships 2/3 to the opposite side. In each game, my opponent would always then load all of his ships to one side of the field, either going after the Demo or the other two.

In the games where they went after the Demo, I kept him at speed 3, while my Vic and Glad moved on a flanking course at the same speed. The Demo with its engine techs simply speared up between two enemy ships in their line, fired a shot, then activated first next turn, fired, and was suddenly behind them where it was pretty much safe. My opponents were then left out of good assault position against my flanking Vic and Glad, since they'd been focused on taking out the Demo. The Vic and Glad would go toe-to-toe with their weakened fleet, and the Demo would make its turn in time to deliver one last finishing blow on turn 5/6.

In games where they went on the side of the Vic and Glad, I slowed the Vic down to speed one, and the Glad to two. The Glad would circle towards the board edge, the Vic moving straight for the enemy fleet. The Demolisher, meanwhile, speared across the field. By turn three, the Vic was right in front of the enemy fleet, tanking their initial fire, the Glad was flanking up the board edge side, and the Demolisher was already behind their fleet.

In all four of these games, I tabled my opponent. Lost the Vic in one game, and the Demolisher in another. Went 10/0 in all four games. The only game I lost during the Sullest event was against almost an exact copy of my list, where our objective was Outpost, he deployed it in his corner, and went at speed one to make me have to come to him. Might have won that game, but the Demo was moving at speed 3 and just barely touched the edge of the map (literally a 1 or 2 mm over the playing edge). Had he stayed within the field, he would have been behind the enemy fleet and munching on them. Possibly would have won, but, meh.

Anyway, moral of the story is: Divide and conquer doesn't work well in this game (unless your opponent is really really dumb). In the case of my initially proposed strategy, if you did deploy your battle groups separately (which wasn't something I said, but w/e), then either you slow down your slower-moving group so your fast moving group can flank, letting both strike near simultaneously, or if it's a fast moving group they're going after, speed up to max and get past/through them to avoid front/side arc damage, and leave them hopefully out of position for your slower, heavier hitting group to hit from optimal positioning.

Sounds like a strong tactic but easily prevented. Hmmmm

i like activating 5 or so but yes squadron 4 may be fine. at 400 i can run 2 carriers one with flight controllers that sends in howlrunner and interceptors and then the other can run rhymer. we shall see I will first work on unlocking the ship combos i like and then fit Rhymer and Co in to the list.

i like activating 5 or so but yes squadron 4 may be fine. at 400 i can run 2 carriers one with flight controllers that sends in howlrunner and interceptors and then the other can run rhymer. we shall see I will first work on unlocking the ship combos i like and then fit Rhymer and Co in to the list.

Sometimes it is less about the amount of squadrons but more along the lines on the quality of squadrons used.

B-Wings are like that. They are expensive but they do great work!

He meant 6 with a token as well.

The ISD1 in the prview article has Squadron 5 but the real card has squadron 4.....this changes everything

It's still pretty good with 5. Six might have been overpowered as it would really make Flight Controllers crazy good.