Went to top table in 4 separate Sullust events with a CR-90, 2 AF MkIIs, and 4 B-Wings. Squadrons are fine.

Well, there you go guys.

I'll just pick up this mic.

Winning with squadrons validates them just as winning without squadrons INvalidates them.

Squadrons are 'play to taste'...that's that.

The reason for this is the godawful scoring system. Squadrons are effective, and powerful. However, I find it's very easy to kill 200pts of capital ships, and by doing so I score a full 300 points as if by magic.

There is that, but mitigating that is a question of deployment and maneuvering.

If you're letting your carrier(s) get steamrolled by your opponent's capital ships, you're doing it wrong and it's not the squadrons' fault that you're letting it happen to you.

To clarify: If you have a lot more squadrons than your opponent, it's probably a good deal to aim for being second player. You can then see where (s)he is going to place the fleet by the first deployment. At that point you place your first ship and then start placing the squadrons around it, forcing the opponent to place ships. You then place your carrier(s) where it's unlikely for you to get steamrolled by the opponent's ships.

My experience is a little lopsided because I've been playing KushielRDF a LOT and only played some of my other local players once or twice, but I find squadrons tend to come in only three varieties:

1) Rhymer ball. I actually hate this mechanic, not because it's OP or broken or anything, I feel it's quite reasonable. But I'm sick to death of it.

There are Rebel bomber balls as well, they just don't have Rhymer, and Rhymer really makes the bombers so much more effective.

I do understand what you're saying, though. As they've also said on IFF, Rhymer is such an auto-include and such a powerful addition to your fleet, that this single character alone shapes the nature of the game. It's somewhat ironic because he's a bit of a dud in X-Wing, where his ability is individual, rather than cooperative with friendlies.

I'm not yet sure what R&V is going to do to the squadrons game. It's not really attracted me, because I'm with Admiral Piett on my appreciation of bounty hunters. ("We don't need that scum."). What little I know about what R&V has in it does not strike me as game-changing.

I'm on the opposite end: very attracted to R&V in the hope that they mix things up enough to start seeing some different squadron tactics. It's entirely possible I'm just pinning my hopes on mechanics I don't fully understand yet, but I've tinkered a little with what I've seen, and so far I'm liking the flexibility. At the very least for me, mechanics like Intel and Jan Ors character ability let me have fun squadron powers ala Howlrunner.

Well, it's not happening to me. It's entirely possible that every opponent in our large local meta (20+ between our 3 stores)is terrible with fighters, granted. But it does seem to be that the 2 of us that bring ship only builds usually place above the fighter heavy ones.

I'm on the opposite end: very attracted to R&V in the hope that they mix things up enough to start seeing some different squadron tactics. It's entirely possible I'm just pinning my hopes on mechanics I don't fully understand yet, but I've tinkered a little with what I've seen, and so far I'm liking the flexibility. At the very least for me, mechanics like Intel and Jan Ors character ability let me have fun squadron powers ala Howlrunner.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more variety to the squadrons game. I just don't feel attracted to the Imperial options right now. Maybe I will once I get my hands on some of them.

I think part of the issue with squadrons' placement and movement comes from the many of us who came off the heels of playing lots of X Wing.

In X Wing, predicting where your enemy's ships are going to be can be very hard. Most ships (in X Wing) have most manuevers available to them. Thus, they could be anywhere on the table, and if you didn't predict/forsee where your enemy was going to be, you could either be in an ugly pickle, or possibly just miss opportunities. Indeed, the entire game is built around this mechanic.

It took me a few games of Armada to realize that, despite being able to adjust the maneuver tool on the go, that Armada ships simply don't have that many options available to them. A rebel player with squadrons should have no problems predicting where a Victory class SD is going to be, even in late game turns, due to it's very limited speed and maneuver options. And while a gladiator has much more available in terms of speed and yaw values, the attack is limited to black dice, which means you should be able to reasonably predict where its going to be. The ISD's footprint is just huge, and even though it is speedier, its powerful front arc telecasts its movement (or else it is wasted). And the raider...well you probably don't want your fighters anywhere near the raider :-)

For all you "My Gladiator will wipe your Yavaris off the table" folks out there. This is why it is not so cut and dry

I have 2 groups: the local 'Ceknell' bunch and the Edmonton lot. After Gencon the presence of squadrons disappeared in favour of Gladiator lists with my local band. Then I went to Sullust with the Edmonton lot and with my 6 squadrons I was outnumbered every single match. I think the winner had 6 or 7 squadrons with an ace, something like that (lot of X's too, that shocked me). The difference between groups was that one group was playing more (Edmonton group) and one was posturing and theorizing more (locals getting off of a break).

Since then, Squadrons have made a come back. They're doing fine, just fine. And naturally, when you have Calgary, Edmonton goes right to the opposite and ends up with Rebels.

