Starfighters do not have nice, easy to look at simulated representations of the engagement. There's only so much information they can take in while concentrating on flying and not dying. By issuing squadron commands, you are dedicating analysts to providing instructions and digesting the sensor data your pilot's computers are collecting but don't have enough time to analyze fully.

Your pilots aren't just stopping dead in front of a ship- They're lining up shots, taking evasive action, and coordinating their assault. Squadron Commands let them do this more efficiently, allowing them to do more because the pilots can focus on the task at hand. You'll notice this is pretty much exactly what's happening in the first Death Star Assault- You've got flight instructors standing by and advising pilots in the field.

Ships with rogue fly larger ships with more powerful computers and typically have multiple crew members, allowing them to take in the larger picture and better coordinate an attack, although they're still not as effective as they would be with dedicated support. The exception of course is Han Solo, but he's Han Solo. He shoots first

An X-Wing games 3x3 board is what the equivalent of distance 1 in Armada. How much detail are you really asking for in such small area?

Shoot then move would have made them obey the same rules as the ships and wouldn't ruin any of the other mechanics like 'Squadron command' and 'Rogue'. Just realised the Rogue mechanic is like the Demolisher one. I've got to admit I don't take a lot of fighters because of how they work so i'd like to see a change even as simple as the one i mentioned. Has anyone else tried this out? Did it really ruin your game?

This is an abstraction too far, IMO. It breaks immersion and is counter intuitive. It's silly, in fact. The game is good enough that I soldier on regardless, but it's still jarring.

No different than a Ship going "We're Coming into Range.... Hold your Fire! We need to wait for him to Shoot at us first, Then we can try!"

This is an abstraction too far, IMO. It breaks immersion and is counter intuitive. It's silly, in fact. The game is good enough that I soldier on regardless, but it's still jarring.

No different than a Ship going "We're Coming into Range.... Hold your Fire! We need to wait for him to Shoot at us first, Then we can try!"

Can't argue with this. Moving and firing is a very special and strong ability in this game.

So finding the right approch vector is appearently extemely difficult for well trained pilots flying B-wing star fighters. and a huge 1,6 km long ISD is appearantly very difficult to approach and attack despite it being very hard to miss.

Come on, B-wing pilots are trained to attack ships, so once they are within range of one, they don't need any more guidance.

It would be the same as saying the command staff onboard USS Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet, at the battle of Midway, guided the Divebombers by Radio all the way to the point of weapons release. And had full control over which plane should bomb which ship.

No, the only control they had was to send of their strike wave, in the direction of where the enemy fleet was last spotted.

The bomber pilots would then, when contact was established, by themselves figure out what attack approach vector was the best, the decision of which was based on tactical training and previous combat experience of the squadron or strike leader.

In many cases it was to dive straight in quickly and surprise the enemy before they had time to spot and re-act to them.

But in Armada even a combat veteran like Wedge Antilles or Darth Vader don't know how to approach and attack an enemy Capital ship, on their own.

Fighter control (AKI squadron command) should be a nice to have feature that can increase the efficiency of your starfighters, not a must to have feature to make them work on the basic level.

IMHO fighters should be able to shoot at the the end of their move without a squadron command, albeit with a penalty to show that they can attack but less effectivly.

Hence my suggeestion that the defender can select any or all attack dice to be re-rolled.

This way we get both of two worlds, the squadron command will still be the most effective way to use your squadrons, but squadrons are not totally impotent/incompetent, in seeking out and engaging enemy ships/squadrons on their own.

I'm perfectly fine with the abilities of all other heros.

Me too. Though there's nothing wrong with Rhymer's ability. No, it shouldn't only apply to bombers because the Empire, unlike the rebels, only have 1 bomber. The worst rebel non-bomber is as good anti-ship as there best Imperial non-bomber (A Wings and Advanced.) Every other rebel squadron has bomber, only the Imperial Bomber has bomber. If Rhymer only worked on Bombers then he should maybe cost 12 or 13 points because he doesn't do anything for most Imperial squadrons. Also, Imperial bombers require an escort because they have the worst AS in the game by a pretty decent measure, and they're heavy, so if Rhymer only worked on Bombers you'd have a lot of wasted points on an escort that couldn't help you damage ships.

