In wave1 we had a rough theory that was "mass squadrons < few squadrons < no squadrons < mass squadrons"

< means beats/has a slight advantage.

(also there are also variations based on whether the squadrons were fighter or bombers in mass)

During the start of wave 2, most of us, including myself, were convinced this theory had mostly been proven false. Now with a lot more games under my belt, I'm getting an inkling that this might not be the case, and that this old idea might have some merit.

Talk with me with open minds. I am in no way certain upon my stance.

(Also hey guys, I'm getting a little tired of how much antagonism/ego I'm getting around the forums.)

one part ive seen change is with 400 points, squadrons concentrate fire on other squadrons much more effectively now, with an added 33 points and better upgrades like Boosted Comms. Basically, to take an analogy, its like playing xwing with 150 points instead of 100 on a 3x3 field: You simply pick one ship on your enemy's team that you hate, focus fire it turn 1, they do the same, and you play a "100" point game from there.

In armada, I'm seeing the full mass squadrons rip a few squadrons to shreds very easily. With under 4 squadrons, the mass squadron list has lost no squadrons and has about 2 or 3 turns to actually bomb.

Against 5 to 8 squadrons intended as buffer, these lost squadrons tend to start costing near 80 points of free win. (with about 1 squadron lost by the masser, so like 65 points of difference. In contrast, the bombing in this situation is minimal, as is found to be the case in wave1 where few squadrons would tie up masses.

However, the gained points are much much higher.
With wave 2 rogues and intel, it seems that squadrons have become a sort of min/maxing case. Where you get a higher than linear value from investing into more squadrons or squadron upgrades.

The disparity in squadron kills illustrates this.

One side of the triangle that got stronger is the "mass > none". It seems now virtually impossible for no squad lists to beat mass lists consistently.

Boosted Comms strongly increases carrier viability.

It seems we are now seeing the death of no ship lists due to also an increased exploration into mass squadrons. I now expect nearly 50% of the games/opponents I see come with a mass squadron list of over 100 points of squadrons.

Ship AA is still not enough to take down mass squadrons. With maybe an exception for the Raider.

As for the "few vs none" leg of the triangle, I haven't had ANY games with no squadrons, so I can't say. I feel this one is going to nearer parity, as people have found out how to eke circumstantial use (as opposed to min/max value) out of their squadrons. Ex. Awings with their black dice. YT24s, Adding Rhymer to a tie fighter swarm as a 16 point upgrade.

In this leg, the game does feel healthy.

I think the Firespray almost negates ship only lists by itself. Its too tough for flak to kill and does amazing damage against weak shield arcs with no support required.

I honestly think, more than the firespray, Rhymer+Dengar necessitates the need for squads, or at least some anti-squadron element (which right now is a decent fighter screen). Rebels have strong bombers, but B-wings require too many moving parts to be very effective. Rhymer, on the other hand, just needs at least a VSD with boosted comms to start chucking black dice at a ship.

Firesprays are great, granted, but they aren't really that great as Rhymer (FS+Rhymer is ofc scary as hell).

I agree, even without maxing out squads with imps you can roll a mini fireball to good effect

It doesn't even take much, 3 firesprays and rhymer @70 points is enough to punish no squad lists (but certainly not enough vs massed squads)

And when you think of the opportunity cost, 70 pts means not bringing roughly 1 upgraded gladiator and vs no/low squad lists a mini fireball like this is going to be mathematically more effective than that glad.

Worried about getting tied down bring dengar (20) or a vanilla jumpmaster (12) or bring a jumpmaster and a Tie Advanced for only 4 more points than just Dengar. So 94 points for 6 squadrons that can act in a fairly versatile fashion, be fairly tough and fairly difficult to pin down. Of course, now you are talking about leaving behind a lightly upgraded VSD, but I think the value per point in a tactical view is still significantly higher.

Importantly (specifically for game balance) I think wave 2 has improved the meta to the point where it is foolish to not balance a fleet. Heading in the right direction, not quite there yet

Importantly (specifically for game balance) I think wave 2 has improved the meta to the point where it is foolish to not balance a fleet. Heading in the right direction, not quite there yet

Yeah, the combination of intel, 100 extra points, and tankier capital ships, has made the game feel more like a Star Wars battle!

Importantly (specifically for game balance) I think wave 2 has improved the meta to the point where it is foolish to not balance a fleet. Heading in the right direction, not quite there yet

Yeah, the combination of intel, 100 extra points, and tankier capital ships, has made the game feel more like a Star Wars battle!

Indeed. Although it is still very "skirmish"

the 1500pt a side game I had felt like a real epic battle, but who has 8-10 hours to finish a single game?

