So, when a large base moves 2 or 3, does it overlap squadrons placed in front of it, nearly without fail?

For speed 1 or 2*, yes. Speed 3 (more like 3.5 distance) no chance. At speed 3, the base is entirely forward of the speed 1 location. (just about the middle of where the 1 cardboard marker is.)

*Speed 2 you can with 2 clicks (like an ISD or MC80) avoid a fighter to the right or left side, by turning away from them, but not the center. Straight or one click won't do it. (Unless just barely touching the front corner (Place base so that the center is as far to the right as possible, and forward while touching. If in the middle, you are good. On approach, if you first move about 1-2 cm forward of the large ship, there's no chance to avoid. Even if they escape (and let a fighter dictate position!) that's still 3 (assuming a squadron command moved them into initial position) turns of fire, 2 front, 1 back. If you can't keep to the center (For example multiple squadrons): against an MC80, go for the far side, as they want to keep the range and on an ISD the near side, as they want to close.

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.

What problems have your Balls of Rhymer run into? Do your opponents bring just enough fighters to hold off the bombing runs, or do your opponents' ships just run around them?

Between not being able to consistently time squadron commands and/or predict enemy movement of fast ships (i.e. everything in wave 1 but a VSD), they don't seem to do enough damage to be worth their points. Maybe my problem is that I normally only see 3-4 total squadrons in a Rhymer ball? What's a good ball make up?

liasons my friend.... liasons. Don't listen to dano!

Do you mean Weapons Liaison? I don't like the cost of either it or Defense Liaison (3 points plus discard a token every time you use its ability).

with wulf as a thing why not

My experience with B-wings is thus: results are very dependent on opponent. In the Sullust tournament I played in, for instance, I crushed someone with a B-wing heavy Yavaris build in round 3 for a 10-0 win. My list? 2xAF, 1xNeb 1xCR90. I just didn't engage the B-wings, and they aren't fast enough to catch my ships. I probably had B-wings shoot at my ships a grand total of 2-3 times the entire game.

However, against Glads/VSD rush, it's very strong.

Something that match-up dependent would fall into bucket 2. You can win with it... if you don't hit a counter list. I think the problem is that the most common counter-list is going to be the rebel 3xAFII list or CR90 spam. Both are common. Therefore, the list is unlikely to win a tournament as the player pool grows in size, as your probability of hitting a counter list grows with the number of games required to find a winner. I'd be much more optimistic about winning a 6-person tourney than Gencon with a B-wing list, as an example.

I faced basically that list (with the CR90 replaced by 4 A-Wings (Tycho), and one of the AFM2s was Gallant Haven... I wasn't aware of that title before the game, combined with counter 2: EVIL)

I had 1 A-Wing (Tycho), 1 B-Wing, 3 X-Wings (Wedge), and 1 Y-Wing (Dutch), Yavaris, Redemption and a CR90 T4. I think the B-Wing got to fire 2 times (once was a double fire, so as many dice as any other squadron fires if it's in range each turn without Yavaris assistance). Mostly it was the rest of the fighters. I lost 2 squads: Wedge and Tycho, killed his A-Wings, and Gallant Haven. I think I'll replace an X-Wing with a 2nd B-Wing should I use that list again.

Yavaris makes any squadron have as many dice as a B-Wing, and makes B-Wings terrifying.

My closest game was against a GenCon special, Losing the 2 Nebs, vs VSD & Demolisher. Almost didn't win that, but did thanks to CR90 flanking to take out the VSD. Same fleet has also beaten a TIE swarm with 2 VSDs, one organized as a carrier.

As always: Results vary.

So if we are talking about squadrons in the meta, I think we need to ask the following questions:

1. If we are saying squadrons are "strong" in your meta, do you mean squadrons in general, or do you mean spare points A-Wings and Rhymer balls, as those should be the two "dominant" types of squadrons on a cost vs. effectiveness analysis, on average?
2. If we are saying there are strong squadron builds in your meta, do you mean purpose-built squadrons where the counter build is uncommonly encountered (e.g. the Y-wing spam double whale build in a meta where nobody plays Garm's Gups or a CR-90 swarm)?
3. Or are we saying that, on average, squadron builds outperform non-squadron builds across the board?

[...]

