Good luck! I've been trying to get that ship to work since Wave 2 hit and I just can't get a list put together that wouldn't be better served putting those points elsewhere. I'd love to see what builds you can come up with for it.

Well, I belive that there is one mandatory upgrade for an AFMK2 A : Gunnery Team. With its generous side arcs in terms of width, anti-ship batteries and AA barrage, not having Gunnery Team would mean wasting one of either shots. Actually, having to have to choose between 3R1B and 2B AA is probably what was putting people off in using it and rightfully so.

In terms of flying, I think that this AFMK2 wants to fly diagonally towards the center of the map, aming to double arc ships that get in the way. So, it's likely going to attract much attention hence why ECM is probably a smart bet here just so Brace is available.

Then, I think another key part of the ship are the fighters that go along, because it also wants to be able to activate fighters. With only 2 activations compared to its cousin, and with the AFMK2 A being able to both engage squadrons and ships with decent effectiveness, I think that multi-purpose fighters like the X-Wings are interesting.

Finally, I think it's the best platform to throw aces over the AFMK2 B. Rebel aces typically cost 50% extra over their base counterpart (while imperials cost around 80%-100%), so 2 aces will give you the equivalent of 3 fighters of the same kind. Paired that with Gallant Haven,it can actually be a potent combination with 2 unkillable aces that will naturally be carried in the middle of the fight.

An AFMK2 A with Gallant Haven, ECM and Gunnery Team might actually be the best carrier for the annoying Dutch/Wedge combo. Okay, that's a 138 points investment into one ship and its escort, so a third of a fleet of 400 points, but this is going to be a b*tch to take down, and Wedge/Dutch are actually able to work well both against squadrons and against ships, much like the AFMK2 A itself. With their Brace and Gallant Haven, they are going to be impossible to take down (from experience playing with GH and Wedge/Luke), they can easily reduce the damage to 0.

I mean, even a Howlrunner + Flight Controllers TIE I throwing 6 dice with swarm will average 3 to 4 damage :

1) 3 Damage : Braced down to 2, Gallant Haven down to 1

2) 4 Damage : Braced down to 2, Gallant Haven down to 1

And we're talking 11 hull points to take down, so that means actually throwing 11 TIE I on average just to get Dutch/Wedge. And they also won't care much about Counter. And we're talking the most serious dedicated anti-fighter squadron out there.

Then, paired with their own ability + the Gallant Haven's 2 AA dice, they can proceed to genty mow down entire TIE squadrons with relative ease (and that is if you don't protect them by actually having them stay behind the GH in order for them to not get shot to bits first).

Then, imagine that build with Mon Mothma for even more trollage on the survivability of the Gallant, haha.

Finally, if we include Wave 2 content in the analysis, some Jan Ors going on there with X-Wings as well as Han Solo will be a pure annoyance to anyone not throwing TIE I with Howlrunner and Flight Controllers.

While you're right about everything on the fighter side, it barely ties back to the AF2A at all. You're paying 9 more points base AND a squadron activation for one extra blue die. I'd rather spend that on another squadron, especially under GH with Jan. Everything else you've got going on there can be done just as well for less with the AF2B.

If you're using the one blue out the front you've already done something wrong, because not only are you not taking one of your side arc shots, but you're in medium range, about to be much closer since you're flying towards whatever you were shooting at. None of those things is what you want to be doing with an AF2.

I'm not saying it's dramatically less good or completely unviable, I just think that what you gain from it is worth less than the cost increase, without a good way to leverage the gains to better effect. If it either had the same squadron activations, or cost 2 less, I think it would be right on the same power curve.

I had annoying success with a ShredderFrigate AFMK-IIA

AFMK-IIA. Ruthless Strat. Gallant Haven. I even considered Point Defense Reroute.

Squadron Token let me fly an X, a Y and Jan into an Enemy Fighter+Interceptor Screen, and then I put out the Double AA Dice, and anyone who took 2 hits got a 3rd Hit from Ruthless Strategists (Dinging the Y if I could, but the X if I had to)...