No, his ability is just fine, we can know that his ability is fine because it's really good, but people still play Rebels - and win.

Come on, B-wing pilots are trained to attack ships, so once they are within range of one, they don't need any more guidance.

It would be the same as saying the command staff onboard USS Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet, at the battle of Midway, guided the Divebombers by Radio all the way to the point of weapons release. And had full control over which plane should bomb which ship.

No, the only control they had was to send of their strike wave, in the direction of where the enemy fleet was last spotted.

The bomber pilots would then, when contact was established, by themselves figure out what attack approach vector was the best, the decision of which was based on tactical training and previous combat experience of the squadron or strike leader.

In many cases it was to dive straight in quickly and surprise the enemy before they had time to spot and re-act to them.

While I'm aware Armada draws heavily on naval battles thematicly, there's a huge difference between Midway and Star Wars (and modern aircraft battles, for that matter)- Navigation equipment, communications technology and targeting computers are so far beyond what we had in WWII there isn't a comparison. Distance 1 is an enormous distance filled with flak and point-defense lasers, anti-ship weaponry that could vaporize a fighter unfortunate enough to fly into it, and debris too small to be represented on the board, but large enough to tear a fighter's wings. And then there's enemy starfighters, who can easily engage from beyond your visual range. So, yes, I do believe that data from capital ships would be critical to a starfighter's functionality.

But in Armada even a combat veteran like Wedge Antilles or Darth Vader don't know how to approach and attack an enemy Capital ship, on their own.

Sure they can. They have to be much more careful on the approach and need to do handle the difficult job of predicting enemy movements whilst simultaneously avoiding anti-squadron fire, coming under fire from enemy starfighters, and watching for debris, all with only their instincts and meager ship's computers instead of tactical feedback from a team with a much better view of the big picture and access to sophisticated hardware, but you can approach and attack an enemy capital ship with an unsupported squadron in this game if you know what you're doing. It's not easy, but given the technology, it wouldn't be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, changing how squadrons work as extensively as most of the proposed fixes do would require FFG to errata all the point costs after a considerable amount of playtesting to find new balance points, which FFG has never done before in their miniatures games.

TL:DR

I really don't know what people are talking about with all these Fix-The-Squadrons! threads. Squadrons are just fine.

Okay, I'll stop trolling your thread now.

Also, changing how squadrons work as extensively as most of the proposed fixes do would require FFG to errata all the point costs after a considerable amount of playtesting to find new balance points, which FFG has never done before in their miniatures games.

Not to mention that hugely sweeping changes to a third of the game just to "fix" a minor non-mechanical problem would be a terrible thing to do overall. It's not a good enough reason to overhaul everything about the squadron system, and not even everyone wants the change.

Squadrons are very balanced, and work excellently already, but they aren't absolutely required. Squadron balance, at least for Wave 1 seems excellent. I don't understand everyone's need to dig in and try to significantly change the mechanics of a game because they can't get over or justify a small bit of fluff.

If everyone would stop voluntarily getting into boxes and then insisting the box is the wrong shape, we'd all be fine!

You know what? I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue. Looking at the photo shows that your opponent didn't alter his strategy to COMPLETELY IGNORE the B-Wings as any ship that maneuverable should have been able to do easily.

What I will say is that B-Wings and every other Rebel fighter should not have been able to elicit that reaction from me. Fighters from both sides aren't puppets or robots, they are piloted by trained soldiers. And trained soldiers don't stumble into a fight with their safeties armed when they go into combat. What we have now is a scenario where squadrons can't even comprehend going into a fight as the aggressors without constant capital carrier support. Literally, it's like every pilot freezes up in fear at the idea they might have to pull the trigger after flying in a straight line. In EVERY MOVIE, EPISODE AND BOOK we see that not only is this not the case, but that in the instance of the droid armies and other overly-micromanaged soldiers loss is inevitable.

