So as I'm sure nearly everyone here is aware, squadrons are a contentious part of the game. There are some positive developments in Wave 2 (Rogues, Grit, higher hull point squadrons, etc.) that may see squadrons used more widely but at the very least going completely without squadrons is a legitimate and perhaps even strong build for the moment. When squadrons do see play, it's frequently large numbers of bombers (relying on a lack of serious enemy fighter squadrons to interfere with them), creating a kind of rock paper scissors arrangement. It's very meta- and matchup-dependent.

As a fan of Star Wars (which... I mean I assume all of us are, otherwise why are we playing Star Wars: Armada instead of something else?) it seems very jarring to set up for a game of Armada and see no to minimal squadrons on the board. There should be TIE Fighters zipping around and X-Wings shooting at them and all kinds of dogfighting and so on, yet there's just an empty place where all these 1 to 2-man spacefighters should be.

Concentrate Fire! had a great pair of articles about this:

http://concentratefire.blogspot.ru/2015/09/quicker-easier-more-seductive.html

http://concentratefire.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-other-path.html

Even the second article which argues for some reasons for including more squadrons comes down to "you can find some means of overcoming some of the downsides of a squadron-heavy list if you're careful." It also recommends (wisely) including primarily anti-capital ship squadrons (i.e. bombers, primarily), as capital ships are the core of Armada.

This comes down to the fact that you know your opponent is bringing capital ships. You win the game when your opponent has no capital ships. Thus having more of them and having more activations of them is useful in a number of ways (both as a buffer to losing and an active means towards winning by out-activating your opponent). In an extremely imbalanced fantasyland where there was no limit on squadron points and you only lost once every single model was tabled (not just capital ships), you might hesitate to bring a Victory-class Star Destroyer knowing that the other guy might bring a fleet of only bombers, rendering your big front arc basically worthless and now you're relying on your miserable 1 blue anti-squadron flak dice. That example sounds ridiculous, but it is exactly the situation that anti-squadron fighters are in right now - if your opponent shows up with no squadrons at all, those TIE Interceptors are hot garbage that could've been something much more useful (this is a less-pronounced but still extant problem for the more well-rounded Rebel squadrons). This is also true of any other capital ship upgrades that deal with enemy squadrons (like Point Defense Reroute or Quad Laser Cannons or Ruthless Strategists or the like) and to a lesser extent true of points "spent" on capital ship variants with superior anti-squadron firepower compared to other variants that are more dedicated to anti-capital ship attacks (if only slightly).

So I've been pondering the situation and I think the simple way to make the squadron list decision less of a crapshoot (particulalry for dogfighter squadrons as opposed to bombers) is to look into making changes that ensure that both capital ships AND squadrons are present in games of Armada on each side. All it would require is three changes:

1. When a points size is determined for a game, each player may spend those points only on ships and upgrades (herefore known as "ship points").
2. In addition, each player receives 25% of the points value of the game in bonus points that can only be spent on squadrons (herefore known as "squadron points"). For example, in a 300 point game, you will have 75 squadron points and in a 400 point game, you will have 100 squadron points.
3. When determining the total number of points for each fleet, add the ship and squadron points together to determine which player gets to determine initiative.

I'm not married to the 25% just in case anyone wanted to flip the 1/3 we currently have as a limit into bonus points instead.

Basically, this means everyone is bringing squadrons. They become an important part of determining your fleet composition and you better make sure your squadrons support what your ships would like to do and vice versa. Don't care much about squadrons? Keep your current 300 point list and use your squadron points on cheap fighters and rogues. Do care about squadrons? Buff them up with squadron upgrades on ships (Expanded Hangar Bays, Corrupter, Yavaris, Adar Tallon, Flight Controllers, Boosted Comms, Wing Commander, etc.). Want to run a bunch of bombers? Make sure your capital ships have the anti-squadron flak power to shoot down enemy fighters that try to stop them.

Basically it would mean you're never disadvantaged by taking squadrons because the points pool you draw them from is entirely separate from the points pool for ships. Plus it means bigger games, which are fun .

Just putting it out there. My buddy and I have been thinking about running this as a house rule, but I figure it can't hurt for others to consider it as well. Hell, maybe someone from FFG can give it some consideration.

