Are there lists that don't care about objectives really?

Or just ignore them?

Things like 3VSD and 2ISD lists with a Rhymer ball?

Most of the time a list that doesn't care about their objectives will be making an initiative bid to go first instead.

The IFF gang has recently just been building lists without concern for bid, instead making sure the objectives are bad for the opponent. That in and if itself though is a huge topic as exhibited by the last episode.

when playing second you just force them to make a mistake, having a cheap filler ship to activate first to force their hand where you have some overlaping firepower is what you need.

my 300pt rebel list did this well using a wide flanking corvette to make them have to move 2 ships first while salvation and a guppie commanding 4 awings sat ready to pounce. my objectives were advanced gunnery, fleet ambush and superior positions. and my list was based on winning a fleet ambush since the other objectives look real bad for my opponents. i made zero bid and the fleet was very flexible.

it really comes down to playstyle and how much you can adapt on the fly.

though the imperials can just take demolisher if they want second, no rebel player wants to give that monster first turn

when playing second you just force them to make a mistake, having a cheap filler ship to activate first to force their hand where you have some overlaping firepower is what you need.

my 300pt rebel list did this well using a wide flanking corvette to make them have to move 2 ships first while salvation and a guppie commanding 4 awings sat ready to pounce. my objectives were advanced gunnery, fleet ambush and superior positions. and my list was based on winning a fleet ambush since the other objectives look real bad for my opponents. i made zero bid and the fleet was very flexible.

it really comes down to playstyle and how much you can adapt on the fly.

though the imperials can just take demolisher if they want second, no rebel player wants to give that monster first turn

Do you pick two really strongly disliked objectives for opponents and then practice flying the last one? It seems like a good idea.

I love going first and for whatever reason most people feel that their scenarios are super punishing so while I have to make a really hard choice at the start of the game it often pays off. My lists are usually 1-2 pts short. I played Ryhmer ball in wave1 and will be playing 2x ISD + Rhymer ball in wave2 (to start). my scenarios surely help me but I won't be under cutting any key upgrades to secure initiative, especially since the general consensus is going second is king (locally it seems to be that way)

It depends on your play style really. Are you better at going first or second? Does your list need to go first or second?

I think an All Comers list does not care bit those are hard to build.

I feel the builds that care have fast, spindly buggers such as cr-90s or close range monsters such as GSDs, or both such as Raiders and Shrimp. Paradoxically, the more activations you have the less you care about initiative

VSDs I feel also care because they're so dependent on close range, but so far Tractor Beam seems to alleviate that concern when taken in multiples. It's hard to dart out of enemy hull-zones or range when you're sprinting at speed 2 (though some counters exists, ala Ozzel, engine techs, and command token generators such as Raymus which allow for burst mobility)

initiative is also obviously important for squadrons, but in the case where you just significantly outnumber the opponent (either due to lots of squadrons or he has none) it doesn't matter nearly as much

the ultimate "I don't give a ****" ship ito initiative, imo, is the Assault Frigate. It's just an all-around badass in most situations, so long as its weak front and butt hull-zones aren't the only ones involved in firing

Defiance is also fairly impartial, for obvious reasons

My vassal tournament list aims to go second at 400 pts. Just because. Been playing too much first player. Must try second as well.

I tend to build activation-abuse lists that go for second. The idea with objectives is to make my opponent choose the lesser of three evils. Most high-point lists have at least one, if not two, objectives that no one in their right mind would take.

For instance, a bomber-heavy list might take Precision Strike (nooooope), Superior Positions (also a bad idea) & Contested Outpost (ok, not the worst...) and plan for the initiative-having opponent to take CO. Then, setup so that your bombers camp the outpost. Either the enemy flies right into your eager bombers or loses a pile of points because you control the outpost.

I tend to build activation-abuse lists that go for second. The idea with objectives is to make my opponent choose the lesser of three evils. Most high-point lists have at least one, if not two, objectives that no one in their right mind would take.

For instance, a bomber-heavy list might take Precision Strike (nooooope), Superior Positions (also a bad idea) & Contested Outpost (ok, not the worst...) and plan for the initiative-having opponent to take CO. Then, setup so that your bombers camp the outpost. Either the enemy flies right into your eager bombers or loses a pile of points because you control the outpost.

Hmm... I mean, you're right in philosophy, but... depending what bomber list exactly we're talking about there, Contested Outpost is a complete non-starter for me (as the opponent picking your objective). If I see Yavaris and B-wings across the table from me, that's the last objective I'm picking, because I'm neither a raving loon nor a masochist.

I tend to build activation-abuse lists that go for second. The idea with objectives is to make my opponent choose the lesser of three evils. Most high-point lists have at least one, if not two, objectives that no one in their right mind would take.

For instance, a bomber-heavy list might take Precision Strike (nooooope), Superior Positions (also a bad idea) & Contested Outpost (ok, not the worst...) and plan for the initiative-having opponent to take CO. Then, setup so that your bombers camp the outpost. Either the enemy flies right into your eager bombers or loses a pile of points because you control the outpost.

Hmm... I mean, you're right in philosophy, but... depending what bomber list exactly we're talking about there, Contested Outpost is a complete non-starter for me (as the opponent picking your objective). If I see Yavaris and B-wings across the table from me, that's the last objective I'm picking, because I'm neither a raving loon nor a masochist.

The other two explicitly help bombers and squadrons.

If your squadrons are anti-squad, youre good to go. If you're thin on squads... you're dead.

I tend to build activation-abuse lists that go for second. The idea with objectives is to make my opponent choose the lesser of three evils. Most high-point lists have at least one, if not two, objectives that no one in their right mind would take.

