Ive personally never understood the "one carrier" dynamic

every ship has the ability to command squadrons, and every ship with a Squadron above 1 (although the CR-90 is still excellent due to Command 1, and can come in handy during clutch moments) can be purposed as a carrier

the squadron mechanics may be restrictive relative to ships, but a lot of that is self inflicted if you only dedicate yourself to one carrier

even worse if you go super H.A.M on making a "dedicated" carrier at the cost of the ship's combat effectiveness, since the ship's fire is still an essential component to the amount of damage you can spit out during that one activation.

I think the idea is that some ships (Yavaris in particular) are a lot more effective as a carrier than others.

Other ships can work as a carrier, but generally won't be as good.

Gencon special doesn't always work, even if you take out the carrier. My 2xNebs, 1xCR90, Demolisher gone on the way in, lost the Nebs and the fighters still killed a VSD with a little help (1 damage) from the CR90.

Ive personally never understood the "one carrier" dynamic

every ship has the ability to command squadrons, and every ship with a Squadron above 1 (although the CR-90 is still excellent due to Command 1, and can come in handy during clutch moments) can be purposed as a carrier

the squadron mechanics may be restrictive relative to ships, but a lot of that is self inflicted if you only dedicate yourself to one carrier

even worse if you go super H.A.M on making a "dedicated" carrier at the cost of the ship's combat effectiveness, since the ship's fire is still an essential component to the amount of damage you can spit out during that one activation.

I believe that the One Carrier meant it was upgraded with hangar bays and flight controllers. I often issue squadron commands on both my VSD and Demolisher at 300pts. At 300pts it was hard to make 2 carriers and still have a meaningful amount of squadrons to justify all the upgrades. With the Rhymer TIE Bomber Ball, you were taking Corrupter and the officer and once that VSD went down it really fell apart which is why I opt not to go that route.

the idea is a bit of a fallacy, though

Yavaris is just an Escort Neb with 5 points slapped on

anything else is capable of commanding squadrons just as, if not more effectively if you're not getting the title's benefit

as for Hangars + FC, there's no need for either unless we're looking for dedicated anti-squadron.

trust me, there's no need to be perfectionist when building a "carrier." Your generic squadron 2/3 will do the job just fine.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is the deployment gains of squadrons. If i have 2 ships and 10 stands of fighters and you have 6 ships. If i go first I have first and last deployment. Meaning I drop one ship in the middle of my deployment area. Maybe offset to the side opposite of where I have ideally placed an asteroid field. Now my opponent chooses distance + asteroid field, or do I face his ship. He places his ship. I place my squadrons, then ship then squads then ship then squads. It keeps going. If my opponent stacks a flank, I end my deployment with a my second ship in a position that is the most advantageous to me. Thus in theory winning deployment.

the idea is a bit of a fallacy, though

Yavaris is just an Escort Neb with 5 points slapped on

anything else is capable of commanding squadrons just as, if not more effectively if you're not getting the title's benefit

as for Hangars + FC, there's no need for either unless we're looking for dedicated anti-squadron.

trust me, there's no need to be perfectionist when building a "carrier." Your generic squadron 2/3 will do the job just fine.

I would assert that the generic is more capable in an overall effecientcy sense as the tendency to include superfluous upgrades (Flight Controllers for use with Tie Interceptors as the extreme example) is likely part of the reason Squadrons underperformed is some instances.

the idea is a bit of a fallacy, though

Yavaris is just an Escort Neb with 5 points slapped on

anything else is capable of commanding squadrons just as, if not more effectively if you're not getting the title's benefit

as for Hangars + FC, there's no need for either unless we're looking for dedicated anti-squadron.

trust me, there's no need to be perfectionist when building a "carrier." Your generic squadron 2/3 will do the job just fine.