I've thought a lot about how to bring more squadrons to the table. I worry about something like this. Here are my thoughts:

1. In competitive play, lists do not always match the movies (many of the tournament-winning X-Wing lists didn't make sense when compared to the movies). That's okay.

2. With Boosted Comms and the Rogue keyword, FFG is working on this. Let's see how wave 2 plays out.

I feel like no squadron lists are going to get punished by bomber lists very soon.

Let's wait and see. I could be wrong. Wave 2 is coming.

I actually think it's set up fairly well as-is. Like you said, this is a capital ship game. Squadrons are not necessary, nor do I believe they should be.

I've seen some people use squadrons very effectively. I've seen quite a few more not use any squadrons at all and still do well. I like the fact that there are options that suit different play styles. Some people don't want to be bothered with learning how to effectively use squadrons. But I feel that those who do invest the time and effort are often rewarded with some very effective tactics.

1) No.

2) No.

3) No.

This comes up at least once a month.

You want to take away people's right to take as many or as little squadrons as they want. You want to dictate the flexibility of this game to your wants. No thank you.

It is the same as Warmachine which gives free points for war casters (their steam robots). I don't like that. It would cause the game to change from the balance we see now to a game where all we see is squadron upgrades because that is all that will matter.

You want to know how we got squadrons on the table in the Portland Vancouver area? We took squadrons and killed no squadron lists.

Works like a charm.

You want to know how we got squadrons on the table in the Portland Vancouver area? We took squadrons and killed no squadron lists.

Works like a charm.

Amen

Uncontested bwings Against unescorted destroyers should be a warcrime; its so brutal

And now We got silly bombers to chase Akbar with

Looking at Miniranker: The Spanish, Nordic, Canadian and Italian Nationals all contained squadrons.

If you play in a meta that has no squadrons, very simply take some bombers and that will change every fast.

I've thought a lot about how to bring more squadrons to the table. I worry about something like this. Here are my thoughts:

1. In competitive play, lists do not always match the movies (many of the tournament-winning X-Wing lists didn't make sense when compared to the movies). That's okay.

2. With Boosted Comms and the Rogue keyword, FFG is working on this. Let's see how wave 2 plays out.

I feel like no squadron lists are going to get punished by bomber lists very soon.

Let's wait and see. I could be wrong. Wave 2 is coming.

I'm quite amenable to waiting and seeing and I assume no major changes would be made in the actual rules for some time.

I actually think it's set up fairly well as-is. Like you said, this is a capital ship game. Squadrons are not necessary, nor do I believe they should be.

I've seen some people use squadrons very effectively. I've seen quite a few more not use any squadrons at all and still do well. I like the fact that there are options that suit different play styles. Some people don't want to be bothered with learning how to effectively use squadrons. But I feel that those who do invest the time and effort are often rewarded with some very effective tactics.

It seems very odd to me to see no squadrons at all. Primarily no fighters seems very odd to me as you do see bombers from time to time.

1) No.

2) No.

3) No.

This comes up at least once a month.

You want to take away people's right to take as many or as little squadrons as they want. You want to dictate the flexibility of this game to your wants. No thank you.

Have you considered communicating in a less inflamatory way? Your writing style makes several assumptions about me and my intentions and a rude curt response doesn't really make me take your opinion very seriously. It's fine to disagree, but maybe... try being less of a jerk about it?

Have you considered communicating in a less inflamatory way? Your writing style makes several assumptions about me and my intentions and a rude curt response doesn't really make me take your opinion very seriously. It's fine to disagree, but maybe... try being less of a jerk about it?

I assume he is pissed because this issue has been reported like a billion times and he is tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again.

So I am just going to express my opinion on the subject:

But first what do you mean by :"squadrons are not played"?

Do you mean that we barley see any squadrons or do you mean that we don't see any heavy squadron build?

If by that you mean just squadrons, I will have to strongly disagree , the vast majority of the list that we see in tournament contains between 1 and 6 squadrons in average which is fine by me.

If you mean that we don't see heavy squadron build ,then I agree but is it really a problem?

Even if it was a problem, the solution that you are proposing is terrible. I mean, forcing people to play squadrons ! Really? Is that the best thing you came up with? Sounds like a very lazy way to fix the problem isn't it?

I think the best way to encourage people to build fleets with an heavy amount of squadrons is to release Commander cards that benefit squadrons. So far we only had commanders that gives bonus to ships so it would be very easy to design commanders that benefit massive squadrons build. Like this, you don't modify the rules nor force people to do anything they would not like (lot of people like heavy ship build).