That's why my idea makes sense. Ships flying into combat should be able to engage the targets they encounter on arrival. If they want to do more complicated combat tactics, they need capital ship support to coordinate with specialists and feed them critical battlefield information they can't get by looking scant meters out of the cockpit.

In the case of ships like Yavaris and Independence, these traits would be magnified. Nothing about what I've suggested breaks the gameplay flow. If anything, it makes squadrons more fun to play with for both players in every game. And it makes squadron support critical from a gameplay perspective, whether you want to field B-Wings to bomb enemy ships or TIE Fighters to intercept them. In the case of Rhymer and other abilities that break the normal squadron mechanics, their ability is unique but it's no longer mandatory for success.

How broken are fighters right now? Unless there is a core change to the way squadrons function Major Rhymer or someone similar will be in every squadron heavy fleet. His ability to let himself and multiple allies ignore the need for capital support makes him far and away the best squadron upgrade in the game. Only squadrons with similar capability to ignore capital ships will end up being effective tools when the meta shakes out. Combined with the increased lethality of Capital ships, only capital ships capable of weathering overwhelming firepower at long range will be able to function as carriers. And this sets us right back to square one.

/sigh. Vacuum play again.

Alright let's play the numbers.

You as the Gladiator player swings around wide coming in for a hopeful kill turn 4 or 5. This gives the Yavaris time to position the B-Wings into an intercept position and once you come in to make the attack you will be vulnerable to the retaliation of said B-Wings.

Lets try the picture. That is a Gladiator boxing attempt that failed because the Yavaris was able to destroy a Gladiator with assistance from the B-Wings.

Head on attack? Useless. The 3 red dice will shred your shields and the B-Wings will destroy the Gladiator.

Of course this is all based on a vacuum but you say you are so good that you could not lose. Meh.

No, here's what happens:

I destroy every other ship in your fleet (since you've dropped two ships worth of points into 3 speed 2 fighters and a carrier that has to fly at speed 1-2 to stay near or behind them it will be pretty easy) and fly away for the remaining turns with a 9-1 win.

You know what? I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue. Looking at the photo shows that your opponent didn't alter his strategy to COMPLETELY IGNORE the B-Wings as any ship that maneuverable should have been able to do easily.

What I will say is that B-Wings and every other Rebel fighter should not have been able to elicit that reaction from me. Fighters from both sides aren't puppets or robots, they are piloted by trained soldiers. And trained soldiers don't stumble into a fight with their safeties armed when they go into combat. What we have now is a scenario where squadrons can't even comprehend going into a fight as the aggressors without constant capital carrier support. Literally, it's like every pilot freezes up in fear at the idea they might have to pull the trigger after flying in a straight line. In EVERY MOVIE, EPISODE AND BOOK we see that not only is this not the case, but that in the instance of the droid armies and other overly-micromanaged soldiers loss is inevitable.

That's why my idea makes sense. Ships flying into combat should be able to engage the targets they encounter on arrival. If they want to do more complicated combat tactics, they need capital ship support to coordinate with specialists and feed them critical battlefield information they can't get by looking scant meters out of the cockpit.

In the case of ships like Yavaris and Independence, these traits would be magnified. Nothing about what I've suggested breaks the gameplay flow. If anything, it makes squadrons more fun to play with for both players in every game. And it makes squadron support critical from a gameplay perspective, whether you want to field B-Wings to bomb enemy ships or TIE Fighters to intercept them. In the case of Rhymer and other abilities that break the normal squadron mechanics, their ability is unique but it's no longer mandatory for success.