I would assert that the generic is more capable in an overall effecientcy sense as the tendency to include superfluous upgrades (Flight Controllers for use with Tie Interceptors as the extreme example) is likely part of the reason Squadrons underperformed is some instances.

basically, and in not so many words

one of the things with this awesome unique mechanic is that while "ships" must be clearly differentiated from "Squadrons," the mechanics governing Squadrons are heavily dependent on ships and the ships, meanwhile, basically add to their activation when they command squadrons.

basically, they're very much connected, and anything that strengthens the ship's anti-ship potential is also indirectly strengthening your bombers. The more able you are to pop something in a single activation, the better off you will be

meanwhile, overloading with upgrades such as adar + haven + hangars etc. is overburdening the poor ship and making the squadrons more dependent on it; giving your opponent every reason to ignore the squadrons and murder the ship.

i still like boosted comms and hangar bays. if i drop flight controllers i can add a turret though

boosted comms is a measly four points

I'm putting that **** on everything

(except nebs )

boosted comms is a measly four points

I'm putting that **** on everything

(except nebs )

its the franks red hot of armada

Here is a another little crazy idea of mine.

I call it squadron transit move.

If an activated squadron in the squadron phase ends its movement with no enemy ships or squadrons within distance 3, it may make an additional move, but it cannot end its additional move within distance 3 of an enemy ship or squadron.

The reasoning behind my above rule suggestion, is that a squadron that is moving in transit from point A to B, with no enemy units present, would:

1) Fly in a straight line, because there is no need to make constant evasive moves.

2) Pilots would re-route power to the engines, when the need to power shields and weapons, during the "transit" flight, is not paramount.

With the above you can bring squadrons quicker back into the fray, if they have been left behind for some reason, or to a point you wish them to be and await for the enemies arrival in a following round, the buildt in limitation that you can't move within distance 3 of enemy ships or squadron, prevents them, from becomming to offensive.

What is your take on this, would this have a positive or negative influence on the game?

Hey who threw a Jar Jar figure at me?

Ive personally never understood the "one carrier" dynamic

every ship has the ability to command squadrons, and every ship with a Squadron above 1 (although the CR-90 is still excellent due to Command 1, and can come in handy during clutch moments) can be purposed as a carrier

I experimented with a CR-90 with Raymus Antilles and Tantive IV one time- Being able to activate 2 squadrons on a moment's notice came in handy. Not sure if that was too many points for a Corvette, though.

Here is a another little crazy idea of mine.

I call it squadron transit move.

If an activated squadron in the squadron phase ends its movement with no enemy ships or squadrons within distance 3, it may make an additional move, but it cannot end its additional move within distance 3 of an enemy ship or squadron.

The reasoning behind my above rule suggestion, is that a squadron that is moving in transit from point A to B, with no enemy units present, would:

1) Fly in a straight line, because there is no need to make constant evasive moves.

2) Pilots would re-route power to the engines, when the need to power shields and weapons, during the "transit" flight, is not paramount.

With the above you can bring squadrons quicker back into the fray, if they have been left behind for some reason, or to a point you wish them to be and await for the enemies arrival in a following round, the buildt in limitation that you can't move within distance 3 of enemy ships or squadron, prevents them, from becomming to offensive.

What is your take on this, would this have a positive or negative influence on the game?

Feels somewhat complicated and not that practical. Seems like it would allow slower fighters to close the distance in the initial engagement slightly quicker than anything else- But then, Superiority fighters and interceptors usually manage to engage bombers and their escort by turn 2 in my experience, so it seems like it would devalue the benefit of high speed on squadrons than anything else.

Here is a another little crazy idea of mine.

I call it squadron transit move.

If an activated squadron in the squadron phase ends its movement with no enemy ships or squadrons within distance 3, it may make an additional move, but it cannot end its additional move within distance 3 of an enemy ship or squadron.

The reasoning behind my above rule suggestion, is that a squadron that is moving in transit from point A to B, with no enemy units present, would:

1) Fly in a straight line, because there is no need to make constant evasive moves.

2) Pilots would re-route power to the engines, when the need to power shields and weapons, during the "transit" flight, is not paramount.

With the above you can bring squadrons quicker back into the fray, if they have been left behind for some reason, or to a point you wish them to be and await for the enemies arrival in a following round, the buildt in limitation that you can't move within distance 3 of enemy ships or squadron, prevents them, from becomming to offensive.