Thus, I think the only correct conclusion right now is this: uncoordinated / slow / unsupported squadron builds are almost certainly worse across the board than all-ship builds, but synergy-related squadron builds (Rebel Aces) built properly should perform well, and spare A-Wings and Rhymer ball have proven to be more than strong enough to win major events.

So are squadrons good, on average, as a general inclusion? No.

So are squadrons good, in particular circumstances, when lists are built to maximize their advantages? Yes, they can be, especially when those squadrons themselves are fast and command efficient.

Come on, this is a bit of a silly economic analysis.

The silliest part is where you conclude that a build that doesn't design for its own use is not very good. I'll file that under 'obvious'. You didn't need a wall of sophistry to make that point.

The more serious part of your treatise is where you dismiss situations that happen in a small-world scene of <15-20 people. I would suggest that this is the scale at which most Armada-playing communities exist. It is therefore precisely the situation that is relevant to most players. Most of us are not going to Gencon or Worlds where there's a huge pool of players and therefore a huge pool of builds and that our lists need to be effective against.

By talking - essentially - about efficiency as the leading imperative for designing a list, you're making a micro-economist's presumption of a situation of perfect competition between all possible builds. But in the same way that the micro-economist's model of the perfect market is a farce, so is the notion that we live in a situation in which one's build needs to be as efficient as possible, and capable of meeting any possible combination of ships, upgrades, squadrons and objectives. That simply isn't the case; you only need to have the kind of build that will beat the builds that your community is likely to bring to the table.

It's like arguing that rock is more efficient than paper and scissors, because you don't have to poke out any of your fingers, and you should therefore choose rock. But if I know that your imperative is to get the best tactical advantage while using as few fingers as possible, then I'm going to guess that you're going to choose rock, and therefore I will use of the build that is the least efficient in terms of finger-expenditure, ie. paper. While paper is less efficient, it does defeat rock.

In my local scene, I was seeing a lot of no-squadron builds. I even brought them myself. At one point I felt that with everybody dismissing squadrons, I was in a great position to exploit that tendency. Since then, we've seen a re-flourishing of squadron builds that brutally punish people for not bringing squadrons.

To be fair, the entire endless squadron discussion is a bit silly, so weird arguments are fair game. This thread is pretty friendly, but the other one has got pretty nasty in places (as have several others, as this topic has existed since day 1).

I mean....does it really matter what people choose to use? They'll either win with all/some/no squadrons, or they won't. It's really just personal choice.

There's a lot of people that seem invested in acting like "Squadron missionaries" and trying to convert others to the loving embrace of the fighter. Likewise, there's people equally invested in being "Squadron atheists", and refuting them and their evil ways. Ultimately, why? If the squadron lovers find it easy to beat no squadron lists, keep it up! If the squadron haters find it easy to beat squadron heavy lists, good! Why try to convert people to your way of thinking which would, by your own arguments, make your lives harder?

Once Wave 2 (and onwards) arrives, i'll be keeping an eye on major tournaments rather than local anecdotes, and i suspect there's going to be a good mix of winners. In the meantime, fly how you like chaps.

There's a lot of people that seem invested in acting like "Squadron missionaries" and trying to convert others to the loving embrace of the fighter. Likewise, there's people equally invested in being "Squadron atheists", and refuting them and their evil ways. Ultimately, why? If the squadron lovers find it easy to beat no squadron lists, keep it up! If the squadron haters find it easy to beat squadron heavy lists, good! Why try to convert people to your way of thinking which would, by your own arguments, make your lives harder?

Sure, tastes may differ, as can religions that are based on unprovables.

However, there are some things that are empirically verifiable. If squadrons are under-powered or worse, then we shouldn't be seeing them be popular and appearing in winning lists.

But we do.

The reason I bring it up is not because I want to convert people to the squadron faith. I'm just tired of all these let's-fix-the-squadrons threads.

Pretty much my reasoning too. Quite sick of squadron threads in general by this point....i think i'm going to self ban myself from them like i did with the SSD thread.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Thanks.

Yeah. With FFG starving us of news, the forum has low blood sugar and starts to get cranky.

Interesting analysis Reinholt

His analysis doesnt say fighters are pants. He's stating that most of us have found (pre wave 2) that Rhymer ball is the best imperial option

and Luke + A-wings are the strongest rebel option

(although im sure theres space for Yavaris and B-Wings as another option).