How broken are fighters right now? Unless there is a core change to the way squadrons function Major Rhymer or someone similar will be in every squadron heavy fleet. His ability to let himself and multiple allies ignore the need for capital support makes him far and away the best squadron upgrade in the game. Only squadrons with similar capability to ignore capital ships will end up being effective tools when the meta shakes out. Combined with the increased lethality of Capital ships, only capital ships capable of weathering overwhelming firepower at long range will be able to function as carriers. And this sets us right back to square one.

/sigh. Vacuum play again.

Alright let's play the numbers.

You as the Gladiator player swings around wide coming in for a hopeful kill turn 4 or 5. This gives the Yavaris time to position the B-Wings into an intercept position and once you come in to make the attack you will be vulnerable to the retaliation of said B-Wings.

Lets try the picture. That is a Gladiator boxing attempt that failed because the Yavaris was able to destroy a Gladiator with assistance from the B-Wings.

Head on attack? Useless. The 3 red dice will shred your shields and the B-Wings will destroy the Gladiator.

Of course this is all based on a vacuum but you say you are so good that you could not lose. Meh.

No, here's what happens:

I destroy every other ship in your fleet (since you've dropped two ships worth of points into 3 speed 2 fighters and a carrier that has to fly at speed 1-2 to stay near or behind them it will be pretty easy) and fly away for the remaining turns with a 9-1 win.

How do you get my Ships through my Fighters?

Because No, I don't have to have my Ship right there to command them.

I need to have them be where you will be - which, at Speed 2 or Speed 3, heading towards me, is fairly predictable. I need to be approximately Speed 1 behind the Range Ruler from where my Squadrons are, when you are anticipated to hit my Bomber Wing, which has had a turn (or even two) to move into position.

At which point, you hit the wall, spatter some anti-squadron at my Fighters, which in return strip your shields, and open you up for the Carrier, which will be either Yavaris or Salvation, to open up on your open arc. If I'm out of Range, so much the better... That means you are for another Turn, too.

You're barely at Red Die range at this point. You WILL clear my Fighters, but because of Shoot-Then-Move, you're only spattering your Gladiators 2 Red Die at me.

Fighters CAN BE USED without Squadron Commands.

You just need to know what to expect from them there, and, what to expect from your opponent.

Range is EVERYTHING.

Seems like the best way too test this out with you guys would be with some vassal games.

Seems like the best way too test this out with you guys would be with some vassal games.

No, the whole point of this is to shout accusations and One Upmanships at each other, based on a premise that is only locally relevant to a single party involved.

This is cathartic.

Its not supposed to be Educational.

I know, I'm a Prick.

So finding the right approch vector is appearently extemely difficult for well trained pilots flying B-wing star fighters. and a huge 1,6 km long ISD is appearantly very difficult to approach and attack despite it being very hard to miss.

Come on, B-wing pilots are trained to attack ships, so once they are within range of one, they don't need any more guidance.

It would be the same as saying the command staff onboard USS Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet, at the battle of Midway, guided the Divebombers by Radio all the way to the point of weapons release. And had full control over which plane should bomb which ship.

No, the only control they had was to send of their strike wave, in the direction of where the enemy fleet was last spotted.

The bomber pilots would then, when contact was established, by themselves figure out what attack approach vector was the best, the decision of which was based on tactical training and previous combat experience of the squadron or strike leader.

In many cases it was to dive straight in quickly and surprise the enemy before they had time to spot and re-act to them.

But in Armada even a combat veteran like Wedge Antilles or Darth Vader don't know how to approach and attack an enemy Capital ship, on their own.

Fighter control (AKI squadron command) should be a nice to have feature that can increase the efficiency of your starfighters, not a must to have feature to make them work on the basic level.

IMHO fighters should be able to shoot at the the end of their move without a squadron command, albeit with a penalty to show that they can attack but less effectivly.

Hence my suggeestion that the defender can select any or all attack dice to be re-rolled.