What is your take on this, would this have a positive or negative influence on the game?

Hey who threw a Jar Jar figure at me?

while cool in practice. the rection time on the power systems is too slow. Dont forget each stand is like 12 actual fighters. 1 stand = 1 squadron not 3 starfighters.

Watch RotJ or ANH, they lock S-Foils in attack position long before the engagement slowing themselves down to combat speed. Also most ships have hangars. Meaning that the squadrons are deploying combat ready, especially the Imperials since only the advanced have hyperdrives.

What armada is representing is the engagement squardons are out, both fleets are fully aware of each others prescenese and Round 1 is setting the intiial combat manuevers.

Kiwi, I would forget about stuff like that. It's just not going to happen.

The only "fixes" to squadrons that we are likely to see are more things like R&V which introduce independent squadrons, *possibly* a squadron upgrade card pack (titles for squadrons) and more squadron-friendly ship titles, characters and/or other things that make utilizing squadrons a little more easy.

Personally, I hope it doesn't get too easy. Squadron mastery is one of the subskills of this game that will separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm currently in the chaff, I fear, so practice, practice practice for me.

Kiwi, I would forget about stuff like that. It's just not going to happen.

The only "fixes" to squadrons that we are likely to see are more things like R&V which introduce independent squadrons, *possibly* a squadron upgrade card pack (titles for squadrons) and more squadron-friendly ship titles, characters and/or other things that make utilizing squadrons a little more easy.

Personally, I hope it doesn't get too easy. Squadron mastery is one of the subskills of this game that will separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm currently in the chaff, I fear, so practice, practice practice for me.

while cool in practice. the rection time on the power systems is too slow. Dont forget each stand is like 12 actual fighters. 1 stand = 1 squadron not 3 starfighters.

Watch RotJ or ANH, they lock S-Foils in attack position long before the engagement slowing themselves down to combat speed. Also most ships have hangars. Meaning that the squadrons are deploying combat ready, especially the Imperials since only the advanced have hyperdrives.

What armada is representing is the engagement squardons are out, both fleets are fully aware of each others prescenese and Round 1 is setting the intiial combat manuevers.

Okay sorry I got it wrong the million times I've seen RotJ or ANH, the script line I actually hear is:

"Lock S-foils into Attack position and de-acccelerate to attack speed"

Better call Disney and tell them that they need to change that before the next re-release of Star Wars on blue-ray.

Last time I checked, my little fighter stands of X-Wings already had their S-Foils in Attack Position...

while cool in practice. the rection time on the power systems is too slow. Dont forget each stand is like 12 actual fighters. 1 stand = 1 squadron not 3 starfighters.

Watch RotJ or ANH, they lock S-Foils in attack position long before the engagement slowing themselves down to combat speed. Also most ships have hangars. Meaning that the squadrons are deploying combat ready, especially the Imperials since only the advanced have hyperdrives.

What armada is representing is the engagement squardons are out, both fleets are fully aware of each others prescenese and Round 1 is setting the intiial combat manuevers.

Okay sorry I got it wrong the million times I've seen RotJ or ANH, the script line I actually hear is:

"Lock S-foils into Attack position and de-acccelerate to attack speed"

Better call Disney and tell them that they need to change that before the next re-release of Star Wars on blue-ray.

My issue with X-Wings is that they are so heavily overshadowed by A-Wings that they aren't worth it. They are a multirole fighter that can't catch opposing bombers and have a more finicky anti-ship die that does the same average damage as an A-Wing at a cost of two extra points. They do gain an extra hull point and anti-squadron die but loses counter in the process. I have had several instances where an opponent refused to fire at my A-Wings for fear of losing their own squadron in the counter attack and thus freeing up the A-Wing. That will never happen with an X-Wing.

B-Wings also beat the X-Wing in efficiency as well. This is of little surprise as they are a more dedicated craft but, for only one extra point, gain an extra hull point and have a much more devastating anti-ship armament. Three blue anti-squadron dice means that they aren't helpless against fighters either, unlike a TIE Bomber.