I can't speak for him so lets not argue on his points. What I am interested in is what squadrons you are taking and consistently winning with, that aren't the ones mentioned above.

I genuinely want to know. I cant make other builds work for me because I find the squadrons require too much support from carriers to be worth their points and activation consumption.

Mikael, you have some very strong opinions on this what are you taking mate?

Pretty much my reasoning too. Quite sick of squadron threads in general by this point....i think i'm going to self ban myself from them like i did with the SSD thread.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Thats the magic of forums.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Thanks.

Yeah. With FFG starving us of news, the forum has low blood sugar and starts to get cranky.

What else you wish to discuss about?

Not about squadrons ... not about SSDs ... well ... any new idea for a topic-to-go?

Interesting analysis Reinholt

His analysis doesnt say fighters are pants. He's stating that most of us have found (pre wave 2) that Rhymer ball is the best imperial option

and Luke + A-wings are the strongest rebel option

(although im sure theres space for Yavaris and B-Wings as another option).

I can't speak for him so lets not argue on his points. What I am interested in is what squadrons you are taking and consistently winning with, that aren't the ones mentioned above.

I genuinely want to know. I cant make other builds work for me because I find the squadrons require too much support from carriers to be worth their points and activation consumption.

Mikael, you have some very strong opinions on this what are you taking mate?

Oh, I bring Big Balls of Rhymer - I did mention that on pages back.

And, because I live in hipster Portland, I'll say I did it before it was cool.

But my point towards Reinholt was more conceptual.

Yeah. With FFG starving us of news, the forum has low blood sugar and starts to get cranky.

What else you wish to discuss about?

Not about squadrons ... not about SSDs ... well ... any new idea for a topic-to-go?

Alternate forms of play than the standard format, narrative Armada gaming, how to build your Armada community, how one learns to stop worrying and love the TIE Bomber (oh, wait, that's this thread), how to make tabletop gaming more inclusive towards women (oops, FFG told me not to bring that one up), what the official Imperial response to Ackbar might be, people's use of doctrines in their style, the difference between tactics and strategy in Armada, how one might apply the lessons of great strategic thinkers to how we play, why the Empire is so awesome compared to the Rebellion, ISD deckplanning, how the FFG model of the ISD is significantly different from the one shown in the movies, how we might introduce a mechanic for probe droids, what people might do to get some models for mines rather than objective tokens, should we put more emphasis on team vs. team than individual vs. individual, wouldn't it be cool to have a league in which we encourage people to stick to certain factions, wouldn't it be interesting to have a mechanic to simulate a broader strategic scenario to surround our games etc.

Some of these I'm just making up right now, others I have brought up, only to let watch them slide to the bottom of the page, displaced by the latest squadrons-suck or SSD=kewl thread.

But I'm not bitter.

I think from now on i am going to confine myself purely to the more narrative, campaign and "alternate play format" type of thing, along with (non fighter) tactics stuff that seems constructive (Imperial response to Ackbar being a good example).

I am particularly interested in discussing/stealing/expanding the following points you mentioned....

Alternate forms of play than the standard format,

narrative Armada gaming

people's use of doctrines in their style

ISD deckplanning what people might do to get some models for mines rather than objective tokens,

should we put more emphasis on team vs. team than individual vs. individual,

wouldn't it be cool to have a league in which we encourage people to stick to certain factions,

wouldn't it be interesting to have a mechanic to simulate a broader strategic scenario to surround our games etc.

All sound quite fun to me.

Well, if you pick a topic which may be interesting and fantastic but don't bear controversial experiences and opinions, those topics go down within a day or two compared to topics that bear stuff to discuss about.

Unless its a more or less dead forum. Which isn't the case for Armada - and thats a good thing.

Thats internet forums. Face it.

Pretty much my reasoning too. Quite sick of squadron threads in general by this point....i think i'm going to self ban myself from them like i did with the SSD thread.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Thats the magic of forums.

Only problem is that if i start avoiding all the threads rehashing tired old arguments ad infinitum, there's only going to be about 20% of the forum left to read

Edited to add that none of this is aimed to you Mikael, you're a good poster....the only reason i posted in this one is that it was a) Closer to the top and b) More constructive as it hadn't yet reached the circular argument stage.