I seemed that at 300 points you could build an all ship list and with decent plotting ability reliably concentrate them on one target and not fly into yourself. This allowed you to burn down carriers fast enough that the squads weren't punishing you that hard. At 400 points this is a lot more difficult to do but squads allow you to fill the in-between spaces and bring more fire to bear effectively.

I find the added flexability of boosted comms has made fighters a bigger threat. No longer do they have to linger close to home. This in turn also makes flight controllers a better investment. (Now I am thinking of getting another Victory )

As of wave 2 I have not encountered a single fleet that does not include at least some squadrons. My last 4 games have seen 10+ enemy squadrons, so I can agree that the mass squadron dabble has started in my meta.

Yeah. I'm a little sad about no squadrons disappearing though. They were fun for the ship enthusiasts.

I'm getting a lot more mass squadron players.

So, do we not have a triangle anymore?

Is it ever a good idea to risk the no squadron blitz?

Can you think up any no squadron lists?

Or like super few?

The only things I can think of for no squad lists are stuff like 3 ISDs or MC80s or 4VSDs or AFMKIIs. But I don't think even those would be good enough. My logic for this statement is that almost any combination of 100 plus points of squadrons can pretty much burn down a small base ship a turn if left to their own devices.

You might be able to max all two dice anti-squad but it just takes a little deft squad pushing to mitigate losses against that strategy.

I find the added flexability of boosted comms has made fighters a bigger threat. No longer do they have to linger close to home. This in turn also makes flight controllers a better investment. (Now I am thinking of getting another Victory )

As of wave 2 I have not encountered a single fleet that does not include at least some squadrons. My last 4 games have seen 10+ enemy squadrons, so I can agree that the mass squadron dabble has started in my meta.

I took a 3x VSD-I build with boosted comms and nine various fighters against a Home One Ackbar MC80 / AF / 2x MC30 and got trounced... so there are definitely some non-fighter lists that will win against fighters... unless that fighter list carries a predominance of bombers, I guess.

I wonder if the triangle could be based more on the hull value of the squadrons? Maybe something like:

0-12 Light Squadron

13-29 Medium Squadron

30+ Heavy Squadron

Using 3 A-Wings to delay things is quite different to using 3 YT-2400's

I also think that the idea of a Zero Squadron Fleet also tends to sit in there with a Fleet that has so few squadrons as to not worry the opposing fleet terribly.

I honestly think, more than the firespray, Rhymer+Dengar necessitates the need for squads, or at least some anti-squadron element (which right now is a decent fighter screen).

I agree, although having played a couple games last week with a Jan/X-wing/B-wing list, I'm wondering about the viability of "some squadron" builds. Uncontested B-wings/Scurrg's/Firesprays/en mass Bombers in an Intel bubble do a real number on ships, and is literally unblockable (unless the Instigator title ends up requiring otherwise). The only counter is to either keep your ships far away, or do enough raw damage to eat through the Intel squad and its Escorts, or the B-wings/bombers themselves. Both scenarios require lots of anti-squadron damage. A "some squadron" list might get there eventually, but probably not before the B's/Scurrgs/Firesprays/en mass Bombers fire their payload. At which point it's probably too late.

I faced 14 TIEs in my last game with Jan, Keyan, three B's and four X's (plus anti-squad fire from two ISD IIs). I ended up losing all but one of the squads eventually, but not before destroying one ISD II and severely damaging a second (which was tabled shortly thereafter, as it entered an engagement with seven damage cards against a fully-healthy Independence). If that's not enough firepower to cleave into an Intel squad and shut down a B-wing assault, I'm not sure what is...

I find the added flexability of boosted comms has made fighters a bigger threat. No longer do they have to linger close to home. This in turn also makes flight controllers a better investment. (Now I am thinking of getting another Victory )

As of wave 2 I have not encountered a single fleet that does not include at least some squadrons. My last 4 games have seen 10+ enemy squadrons, so I can agree that the mass squadron dabble has started in my meta.

I took a 3x VSD-I build with boosted comms and nine various fighters against a Home One Ackbar MC80 / AF / 2x MC30 and got trounced... so there are definitely some non-fighter lists that will win against fighters... unless that fighter list carries a predominance of bombers, I guess.

Can you give us more details?

Also, I can see VSDs having a hard time.

I went to a tournament this past weekend and the top 2 lists did not include squadrons.

I attribute that to Armada not being fully developed in our seen. There weren't any heavy squadron lists.

As an aside, it was nice to see a good mix of rebels and imperials. The #1 and #4 players were rebels, with #2 and #3 going to the imperials.

i've been meaning to experiment running YT-2400s as an anti-fighter contingent for my Rebel list(s). they are speed 4, 6 HP, have 4 blue AS dice and "Rogue". even if your opponent is running Dengar to make your YTs "Heavy" to allow their Firesprays to fly past, your YTs can keep pace and can probably out gun them. sounds good in theory, but need some actual games to test it out to see how well it works.