The X-Wing is probably my favorite starfighter of all time but I cannot justify taking them given the other options available. Options to improve them would include speed 4, counter 1 or reduced cost. Obviously only one of these could be chosen as adding more would likely just swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

So if you did this to the rebel fighters what would you do to the Imperial? Make the Tie Fighter two points? They already die so fast you can hardly keep them on the board.

My issue with X-Wings is that they are so heavily overshadowed by A-Wings that they aren't worth it. They are a multirole fighter that can't catch opposing bombers and have a more finicky anti-ship die that does the same average damage as an A-Wing at a cost of two extra points. They do gain an extra hull point and anti-squadron die but loses counter in the process. I have had several instances where an opponent refused to fire at my A-Wings for fear of losing their own squadron in the counter attack and thus freeing up the A-Wing. That will never happen with an X-Wing.

B-Wings also beat the X-Wing in efficiency as well. This is of little surprise as they are a more dedicated craft but, for only one extra point, gain an extra hull point and have a much more devastating anti-ship armament. Three blue anti-squadron dice means that they aren't helpless against fighters either, unlike a TIE Bomber.

The X-Wing is probably my favorite starfighter of all time but I cannot justify taking them given the other options available. Options to improve them would include speed 4, counter 1 or reduced cost. Obviously only one of these could be chosen as adding more would likely just swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

So if you did this to the rebel fighters what would you do to the Imperial? Make the Tie Fighter two points? They already die so fast you can hardly keep them on the board.

He only recommended a change to the X-Wings (of the options presented, I'd be most in favor of speed 4 but that would require substantial playtesting), not really to anything else. You still see TIE Fighters in Armada due to their low cost. X-Wings in general I see less often.

Granted, I doubt FFG is going to do anything to change X-Wings regardless, so we need to learn to use them as they are. FFG would need to print new cards and include them with something, and I'm not even entirely sure the "problem" is that established. Escort on X-Wings was marginally useful in Wave 1*, but with the new squadrons coming out I suspect it will be more useful in Wave 2.

*By which I mean Escorting A-Wings kind of defeats the purpose of Counter and A-Wings are substantially faster than X-Wings. Escorting Y-Wings was of reasonable usefulness (and they were the same speed), but the argument can be made that you would've been better off running A-Wings instead to preemptively engage enemy squadrons to clear room for them, and B-Wings don't really need an Escort - they can fight reasonably well against enemy squadrons on their own and they're so slow that keeping X-Wings leashed to them was of dubious use. Conversely, the TIE Advanced gets better use from Escort because it's as fast as the other TIE squadrons (barring Interceptors) and the TIE Fighters and Interceptors are fragile, so the meat shield ability came in rather handy.

My issue with X-Wings is that they are so heavily overshadowed by A-Wings that they aren't worth it. They are a multirole fighter that can't catch opposing bombers and have a more finicky anti-ship die that does the same average damage as an A-Wing at a cost of two extra points. They do gain an extra hull point and anti-squadron die but loses counter in the process. I have had several instances where an opponent refused to fire at my A-Wings for fear of losing their own squadron in the counter attack and thus freeing up the A-Wing. That will never happen with an X-Wing.

B-Wings also beat the X-Wing in efficiency as well. This is of little surprise as they are a more dedicated craft but, for only one extra point, gain an extra hull point and have a much more devastating anti-ship armament. Three blue anti-squadron dice means that they aren't helpless against fighters either, unlike a TIE Bomber.

The X-Wing is probably my favorite starfighter of all time but I cannot justify taking them given the other options available. Options to improve them would include speed 4, counter 1 or reduced cost. Obviously only one of these could be chosen as adding more would likely just swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

So if you did this to the rebel fighters what would you do to the Imperial? Make the Tie Fighter two points? They already die so fast you can hardly keep them on the board.

He only recommended a change to the X-Wings (of the options presented, I'd be most in favor of speed 4 but that would require substantial playtesting), not really to anything else. You still see TIE Fighters in Armada due to their low cost. X-Wings in general I see less often.