This way we get both of two worlds, the squadron command will still be the most effective way to use your squadrons, but squadrons are not totally impotent/incompetent, in seeking out and engaging enemy ships/squadrons on their own.

In WWII torpedo planes and dive bombers had very specific attack vectors and altitudes they were supposed to approach from. They were also supposed to approach simultaneously to split enemy AA and fighter CAP between multiple targets. Several of the Midway attacks went very poorly when the pilots were unable to coordinate these attacks. Had better communication equipment been available I'm positive an officer on the Carrier would be directing things.

Attacking a Star Destroyer is not supposed to be easy. They have anti-fighter lasers shooting at you. Presumably through previously conducted trial and error and intelligence gathering optimal approaches would be worked out. But because the approach is non-trivial, risking a craft without orders is not obvious and so depending upon circumstances, waiting for orders is the correct move.

In more games than this one, there is a common perception amongst some people that military forces conducting a battle have this magical ability to be in each others heads, know everything that everyone else does, sees all the enemies without fail, and completely agree upon course of action. Militaries do train a LOT to try and reach a state like this, but most fail quite far from the mark, and that's with elite troops. Never mind average troops. Stuff we see done with "surgical" precision like the Seal Team raid on Osama Bin Laden is HIGHLY choreographed and practiced, and even then still see mistakes (like the stealth chopper failing due to the compound walls messing with lift).

Seems like the best way too test this out with you guys would be with some vassal games.

For what it's worth, I'd love to get extra games with Vassal in except the program is just too unwieldy for me to get my head around.

Listen, I'm opinionated. I don't want to be a *redacted* but what I see is a lot of people offering unrealistic solutions to a major problem. B-Wings are SLOW, slower than every ship in the game and forced to abuse certain quirks in the rules to latch on to certain ships (and by certain ships I mean ONLY the VSD and MC80 moving at speed 2). They can't get into position unless you build your entire fleet around them. That's a bad design philosophy and one I'm trying to offer a resolution for: let them move then shoot, in that order. A-Wings, X-Wings and Y-Wings are faster, sometimes much faster. TIE variants are all faster. B-Wings are slow but powerful. Y-Wings and TIE Bombers are slow. Rhymer could let the bombers fire at range, or he could instead be left behind entirely once squadrons are no longer teathered by the need to coordinate so closely with ships. In the films we don't see B-Wings left behind because they'll slow the fleet down fighting the second Death Star. They're a critical, cool part of the fight against fighters and capital ships alike.

Someone suggested that fighters would have to be recosted to account for any changes. But i disagree even with that. A special character like Vader or Fett or Luke Skywalker is already almost half the cost of a ship, and no fighter so far throws more than 2 dice at a ship without special upgrades on nearby ships to offset the cost. Some fighters throw lots of dice against other fighters, but even then that simply improves the value of being aggressive and getting ship support. We recently saw a change to XI-7 Turbolasers that makes them effectively nullify the Redirect command even against upgrades designed to improve that command, yet no points change has been implemented. XI-7 upgrades cost the same as a TIE fighter. They are going to damage ships far more than any single TIE Fighter, and far faster.

Yesterday, we saw a new (and beautiful) trailer for the upcoming Star Wars film. Yet again we saw no indication that fighter squadrons were in constant contact with ships hainging "relatively" just off screen. It was a fight between pilots and wing commanders, experienced soldiers who knew their weapons. Yes, they may have had dedicated intelligence systems and flight control staff to assist, but they had the ability to engage fighters without the direct input of their command staff telling them when they could and could not fire. They knew their targets and their objective, and even when surrounded by enemy combartants they aren't afraid to take advantage of the combat scenario. We need those fighters to be the standard by which Armada fighters are judged.

No we don't. Fluff shouldn't determine our mechanics. Fluff should inspire some mechanics.

Squadrons are balanced in the ruleset for the game that is Armada. Do they strictly mimic every detail that we see in the movies? Nope - plenty of other aspects don't, either.