I wonder has anyone ever tried substituting fighters for a pair of Raiders? I was thinking Title, Ordinance Experts and Quad Laser Turrets x2. Maybe throw in a TIE Advanced to soak up 5 pts damage before the Raiders could be fired on. That's 114/126 pts of anti-squadron ships instead of squadrons. I'd like to try it.

I find the added flexability of boosted comms has made fighters a bigger threat. No longer do they have to linger close to home. This in turn also makes flight controllers a better investment. (Now I am thinking of getting another Victory )

As of wave 2 I have not encountered a single fleet that does not include at least some squadrons. My last 4 games have seen 10+ enemy squadrons, so I can agree that the mass squadron dabble has started in my meta.

I took a 3x VSD-I build with boosted comms and nine various fighters against a Home One Ackbar MC80 / AF / 2x MC30 and got trounced... so there are definitely some non-fighter lists that will win against fighters... unless that fighter list carries a predominance of bombers, I guess.

Can you give us more details?

Also, I can see VSDs having a hard time.

Letsee....

VSD-I // Motti / Chiraneu / Boosted Comms

2x VSD-I // Boosted Comms

Dengar, Mithel, Fel, Fett, Rhymer, 2x TIE Fighter, TIE Interceptor, TIE Advanced

The idea is to let this mess of fighters start dealing with enemy ships on the approach, and then the VSDs cleanup. Thing is my opponent was running that kind of list that banks entirely on killing the enemy carriers to make the fighters irrelevant, and for the price of an Assault Frigate he did just that. The VSDs started at speed 2 to close range (A mistake in hindsight I know), while banking fighter commands all the way down and my opponent was mostly broadsides.

It's poor play on my part I know, but more than this it highlights VSD weaknesses, the power of Home One and Ackbar, and that any list that can sucker-punch the carriers for a fighter build is going to win. No Fighters !> Fighters.

Even if I were to switch to all bombers, VSDs are still a liability. Earlier that evening for fun I took a huge fighter cloud (10 TIE Fighters, 3 TIE Bombers, Rhymer, TIE Interceptor) with two Raiders and two GSDs carrying ordnance fun. It did better, but TIEs are very susceptible to one-shots without Dengar there to help out. That massive 2v2 game was called before they could really get started on enemy ships, but all that needs to happen is someone takes an Escort frigate and they die like flies.

can you give us his list also? did it matter that the mc30s usually want to use black dice and would have had to close range? or was he happy giving you 4reds at range?

Do you think it would have been different if you took like an ISD and glads instead?

I cannot remember his upgrades, only that he had an MC80 with Home One, Ackbar, the Assault Frigate, and two MC30s... I think they were Torpedoes. He may have had ECMs on a few of the ships for protection and Enhanced Armament somewhere. He did not take gunnery teams on the Assault Frigate by lack of points. The objective was Dangerous Territory but he ignored the obstacles. SomeKittens might remember since he was there and fought against this list before.

The MC30s were kitted to be close-range sharks, From L to R on my side it was the Thirties, MC80, then Assault frigate all charging Motti for the first kill. His assault frigate died first, allowing the MC80 to turn left and start broadsiding my remaining VSDs when they tried to swing behind. The only close-range shot I got with the VSDs was obstructed with the station.

It's hard to say whether ISDs or GSDs would have done better. With ISDs I'm having fewer activations and a larger target for FOUR ships to concentrate fire on. For GSDs I would have to abandon squadron activation entirely and ramp up the speed to try engaging but staying out of the arcs of the MC80. But that's still a very wide arc for a ship that can turn reasonably well and get two more red dice out of when it attacks.

i ran two ISD I with heavy turbolasers,gunnery teams and a victory II with tarkin, the guns that convert accuracy to damage and gunnery teams.and went 29 points two of the lists was fighter heavy.so it seems just where you are playing

I've had games where I have won just by killing the carriers, but even then I needed at least a few rogue squads to mitigate some of the damage.

Yeah. I'm a little sad about no squadrons disappearing though. They were fun for the ship enthusiasts.

I'm getting a lot more mass squadron players.

So, do we not have a triangle anymore?

Is it ever a good idea to risk the no squadron blitz?

Can you think up any no squadron lists?

Or like super few?

It's not just about points worth of squadrons, it's also about the balance of anti-squadron and anti-ship abilities within those squadrons. A fleet with 130 pts spent on purely anti-squadron squadrons will suffer vs a pure ship build, but it'll be party time if it was 130 pts of anti-ship squadrons.