Granted, I doubt FFG is going to do anything to change X-Wings regardless, so we need to learn to use them as they are. FFG would need to print new cards and include them with something, and I'm not even entirely sure the "problem" is that established. Escort on X-Wings was marginally useful in Wave 1*, but with the new squadrons coming out I suspect it will be more useful in Wave 2.

*By which I mean Escorting A-Wings kind of defeats the purpose of Counter and A-Wings are substantially faster than X-Wings. Escorting Y-Wings was of reasonable usefulness (and they were the same speed), but the argument can be made that you would've been better off running A-Wings instead to preemptively engage enemy squadrons to clear room for them, and B-Wings don't really need an Escort - they can fight reasonably well against enemy squadrons on their own and they're so slow that keeping X-Wings leashed to them was of dubious use. Conversely, the TIE Advanced gets better use from Escort because it's as fast as the other TIE squadrons (barring Interceptors) and the TIE Fighters and Interceptors are fragile, so the meat shield ability came in rather handy.

I was kind of joking about the two point cost for Tie fighters. But joking aside as of right now I still see the X-wing as the best all round fighter in the game, if you change it, you need to change every fighter in the game.

My issue with X-Wings is that they are so heavily overshadowed by A-Wings that they aren't worth it. They are a multirole fighter that can't catch opposing bombers and have a more finicky anti-ship die that does the same average damage as an A-Wing at a cost of two extra points. They do gain an extra hull point and anti-squadron die but loses counter in the process. I have had several instances where an opponent refused to fire at my A-Wings for fear of losing their own squadron in the counter attack and thus freeing up the A-Wing. That will never happen with an X-Wing.

B-Wings also beat the X-Wing in efficiency as well. This is of little surprise as they are a more dedicated craft but, for only one extra point, gain an extra hull point and have a much more devastating anti-ship armament. Three blue anti-squadron dice means that they aren't helpless against fighters either, unlike a TIE Bomber.

The X-Wing is probably my favorite starfighter of all time but I cannot justify taking them given the other options available. Options to improve them would include speed 4, counter 1 or reduced cost. Obviously only one of these could be chosen as adding more would likely just swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

So if you did this to the rebel fighters what would you do to the Imperial? Make the Tie Fighter two points? They already die so fast you can hardly keep them on the board.

He only recommended a change to the X-Wings (of the options presented, I'd be most in favor of speed 4 but that would require substantial playtesting), not really to anything else. You still see TIE Fighters in Armada due to their low cost. X-Wings in general I see less often.

Granted, I doubt FFG is going to do anything to change X-Wings regardless, so we need to learn to use them as they are. FFG would need to print new cards and include them with something, and I'm not even entirely sure the "problem" is that established. Escort on X-Wings was marginally useful in Wave 1*, but with the new squadrons coming out I suspect it will be more useful in Wave 2.

*By which I mean Escorting A-Wings kind of defeats the purpose of Counter and A-Wings are substantially faster than X-Wings. Escorting Y-Wings was of reasonable usefulness (and they were the same speed), but the argument can be made that you would've been better off running A-Wings instead to preemptively engage enemy squadrons to clear room for them, and B-Wings don't really need an Escort - they can fight reasonably well against enemy squadrons on their own and they're so slow that keeping X-Wings leashed to them was of dubious use. Conversely, the TIE Advanced gets better use from Escort because it's as fast as the other TIE squadrons (barring Interceptors) and the TIE Fighters and Interceptors are fragile, so the meat shield ability came in rather handy.

I was kind of joking about the two point cost for Tie fighters. But joking aside as of right now I still see the X-wing as the best all round fighter in the game, if you change it, you need to change every fighter in the game.

My problem with x-wings is that stinking red die is such a variable. Although the same average damage as an A, those reds swing so wildly I can't count on them to do what I want (62.5% of scoring a hit vs 75% chance...). While I like having the ability to crit and I like those wild double-hits to slap people in the face with once in a blue moon, I'd have an easier time flying them if we could get us some reliability (if there were a wedge admiral or something that allowed x-wing rerolls for example.... help us FFG, you're our only hope!)