For all you "My Gladiator will wipe your Yavaris off the table" folks out there. This is why it is not so cut and dry

Imperials who say that need to have their apologies accepted.

You know I always found interesting that people feel they "must" max out their use of squadrons. People seem to have forgotten the Strategy article that FFG put out there on squadrons. Not once did that article go and max points for squadrons out.

For all you "My Gladiator will wipe your Yavaris off the table" folks out there. This is why it is not so cut and dry

Imperials who say that need to have their apologies accepted.

One day. Maybe.

You know I always found interesting that people feel they "must" max out their use of squadrons. People seem to have forgotten the Strategy article that FFG put out there on squadrons. Not once did that article go and max points for squadrons out.

I don't know if FFG's strategy article (which I certainly don't recall) is something that should be treated as gospel.

I can only speak for myself that when I was thinking about the Edsel-Blerg theory*, that if people go all ships, then a good response is max squadrons. While I think that Edsel-Blerg has been refuted by data, I'd say that bringing max squadrons has certainly helped me win. I also think that the notion that squadrons suck has also helped me win with max squadrons, because they weren't anticipated.

At the same time, I also imagine that the more that people realize that squadrons can be pretty powerful will shift the meta towards one in which we see squadron complements that focus on medium-size fighter screens. (I'd say that your Tycho+2xA at 38 points is a light fighter screen.) Then I think the meta will open up a bit to have more interesting configurations and more dynamic squadron combat.

* the notion that builds with no squadrons beat builds with few squadrons, which beat builds with no squadrons, which beat builds with no squadrons, in a rock<paper<scissors circular relationship

I have 2 groups: the local 'Ceknell' bunch and the Edmonton lot. After Gencon the presence of squadrons disappeared in favour of Gladiator lists with my local band. Then I went to Sullust with the Edmonton lot and with my 6 squadrons I was outnumbered every single match. I think the winner had 6 or 7 squadrons with an ace, something like that (lot of X's too, that shocked me). The difference between groups was that one group was playing more (Edmonton group) and one was posturing and theorizing more (locals getting off of a break).

Since then, Squadrons have made a come back. They're doing fine, just fine. And naturally, when you have Calgary, Edmonton goes right to the opposite and ends up with Rebels.

I'm waiting to get my promise of future funding down, and then I'll be looking at hiring a Big Hall in Red Deer, and we can have a Good ol' Battle of Alberta...

My experience is a little lopsided because I've been playing KushielRDF a LOT and only played some of my other local players once or twice, but I find squadrons tend to come in only three varieties:

1) Rhymer ball. I actually hate this mechanic, not because it's OP or broken or anything, I feel it's quite reasonable. But I'm sick to death of it.

There are Rebel bomber balls as well, they just don't have Rhymer, and Rhymer really makes the bombers so much more effective.

I do understand what you're saying, though. As they've also said on IFF, Rhymer is such an auto-include and such a powerful addition to your fleet, that this single character alone shapes the nature of the game. It's somewhat ironic because he's a bit of a dud in X-Wing, where his ability is individual, rather than cooperative with friendlies.

Thats a specification of a broken game element.

You don't even have to discuss or outline tactics or details. "Rhymer Ball" is sufficient.

"How did the game went? He Rhymer Balled you? I see ... "

Have you beed Rhymer Balled today?

My experience is a little lopsided because I've been playing KushielRDF a LOT and only played some of my other local players once or twice, but I find squadrons tend to come in only three varieties:

1) Rhymer ball. I actually hate this mechanic, not because it's OP or broken or anything, I feel it's quite reasonable. But I'm sick to death of it.

There are Rebel bomber balls as well, they just don't have Rhymer, and Rhymer really makes the bombers so much more effective.

I do understand what you're saying, though. As they've also said on IFF, Rhymer is such an auto-include and such a powerful addition to your fleet, that this single character alone shapes the nature of the game. It's somewhat ironic because he's a bit of a dud in X-Wing, where his ability is individual, rather than cooperative with friendlies.

Thats a specification of a broken game element.

You don't even have to discuss or outline tactics or details. "Rhymer Ball" is sufficient.

"How did the game went? He Rhymer Balled you? I see ... "

Have you beed Rhymer Balled today?

Sounds exactly the same as "Demolisher" to me.

Or Screed + ACMs

Or Ackbar.

My experience is a little lopsided because I've been playing KushielRDF a LOT and only played some of my other local players once or twice, but I find squadrons tend to come in only three varieties:

1) Rhymer ball. I actually hate this mechanic, not because it's OP or broken or anything, I feel it's quite reasonable. But I'm sick to death of it.

There are Rebel bomber balls as well, they just don't have Rhymer, and Rhymer really makes the bombers so much more effective.

I do understand what you're saying, though. As they've also said on IFF, Rhymer is such an auto-include and such a powerful addition to your fleet, that this single character alone shapes the nature of the game. It's somewhat ironic because he's a bit of a dud in X-Wing, where his ability is individual, rather than cooperative with friendlies.