Thanks.

Yeah. With FFG starving us of news, the forum has low blood sugar and starts to get cranky.

What else you wish to discuss about?

Not about squadrons ... not about SSDs ... well ... any new idea for a topic-to-go?

I'm trying my best to get Luke as Episode VII Sith Lord going. Advantages:

1) Very little info out

2) infinitely arguable

3) strikes at people's sense of what Star Wars is about

Well, if you pick a topic which may be interesting and fantastic but don't bear controversial experiences and opinions, those topics go down within a day or two compared to topics that bear stuff to discuss about.

Unless its a more or less dead forum. Which isn't the case for Armada - and thats a good thing.

Thats internet forums. Face it.

Another internet thing: derailing the subject.

Are you really the real Starkiller!?

Well, if you pick a topic which may be interesting and fantastic but don't bear controversial experiences and opinions, those topics go down within a day or two compared to topics that bear stuff to discuss about.

Unless its a more or less dead forum. Which isn't the case for Armada - and thats a good thing.

Thats internet forums. Face it.

Another internet thing: derailing the subject.

Are you really the real Starkiller!?

Since this topic now did its job for me ... i'm now keen of re-wrapping my mind around this stuff and try a different approach using squadrons ... I'm fine with that.

So to your question and just to derail the subject, Starkiller was taken already when I enlisted to this forums ... but I am the real Starkiller ... I had no chance but to come over it and manifest this fact in my chosen name for the boards here.

But if Starkiller was killed and then cloned, are you the REAL Starkiller (and therefore UNDEAD!) or a clone? And if a clone, are you a clone of the real Starkiller, or the cloned one? And if you ARE a clone of the real one, we know he has been cloned before, so which one of you is the REAL real Starkiller clone?

These are the questions that matter.

I was known as Starkiller even before this guy with the same name showed um in video games.

I was known as Starkiller even before this guy with the same name showed um in video games.

Good to know.

Because if you were that other (UnReal) Starkiller's clone, I would hold you responsible for the travesty that was the Force Unleashed 2.

I was known as Starkiller even before this guy with the same name showed um in video games.

Good to know.

Because if you were that other (UnReal) Starkiller's clone, I would hold you responsible for the travesty that was the Force Unleashed 2.

May I introduce myself:

Its german ... but ... I think you get the idea ... yeah ;-P

BTW: 4004! Over 4000 excellent and most creative posts in this forums!

FFG should send a free ship in recognition of my deeds....

They should. One of the new SSD models. Christened the "Starkiller" by none other than Mara Jade, Hand(ess?) of the Emperor (naughty old boy!).

Wow ... one of the new SSD models? You are too kind.

I humbly would even be thankful for a much smaller ISD.

Since ... I fear my flat is not large enough for a SSD to fit in.

How is Warhammer Fantasy doing, btw?

Since I guess YOU are THE Green Knight which ability is to to be slain and emerge, slain and emerge and slain and emerge again?

How is Warhammer Fantasy doing, btw?

Since I guess YOU are THE Green Knight which ability is to to be slain and emerge, slain and emerge and slain and emerge again?

It is I!

I do try to cut down on the 'slain' bit, but I'm not always successful. That's when the resurrection thing is an useful ability to have.

Warhammer Fantasy is dead (personal note: 4th edition was my last edition). Replaced by some abominable thing out of the nether realms of chaos. It even has fantasy space marines. Cuz that's awesome. Or so I'm told.

How is Warhammer Fantasy doing, btw?

Since I guess YOU are THE Green Knight which ability is to to be slain and emerge, slain and emerge and slain and emerge again?

It is I!

I do try to cut down on the 'slain' bit, but I'm not always successful. That's when the resurrection thing is an useful ability to have.

Warhammer Fantasy is dead (personal note: 4th edition was my last edition). Replaced by some abominable thing out of the nether realms of chaos. It even has fantasy space marines. Cuz that's awesome. Or so I'm told.

So, YOU are the undead ... more or less ;P

Yes ... the Not-Fantasy Fantasy Space Marines are awesome ... awesome in quality and even more in price. The best thing in WHF was the fluff of the old world.

And I'm not so into this superhuman wearing powerarmor fighting whatever grotesque supermonster made of skulls and slime -thing. So ...