1) No.

2) No.

3) No.

This comes up at least once a month.

You want to take away people's right to take as many or as little squadrons as they want. You want to dictate the flexibility of this game to your wants. No thank you.

Have you considered communicating in a less inflamatory way? Your writing style makes several assumptions about me and my intentions and a rude curt response doesn't really make me take your opinion very seriously. It's fine to disagree, but maybe... try being less of a jerk about it?

I am sorry, maybe I don't see it but if I wanted to be rude I would have called your ideas idiotic and worthless. That seems rude. However I don't seem them as such. I do see them as a continuous argument with no real basis for existing.

Sure, your area may have no squadrons but so did many areas after GenCon.

Do you want to know what the 2nd place US Nationals player told me when I asked him about it. He told me squadronless lists were just easier to play.

Do you want to know what 1st place US Nationals said when asked about this? It was just easier to play no squadrons.

So maybe I don't get the whole argument. This can be due to my aspergers, this can be due to the fact that my B-Wings helped create a meta where squadrons flourish.

If I wanted to be Inflammatory, I could easily be. Trust me when I say I am just being blunt because I am tired of the whole "let's fix squadrons!" topic. . .

In either case, regardless of the direction this post is about to take, squadrons are being worked on by ffg as the waves progress I am sure. The choice to use them should remain in player hands however. There are plenty of ideas, all valid, but none should invalidate the choice to collect and game with the toys you want vs the ones you are required to buy.

Its all opinion really. But there is no reason you can't try your idea with your group. If it works, have fun with it. And most of all thank you for sharing your idea, which helps generate interest and debate. It has been a hot topic for almost a year now with many similar discussions.

Rude? Inflammatory?

I am sorry, maybe I don't see it but if I wanted to be rude I would have called your ideas idiotic and worthless. That seems rude. However I don't seem them as such. I do see them as a continuous argument with no real basis for existing.

Sure, your area may have no squadrons but so did many areas after GenCon.

Do you want to know what the 2nd place US Nationals player told me when I asked him about it. He told me squadronless lists were just easier to play.

Do you want to know what 1st place US Nationals said when asked about this? It was just easier to play no squadrons.

So maybe I don't get the whole argument. This can be due to my aspergers, this can be due to the fact that my B-Wings helped create a meta where squadrons flourish.

If I wanted to be Inflammatory, I could easily be. Trust me when I say I am just being blunt because I am tired of the whole "let's fix squadrons!" topic. . .

"I could have been a bigger jerk, so please appreciate my restraint" really isn't a winning approach. If you're going to react negatively to something, you can always just avoid it or choose to respond in a more constructive fashion. You actually have some good points in your responses but your presentation makes it a bitter pill. Nothing is lost by being civil and if your goal is to convince someone of your perspective, the more politely it's communicated the more likely you are to be effective.

A few other people have commented and have given me food for thought. I realize I'm likely wrong and regardless I'm going to wait it out and see what wave 2 brings, just like everybody else.

If you want a stab at some Wave II ideas and combos give Fab's fleet generator a try. It should include all the new options.

If you want a stab at some Wave II ideas and combos give Fab's fleet generator a try. It should include all the new options.

Good idea. I've been hesitant to dive too far into the wave 2 stuff for fear of getting impatient that I can't play with it yet. I can fly my Sullust-won Raider around and make pew pew noises, but the big gun options are still awaiting the final release.

Also, thank you for being helpful and constructive. I appreciate your input.

Everyone has their own way. I just get used to it really. Its just like my local group with thousands of members lol.

I was avoiding wave II, and seeing it all has not helped. Getting some paint on my Imperial Star Destroyer has got me thinking about future fleets and I couldn't resist any longer. All I know is that wave II sure does share a lot of upgrade cards of good use to both sides accross all of the expansions. Its nice to see, and I hope it gets some guys to play more then one faction.

If you want a stab at some Wave II ideas and combos give Fab's fleet generator a try. It should include all the new options.

I like that Fab had his generator up nice and early...I've just always had a lot of issues working with it: if it's idle for a time it restricts you from further editing; tt's a tad cumbersome, etc. Nantanks @ http://nanotanks.pythonanywhere.com/Seems to pull through a tad better. Though I think Fab's fleet list generator after you've made it is nicer/cleaner.