Not that this is going to stop me from taking 4 or anything though...

(I'm still working on microscopic decals for the sucker. And yes, those are needle tips! Pew pew pew pew!)

Wow what happened to this topic.

Nice conversion on this X-Wing!

Last time I encountered them was in 180 points core box games.

My issue with X-Wings is that they are so heavily overshadowed by A-Wings that they aren't worth it. They are a multirole fighter that can't catch opposing bombers and have a more finicky anti-ship die that does the same average damage as an A-Wing at a cost of two extra points. They do gain an extra hull point and anti-squadron die but loses counter in the process. I have had several instances where an opponent refused to fire at my A-Wings for fear of losing their own squadron in the counter attack and thus freeing up the A-Wing. That will never happen with an X-Wing.

B-Wings also beat the X-Wing in efficiency as well. This is of little surprise as they are a more dedicated craft but, for only one extra point, gain an extra hull point and have a much more devastating anti-ship armament. Three blue anti-squadron dice means that they aren't helpless against fighters either, unlike a TIE Bomber.

The X-Wing is probably my favorite starfighter of all time but I cannot justify taking them given the other options available. Options to improve them would include speed 4, counter 1 or reduced cost. Obviously only one of these could be chosen as adding more would likely just swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

So if you did this to the rebel fighters what would you do to the Imperial? Make the Tie Fighter two points? They already die so fast you can hardly keep them on the board.

He only recommended a change to the X-Wings (of the options presented, I'd be most in favor of speed 4 but that would require substantial playtesting), not really to anything else. You still see TIE Fighters in Armada due to their low cost. X-Wings in general I see less often.

Granted, I doubt FFG is going to do anything to change X-Wings regardless, so we need to learn to use them as they are. FFG would need to print new cards and include them with something, and I'm not even entirely sure the "problem" is that established. Escort on X-Wings was marginally useful in Wave 1*, but with the new squadrons coming out I suspect it will be more useful in Wave 2.

*By which I mean Escorting A-Wings kind of defeats the purpose of Counter and A-Wings are substantially faster than X-Wings. Escorting Y-Wings was of reasonable usefulness (and they were the same speed), but the argument can be made that you would've been better off running A-Wings instead to preemptively engage enemy squadrons to clear room for them, and B-Wings don't really need an Escort - they can fight reasonably well against enemy squadrons on their own and they're so slow that keeping X-Wings leashed to them was of dubious use. Conversely, the TIE Advanced gets better use from Escort because it's as fast as the other TIE squadrons (barring Interceptors) and the TIE Fighters and Interceptors are fragile, so the meat shield ability came in rather handy.

I was kind of joking about the two point cost for Tie fighters. But joking aside as of right now I still see the X-wing as the best all round fighter in the game, if you change it, you need to change every fighter in the game.

My problem with x-wings is that stinking red die is such a variable. Although the same average damage as an A, those reds swing so wildly I can't count on them to do what I want (62.5% of scoring a hit vs 75% chance...). While I like having the ability to crit and I like those wild double-hits to slap people in the face with once in a blue moon, I'd have an easier time flying them if we could get us some reliability (if there were a wedge admiral or something that allowed x-wing rerolls for example.... help us FFG, you're our only hope!)

Not that this is going to stop me from taking 4 or anything though...

(I'm still working on microscopic decals for the sucker. And yes, those are needle tips! Pew pew pew pew!)

Now as a Imperial player mostly, I may be missing something. But to me the X-wing is the all-round fighter. The A-wing is a interceptor. I would rather face the interceptor than the X-wing myself, as not doing crits and fewer hits to destroy is nice as far as I see it.

X-Wings are very fairly costed. Escort to protect Y-Wings, lots of blue dice against fighters, Bomber. they are excellent multi-role heavy fighters just as they are meant to be.

The only thing X-Wings lack over other Wave 1 fighters is a black die when attacking ships. They generally outclass other fighters in at least one way on every other stat.