For instance, a bomber-heavy list might take Precision Strike (nooooope), Superior Positions (also a bad idea) & Contested Outpost (ok, not the worst...) and plan for the initiative-having opponent to take CO. Then, setup so that your bombers camp the outpost. Either the enemy flies right into your eager bombers or loses a pile of points because you control the outpost.

Hmm... I mean, you're right in philosophy, but... depending what bomber list exactly we're talking about there, Contested Outpost is a complete non-starter for me (as the opponent picking your objective). If I see Yavaris and B-wings across the table from me, that's the last objective I'm picking, because I'm neither a raving loon nor a masochist.

It's a terrible option that puts the second player in charge of the battle, but the other two are even worse. Do you really want a bomber list gaining points every time they hit you from the rear arc?

I tend to build activation-abuse lists that go for second. The idea with objectives is to make my opponent choose the lesser of three evils. Most high-point lists have at least one, if not two, objectives that no one in their right mind would take.

For instance, a bomber-heavy list might take Precision Strike (nooooope), Superior Positions (also a bad idea) & Contested Outpost (ok, not the worst...) and plan for the initiative-having opponent to take CO. Then, setup so that your bombers camp the outpost. Either the enemy flies right into your eager bombers or loses a pile of points because you control the outpost.

Hmm... I mean, you're right in philosophy, but... depending what bomber list exactly we're talking about there, Contested Outpost is a complete non-starter for me (as the opponent picking your objective). If I see Yavaris and B-wings across the table from me, that's the last objective I'm picking, because I'm neither a raving loon nor a masochist.

It's a terrible option that puts the second player in charge of the battle, but the other two are even worse. Do you really want a bomber list gaining points every time they hit you from the rear arc?

Well, again, it depends on the bomber list. Unquestionably you're right that you're picking the best of three bad choices, I'm just saying that none of those objectives is equally bad for every bomber list.

I'm more likely to pick SP against slow bombers (B's, probably Y's too), because if they're specifically positioning for shots to the rear it means they're falling behind, which is okay with me. I play B-Wings a lot, and behind the adversary's ship is not where I want them, almost ever. I can't imagine a B-Wing heavy list that I would rather play Contested Outpost against than Superior Positions.

Similarly, PS honestly doesn't scare that much unless I'm across the table from shield penetration: some combination of Luke, Dodonna, Dodonna's Pride, or APTs. Sure, it can hose you; it can also help you. It impacts your play, but not terribly, and giving my opponent a CF token on what are almost surely carriers is not a terrifying prospect, which means the only actual advantage he has over me is a list that's better tuned to the objective than mine. That's something you can deal with tactically.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're right with caveats.

Rieekan shrimp lists don't mind being second as much.

Paradoxically, the more activations you have the less you care about initiative

I think this is probably the general guiding principle, to the extent there is one. Having more models on the table is usually better than less. I can't think of a single objective where I'd be better off in a vacuum with fewer ships, and there are certainly some (Fire Lanes, maybe Hyperspace Assault?) where a certain number of ships is optimal. Beyond that, the advantages in deployment and activation order that come with more models can help with any objective (well, unless you're first player on Superior Positions... then there's no deployment advantage ).

Beyond that, certain objectives call for certain things in at least one of your ships:

• Intel Sweep: a fast objective ship (though I've heard tale that apparently you can do it with VSDs...)
• Precision Strike: at least a few Bombers (or at least a fighter screen to keep opposing Bombers off of you).
• Superior Positions: Something that can deal reliable damage on a rear hull zone (squadrons, Demolisher, etc)
• Fire Lanes: Three or more ships is easier than two ships, since squadrons can't score points on the objectives
• Most Wanted: Since the choice of objective ship belongs to second player, if you're first player you either need a non-obvious choice for your objective ship, or the ability for the rest of your fleet to screen/defend the objective ship if it is an obvious choice.

An all-comers list should, at least in theory, have at least one ship (or squadron) in the fleet that can fill any of these required tasks, and the fleet as a whole should be comprised of sufficient ships/squadrons to perform/contest any of the special fleet/victory conditions imposed by an objective. Finally, because combat is fluid, and a battle plan rarely survives contact with the enemy, my ideal all-comers list would have ships that were flexible enough to assume multiple roles/perform multiple tasks. For example, if I only have a single Raider that can be my objective ship on Intel Sweep, but my bomber screen relies on that Raider and a few TIEs to hold down Keyan and Nym, I'm going to be in a tough spot. If I have two Raiders, either of which can fill either role (or another ship that can take on the objective ship role, like an Engine Tech-equipped Demolisher), I'd be in a much better position to adapt to the fleet across the table.

I have a Rieekan list or two that are perfectly happy going second. Wedge doesn't mind waiting for the other player to activate squadrons first. The Defiance also loves it. Rieekan really opens up new avenues of play.

I also like Salvation with Rieekan. Just go in with Slave Turrets and Concentrate Fire commands. If you treat the ship as an expendable you will get a lot out of it. It puts out a level of damage that is definitely worth the point cost and then some. It also makes a great Hyperspace Assault ship. It deals very potent damage, and it does it at long range. This lets you create a very expansive danger zone with your three hyperspace tokens.

Personally, I can't conceive of a list that does not have some sort of Initiative Bid. Handing the choice of priority to my opponent is Anathema to me. I want at least a say.

I've often built with a high initiative bid with the intention of going second and forcing my opponent to use one of my objectives. Not sure if it was a good idea, but I am about .500 in competitive matches and don't get to play competitively very often.

I still like going first. it lets me play a bit riskier knowing I have the initiative next round. I can attack and move knowing, well i have initiative so i can attack and leave that hull zone before im in danger.

I also play squadrons and I think squadrons like going first as usually have less ships than your opponent.