That said; as I said in a previous thread: Squadron's seem to have been designed, from the ground up, with Wave 2 in mind. The "shortcomings" of squadrons in Wave 1 look to be utterly, and completely, dashed when you consider Wave 2.

Rogue's alone will get people to invest in squadrons. The ability to add extra useful dice into your list that are able to activate after all your ships and take advantage of depleted shields and objectives with impunity is something that even the "it's easier to play all ship lists" people will likely add to their fleet.

The interesting thing that follows? The most effective way to counter Rogue's is squadrons. Sure some ships can fairly effectively harm the little buggers, but mostly people who run all-ship lists are going to encounter 2-4 YT-2400 or Firesprays. That are pretty dangerous, tough, and agile. These ships will harm people to the point that they feel the need to bring at least a few fighters to tie them up. This leads to more and more interest and investment in the squadron game.

Consider 3 Firespray's give you six blue dice to bombard ships with that have 75% hit chance each, 25% of which is critical effect with bomber enabled. Also factor in that these are 3 seperate attacks that go AFTER every other "real" attack. Is that worth a gladiator activation for about the same points cost? Not to mention they are almost tougher than a gladiator at this point.

Definiently going to see squadrons with Wave 2. They won't then (and don't now) need any help or change.

OP: Lyraeus is sometimes a bit abrupt, but in this case I don't think he was rude at all. He was just direct.

No reason to beat around the bush about it: your suggestions are poor, although we do appreciate your making them none-the-less.

1) No.

2) No.

3) No.

This comes up at least once a month.

You want to take away people's right to take as many or as little squadrons as they want. You want to dictate the flexibility of this game to your wants. No thank you.

Have you considered communicating in a less inflamatory way? Your writing style makes several assumptions about me and my intentions and a rude curt response doesn't really make me take your opinion very seriously. It's fine to disagree, but maybe... try being less of a jerk about it?

Rude? Inflammatory?

I am sorry, maybe I don't see it but if I wanted to be rude I would have called your ideas idiotic and worthless. That seems rude. However I don't seem them as such. I do see them as a continuous argument with no real basis for existing.

Sure, your area may have no squadrons but so did many areas after GenCon.

Do you want to know what the 2nd place US Nationals player told me when I asked him about it. He told me squadronless lists were just easier to play.

Do you want to know what 1st place US Nationals said when asked about this? It was just easier to play no squadrons.

So maybe I don't get the whole argument. This can be due to my aspergers, this can be due to the fact that my B-Wings helped create a meta where squadrons flourish.

If I wanted to be Inflammatory, I could easily be. Trust me when I say I am just being blunt because I am tired of the whole "let's fix squadrons!" topic. . .

Regardless of the "Lets fix the squadrons argument" there is no reason to be how you have been in this forum topic. You claim being blunt as a reason to degrade people. I dont agree with that but in the end its just an internet forum. Either way you should keep it nice or we won't get new people posting their ideas which hurts the game. This is the largest armada community after all. No matter how many times the veterans have covered them someone may always say something different.

OP: Lyraeus is sometimes a bit abrupt, but in this case I don't think he was rude at all. He was just direct.

No reason to beat around the bush about it: your suggestions are poor, although we do appreciate your making them none-the-less.

Lets cut down on the defending other people's attacks based on "oh hes always like that".

With all that said, can we please lock this one.

Just my two cents;

With regards to competitive play, I'm concerned about any rule change that makes decisions for the player. Ideally, as people have said, squadrons will make into lists because of their intrinsic value. If FFG has to issue a new rule to mandate our taking squadrons along in order to make them viable, then they've done a poor job of balancing them. If its a balance issue, it should be addressed through errata or subsequent releases and upgrades. I have found squadrons to be perfectly effective even in wave 1.

As a house rule however, I think your suggestion has some real merit. The added thematic value may not have a place in tournament balance, but for casual games I want to play with as many of my toys as possible, and this could be a fun way of doing that without simply raising the fleet point limit. Plus, the knowledge that both sides are for sure taking X points of squadrons should make for some new fun choices in the list building, as well as making certain squadron based upgrades a bit more viable. Definitely intend to give it a shot if my group is down for it.