We should be more focused on creating and maintaining a ruleset that works.

Altering the XI7/AP interaction was done to help balance the game. AP was seen as too powerful, so they made one minor change to one interaction between two specific cards. You are proposing that they should fundamentally change a significant core mechanic, despite that the mechanics work fine just as they are. Please don't pretend the situations she similar.

I don't buy the 'other things are worse' argument. Yes, there are gimmicky rules in Armada, but that doesn't excuse the uninspired squadron rules. Yes, they can be effective. No, they're not underpowered, despite being very unforgiving.

But they're counterintuitive. They don't act like squadrons should. It constantly feels like I'm herding a bunch of idiots around the table. They don't just get more effective with a squadron command, they make a massive leap from utterly moronic and deliberately useless, to lethal cold blooded killers. They could do more damage to the enemy by accident than they currently do without a squadron order.

I wouldn't mind if a squadron order made them more effective, if they were more effective to start with.

I know nothing is going to change at this point, the rules are locked away. But who ever posts on a forum with the intent of actually changing the rules? We're just spitballing, whingeing and wishlisting. Squadron rules could be better. They don't need a power boost, but they DEFINITELY need a character boost, IMO.

No we don't. Fluff shouldn't determine our mechanics. Fluff should inspire some mechanics.

Squadrons are balanced in the ruleset for the game that is Armada. Do they strictly mimic every detail that we see in the movies? Nope - plenty of other aspects don't, either.

We should be more focused on creating and maintaining a ruleset that works.

Altering the XI7/AP interaction was done to help balance the game. AP was seen as too powerful, so they made one minor change to one interaction between two specific cards. You are proposing that they should fundamentally change a significant core mechanic, despite that the mechanics work fine just as they are. Please don't pretend the situations she similar.

XI-7 turbolasers basically make Shield Redirect a useless defense token against any ship capable of firing 4+ dice. That's for the cost of a TIE Fighter. If a single TIE fighter or other squadron could do that, it would be a major named pilot.

Squadrons are balanced against balanced fleets made up of squadrons and ships. For some squadrons, they become more or less powerful depending on the number of ships involved, and some become extremely powerful when no enemy fighters are present. But they all have a critical disadvantage: they all (Rhymer excepted) require the nearly-constant attendance of nearby ships witth he Squadron command to make them truly useful. At which point, they either become a ship upgrade making the ship more efficient, or a liability if the ship in question is destroyed.

The squadron command should make a squadron more efficient, but that's not an excuse to make them ineffiicient by default. Making threatening squadrons capable of limited autonomous action makes those squadrons less threatening against fully autonomous ships.

No we don't. Fluff shouldn't determine our mechanics. Fluff should inspire some mechanics.

Squadrons are balanced in the ruleset for the game that is Armada. Do they strictly mimic every detail that we see in the movies? Nope - plenty of other aspects don't, either.

We should be more focused on creating and maintaining a ruleset that works.

Altering the XI7/AP interaction was done to help balance the game. AP was seen as too powerful, so they made one minor change to one interaction between two specific cards. You are proposing that they should fundamentally change a significant core mechanic, despite that the mechanics work fine just as they are. Please don't pretend the situations she similar.

XI-7 turbolasers basically make Shield Redirect a useless defense token against any ship capable of firing 4+ dice. That's for the cost of a TIE Fighter. If a single TIE fighter or other squadron could do that, it would be a major named pilot.

Squadrons are balanced against balanced fleets made up of squadrons and ships. For some squadrons, they become more or less powerful depending on the number of ships involved, and some become extremely powerful when no enemy fighters are present. But they all have a critical disadvantage: they all (Rhymer excepted) require the nearly-constant attendance of nearby ships witth he Squadron command to make them truly useful. At which point, they either become a ship upgrade making the ship more efficient, or a liability if the ship in question is destroyed.