Thats a specification of a broken game element.

You don't even have to discuss or outline tactics or details. "Rhymer Ball" is sufficient.

"How did the game went? He Rhymer Balled you? I see ... "

Have you beed Rhymer Balled today?

Sounds exactly the same as "Demolisher" to me.

Or Screed + ACMs

Or Ackbar.

Demolisher don't turn all ships around it from zero to hero.

And the Rebel ships even work without Ackbar.

My experience is a little lopsided because I've been playing KushielRDF a LOT and only played some of my other local players once or twice, but I find squadrons tend to come in only three varieties:

1) Rhymer ball. I actually hate this mechanic, not because it's OP or broken or anything, I feel it's quite reasonable. But I'm sick to death of it.

There are Rebel bomber balls as well, they just don't have Rhymer, and Rhymer really makes the bombers so much more effective.

I do understand what you're saying, though. As they've also said on IFF, Rhymer is such an auto-include and such a powerful addition to your fleet, that this single character alone shapes the nature of the game. It's somewhat ironic because he's a bit of a dud in X-Wing, where his ability is individual, rather than cooperative with friendlies.

Thats a specification of a broken game element.

You don't even have to discuss or outline tactics or details. "Rhymer Ball" is sufficient.

"How did the game went? He Rhymer Balled you? I see ... "

Have you beed Rhymer Balled today?

I'm wary of cries of "OP!!", just like I think it's nonsense that squadrons are under-powered as has seemed to be the dominant opinion on this forum. If squadrons are UP and Rhymer is OP, then either one or both of those two statements is false, or Rhymer is not a squadron. I'm going to go with the notion that both the statements are false, and this is a game with certain powerful combinations, and that those powerful combinations can be shut down with good strategy.

In other words - there are things that are good, but not broken.

Demolisher don't turn all ships around it from zero to hero.

And the Rebel ships even work without Ackbar.

I'm yet to lose a single Ship to a Rhymer Ball, so I don't see the cry, that's all.

You do not understand. Rhymer is not OP. Rhymer is broken.

You need Rhymer to make squadrons work - without him the mechanics are nearly useless.

And with him you are just laying one pancake of a minefield on the table.

I can understand ppl saying they are sick of Rhymer Balls.

Squadrons are a thing at least half of the Australian meta on the east coast at least.

IFF beat down on squadrons pretty harshly that episode, even Easy lost faith with his Ywing swarm even though it sounded really close for his games. They even mention the winning list at an event was nebs, a cr90 and squadrons and brushed it off as if it was an outlier when really that should have been a significant moment worth looking at...

You do not understand. Rhymer is not OP. Rhymer is broken.

You need Rhymer to make squadrons work - without him the mechanics are nearly useless.

And with him you are just laying one pancake of a minefield on the table.

I can understand ppl saying they are sick of Rhymer Balls.

The Sky Is Falling.

You do not understand. Rhymer is not OP. Rhymer is broken.

You need Rhymer to make squadrons work - without him the mechanics are nearly useless.

And with him you are just laying one pancake of a minefield on the table.

I can understand ppl saying they are sick of Rhymer Balls.

Rhymer is an enhancer. An enhancer that is easily stopped. In fact I did that with Tycho and an X-Wing. Used them to weaken Rhymer and then killed him. He was stuck in the background for most of the game which worked well for me.

You do not understand. Rhymer is not OP. Rhymer is broken.

You need Rhymer to make squadrons work - without him the mechanics are nearly useless.

I guess I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

You might have had a valid point that Rhymer is a necessity if squadrons didn't work on the Rhymerless Rebel side, but I see no evidence that's the case.

Wow, we just ninja'd up on TheRealStarkiller.

For me, I think conceptually squadrons are good - but I'm still trying to learn how to fly them effectively. I'm also primarily an Imp player and I have tried the Rhymer ball with limited success, as well as used a 4 TIE Fighter/Interceptor squadron screen to limited success. But so far, I haven't got the hang of effectively using them in every game. Based on my local meta of limited squadron usage, I'd say other pilots are in the same boat.

for me this is it some people just haven't bothered to learn them yet.

Wow, we just ninja'd up on TheRealStarkiller.

You do not understand. Rhymer is not OP. Rhymer is broken.

You need Rhymer to make squadrons work - without him the mechanics are nearly useless.

I guess I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

You might have had a valid point that Rhymer is a necessity if squadrons didn't work on the Rhymerless Rebel side, but I see no evidence that's the case.

True. And I havn't encountered a Rebel player using squadrons and winning the game yet.

Maybe I should take the challenge

Or even pick up some rebel stuff and rebel squadrons and try to make those B-Wings work and the other stuff

EDIT: Its too late ... i need to get a sleep now ...