Just finished a game where i ran 4 tie Bombers, one as Rhymer, and 6 TIE squadrons, one as Mauler. My opponent brought two Y Wings, two Nebs and two Corvettes. Game was over by turn 4, the TIE bombers just went around unhindered the whole game, i took squadron command every turn on my victory carrier with expanded hangars. In fact my TIE swarm was a waste of points as they were there to protect the bombers from the Rebel squadrons...which were not there. Rebel squadrons at least have the luxury of knowing that they can all perform bomber duty if required. I agree with the OP in thinking there are some issues with squadrons but i also think they are minor and exaggerated, mainly on this forum, and wave 2 will only improve matters.

That said; as I said in a previous thread: Squadron's seem to have been designed, from the ground up, with Wave 2 in mind. The "shortcomings" of squadrons in Wave 1 look to be utterly, and completely, dashed when you consider Wave 2.

I have been saying this to people that I game with about Armada in general!

The core set was dominated by the Victory Star Destroyer, there was no way for FFG to put such a beefy model in a core set and achieve balance.

Wave 1 has still been ruled by the Victory - for those whom this doesnt make sense to, hear me out.

With the Victory being the only Imperial ship in the core set, short of buying 3 Gladiators, all Imperial lists generally have at least 1 Victory in it. In contrast, the only Rebel ships that can go toe to toe with a Victory is the Assault Frigate MKII, hence the popularity of the dual AF list. The other option is to go bomber heavy and try avoid capital ship engagement - hence we get the Nebulon/Yavaris bomber list. Both play around the Victory featuring in most Imperial builds.

In contrast, post wave 2, we will have ISD's and Raiders combining with the existing ships to create a wide range of possible opponents, and this will be reflected in rebel fleets that likewise will change with the new ships they also get.

I think wave 2 is finally where we will start to see some real depth in the game in terms of diverse fleets and tactics, and that FFG would probably have targeted the game as such, that it needs 2 waves to have the depth to be tactically interesting.

This is a direct factor in the issues you are raising, so I think we will all be surprised over the coming months

Local meta in DFW is minimal or no squadrons. But with very few tournament events to travel to (and DFW players will travel into East Texas, Southeast Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana for events), we don't have a feel for any larger meta. This hinders making really good judgements about the "fighter problem" or if it really exists yet. I think it does exist, and I could argue that it is a combination of points costs and inefficiencies of squadrons, coupled with some broken rules (personally, I think Mauler's special is totally borked if we want squadrons to see play), but I'm not sure those arguments are correct yet. I really like the idea of squadrons, and want to use them, but presently I have been able to create much better tactical doctrine without them.

I have stated in my "State of the Meta" MO the ago that the game was designed in 3 parts. The Core, Wave 1,and Wave 2. Everything after this is likely add ins to this soon to be complete game.

If you find my remarks rude or inflammatory please tell me how they are being so. I have Aspergers so I don't know exactly what you mean unless it is pointed out at times and this is one of those times. I am blunt and will hit ideas with a hammer at times.

OK Imagine that you just spent 30 minute making a Tactics Video and you posted it. The in the comment section some one posted "what rubbish". There is no explanation of why or how to improve the video. Wouldn't that upset you?

You kinda did the same sort of thing, The OP was some fellow who figured he had a great way to make squadron more relevant than they seem to him to be. He took a while to make his post and you just posted a comment, with very little explanation: "What rubbish".

Now after all that effort the OP was a little hurt by being shut off, verbally it was like I just handed an excited kid a balloon sword and while he is running around showing people hit new toy you poke a pin into it an pop it. I just found the cure for no squadrons! No you didn't and here let me pop the balloon you have there kiddo.

Snipafist - currently we're seeing a lot of 'no squadron' wins but I expect this to change rapidly.

Firstly, the difference between 300 and 400 points is also an additional 33 points in the fighter bank, this makes more difference than it sounds like it would in terms of possible builds.

Secondly wave 2 changes quite a bit not least in terms of fighters but also the rebels now have a battleship which is hard to kill. 'tabling' should happen less.

And lastly the skill level of the players will improve. People will learn to use and fear fighters. They'll learn when to avoid combat against a gladiator swarm and when to press their advantage.

Although at my MoS event the winner had no squadrons, I would have happily played him with my bomber heavy force.

Although his gladiators were fast they would have took a lot of damage getting to me, and even then being a fast rebel force I could choose to keep the distance.