The squadron command should make a squadron more efficient, but that's not an excuse to make them ineffiicient by default. Making threatening squadrons capable of limited autonomous action makes those squadrons less threatening against fully autonomous ships.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to give you the impression that I didn't understand what XI7s did. I'm aware of what the card does, thanks.

Comparing the cost vs value of a ship upgrade to squadron is completely meaningless. Different things have different costs for different reasons. A TIE fighter shoots dice, and can engage squadrons - can the XI7 upgrade do that? So maybe we can treat different things like they are different things.

Squadrons are actually incredibly efficient for their cost, especially of well-supported.

And XI7s are cheaper than a single TIE fighter.

I don't buy the 'other things are worse' argument. Yes, there are gimmicky rules in Armada, but that doesn't excuse the uninspired squadron rules. Yes, they can be effective. No, they're not underpowered, despite being very unforgiving.But they're counterintuitive. They don't act like squadrons should. It constantly feels like I'm herding a bunch of idiots around the table. They don't just get more effective with a squadron command, they make a massive leap from utterly moronic and deliberately useless, to lethal cold blooded killers. They could do more damage to the enemy by accident than they currently do without a squadron order.I wouldn't mind if a squadron order made them more effective, if they were more effective to start with.I know nothing is going to change at this point, the rules are locked away. But who ever posts on a forum with the intent of actually changing the rules? We're just spitballing, whingeing and wishlisting. Squadron rules could be better. They don't need a power boost, but they DEFINITELY need a character boost, IMO.

I've heard your opinion, you've heard mine. You think squadrons are balanced as they are, but want a major overhaul on them anyway - that's pretty goofy, but you are steadfast in your opinion, so further discussion probably won't be helpful.

Squadrons are terribly ineffective at doing damage, unless they utterly change the squadron rules at an efficient cost (ie, Rhymer)

Look at Enhanced Armaments on an AF. Very efficient, and you'll get 4 shots out of that thing probably every game. More if you combo it with anything (ie, gunnery team)

Look at a single bomber. Perhaps a Y-Wing or Tie Bomber or even an A-Wing. You'll get what, maybe two attacks on an enemy ship? At a higher cost than just upgrading the cannon on a ship of the line? And extra awkward if you use the strongest bomber, the B-Wing?

If anyone's suggesting that their non-Rhymer attack ships are getting off more than 2 bombing runs per game, I'd think they're crazy. But any warship really ought to be firing at well over 4 targets over the course of the game. Most likely 6. In addition to enhancing your flexibility (more ships means more activations), while Squadrons require exact timing to do ANYTHING (and use up valuable dials on big ships).

I'm still convinced through experience that you'll do more damage with a bomber squadron's weight in CR90Bs or Raider Is over a course of a game, than with gimmicky bombers attacking at most twice a game and robbing you of precious activations, and unable to do objectives. (Again, Rhymer is an exception due to effectively circumventing a major squadron rule).

Rogues may help, but they pay a lot for it. Firesprays are way more expensive than Raiders for the output they produce.

I've heard your opinion, you've heard mine. You think squadrons are balanced as they are, but want a major overhaul on them anyway - that's pretty goofy, but you are steadfast in your opinion, so further discussion probably won't be helpful.

Fair enough.

Squadrons are terribly ineffective at doing damage, unless they utterly change the squadron rules at an efficient cost (ie, Rhymer)

Look at Enhanced Armaments on an AF. Very efficient, and you'll get 4 shots out of that thing probably every game. More if you combo it with anything (ie, gunnery team)

Look at a single bomber. Perhaps a Y-Wing or Tie Bomber or even an A-Wing. You'll get what, maybe two attacks on an enemy ship? At a higher cost than just upgrading the cannon on a ship of the line? And extra awkward if you use the strongest bomber, the B-Wing?

If anyone's suggesting that their non-Rhymer attack ships are getting off more than 2 bombing runs per game, I'd think they're crazy. But any warship really ought to be firing at well over 4 targets over the course of the game. Most likely 6. In addition to enhancing your flexibility (more ships means more activations), while Squadrons require exact timing to do ANYTHING (and use up valuable dials on big ships).

I'm still convinced through experience that you'll do more damage with a bomber squadron's weight in CR90Bs or Raider Is over a course of a game, than with gimmicky bombers attacking at most twice a game and robbing you of precious activations, and unable to do objectives. (Again, Rhymer is an exception due to effectively circumventing a major squadron rule).

Rogues may help, but they pay a lot for it. Firesprays are way more expensive than Raiders for the output they produce.

3 Yavaris'd B Wings are less powerful than a CR90, gotcha.

There is a give and take to squadrons. They are the most points-efficient way to deal damage, but they require support, and skillful usage.

No we don't. Fluff shouldn't determine our mechanics. Fluff should inspire some mechanics.

Squadrons are balanced in the ruleset for the game that is Armada. Do they strictly mimic every detail that we see in the movies? Nope - plenty of other aspects don't, either.

We should be more focused on creating and maintaining a ruleset that works.

Altering the XI7/AP interaction was done to help balance the game. AP was seen as too powerful, so they made one minor change to one interaction between two specific cards. You are proposing that they should fundamentally change a significant core mechanic, despite that the mechanics work fine just as they are. Please don't pretend the situations she similar.

XI-7 turbolasers basically make Shield Redirect a useless defense token against any ship capable of firing 4+ dice. That's for the cost of a TIE Fighter. If a single TIE fighter or other squadron could do that, it would be a major named pilot.

Squadrons are balanced against balanced fleets made up of squadrons and ships. For some squadrons, they become more or less powerful depending on the number of ships involved, and some become extremely powerful when no enemy fighters are present. But they all have a critical disadvantage: they all (Rhymer excepted) require the nearly-constant attendance of nearby ships witth he Squadron command to make them truly useful. At which point, they either become a ship upgrade making the ship more efficient, or a liability if the ship in question is destroyed.

The squadron command should make a squadron more efficient, but that's not an excuse to make them ineffiicient by default. Making threatening squadrons capable of limited autonomous action makes those squadrons less threatening against fully autonomous ships.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to give you the impression that I didn't understand what XI7s did. I'm aware of what the card does, thanks.

Comparing the cost vs value of a ship upgrade to squadron is completely meaningless. Different things have different costs for different reasons. A TIE fighter shoots dice, and can engage squadrons - can the XI7 upgrade do that? So maybe we can treat different things like they are different things.

Squadrons are actually incredibly efficient for their cost, especially of well-supported.

And XI7s are cheaper than a single TIE fighter.

I don't buy the 'other things are worse' argument. Yes, there are gimmicky rules in Armada, but that doesn't excuse the uninspired squadron rules. Yes, they can be effective. No, they're not underpowered, despite being very unforgiving.But they're counterintuitive. They don't act like squadrons should. It constantly feels like I'm herding a bunch of idiots around the table. They don't just get more effective with a squadron command, they make a massive leap from utterly moronic and deliberately useless, to lethal cold blooded killers. They could do more damage to the enemy by accident than they currently do without a squadron order.I wouldn't mind if a squadron order made them more effective, if they were more effective to start with.I know nothing is going to change at this point, the rules are locked away. But who ever posts on a forum with the intent of actually changing the rules? We're just spitballing, whingeing and wishlisting. Squadron rules could be better. They don't need a power boost, but they DEFINITELY need a character boost, IMO.

I've heard your opinion, you've heard mine. You think squadrons are balanced as they are, but want a major overhaul on them anyway - that's pretty goofy, but you are steadfast in your opinion, so further discussion probably won't be helpful.

I DON'T think squadrons are balanced AND they're not fun to play. Can you debate me if you find his opinion so wrong? I can be just as much of a condescending @**hole AND I'm trying to solve a major game issue!