Then Gallant Haven and Jan tanked the reply of any who I didn't just flat kill outright because they had 3 Hull points, plus the Bombers (some of who were down at 2 points now)... And I rinsed-Repeated next turn...

I cleaned up most of a 130pt Rhymer Ball that way...

It is barely a midline Anti-Ship Frigate at that point, however - and I had it as I was expecting serious fighter cover...

I think that's thep roblem between the A and the B... The B is about 20,000% more "Compromise" on its ability, whereas the A is all over here in the Squadron department, and if you try to cross-purpose it, then you're really losing out in points as you're pouring so much into it.

While you're right about everything on the fighter side, it barely ties back to the AF2A at all. You're paying 9 more points base AND a squadron activation for one extra blue die. I'd rather spend that on another squadron, especially under GH with Jan. Everything else you've got going on there can be done just as well for less with the AF2B.

If you're using the one blue out the front you've already done something wrong, because not only are you not taking one of your side arc shots, but you're in medium range, about to be much closer since you're flying towards whatever you were shooting at. None of those things is what you want to be doing with an AF2.

Well, regarding the AA, it's one extra blue dice per squadron in the genereous side arc, which should be plenty at medium range is the guy is trying to kill you We all love the Neb B frigate don't we !

I have to disagree with your point about the blue front arc dice, you're forgetting something : double arcs my friend, double arcs Due to the way arcs are on the AFMK2, it's really easy to get a double arc on a single target just by pointing at the corner, and that's a total of 7 dice you'll throw. Due to how defense tokens work, I'd rather get some double arcs on most ships, and with Gunnery Team, it allows me to get a side arc on a ship at long range and 2 blue AA barrages.

Obviously, I won't be aiming for the double arc at medium range, but due to the generous shielding, it allows me to not be afraid of increasing my dice.

It's really playing like a pumped up Neb B with more versatility.

I have to disagree with your point about the blue front arc dice, you're forgetting something : double arcs my friend, double arcs Due to the way arcs are on the AFMK2, it's really easy to get a double arc on a single target just by pointing at the corner, and that's a total of 7 dice you'll throw. Due to how defense tokens work, I'd rather get some double arcs on most ships, and with Gunnery Team, it allows me to get a side arc on a ship at long range and 2 blue AA barrages.

I'm familiar, I ran Paragon in several tournaments in early Wave 1 trying to make it work. The problem is not apparent in the theorycrafting, but on the table: if you're pointing that front arc at something, you're usually about to find yourself in a bad spot.

Obviously, I won't be aiming for the double arc at medium range,

I think this where we disagree, and it's just a list-building philosophy disagreement--I run into it with a lot of people. I build my lists to be as efficient as possible if flown perfectly, even at the expense of building in contingencies in the event that I'm not skilled enough to fly it optimally. It pushes me to suck less. It's entirely valid, though, to take an efficiency hit in favor of flexibility in case you find yourself in a position you don't want to be in, which seems to be what your rationale for that front die is (correct me if I'm wrong). So, to each his own. Even if you're wrong.

And in what way am I wrong ? Don't throw sentences like that without referring clearly to what is wrong

Are you saying that aiming for a double arc is wrong ? Maybe I should have clarified my sentence that I wrote in a hurry : I will aim for a double arc, but I won't aim to be in medium range. When I am though, I will still get that double arc and 2 extra dice, which I won't complain about

Coming from a small ship spam, my philosophy is to put as many attacks onto a single ship that I can, because that's an effective way to bypass Defense tokens regardless of what upgrade cards you throw on your ship. And I'd rather have an enemy ship put down than spreading damage around, because unless you get an advantageous critical effect a ship without shields still fires as hard as a ship with shields.

I can understand your list building philosphy and truly I feel it comes from a good place. But there is one thing that it doesn't take into account : do you define optimal as taking the most advantage of your ships' build ? In this case, man, you're not going to suck less : you're putting the issue of the table on the moves of the opponent rather than your own. I define flying optimally as setting my fleet up to have an advantage, but be reactive enough so I can exploit any advantage that appear through the game and there are more than one might expect.

From having flown the AFMK2 in every Rebel game save for 2 since I bought it, I'm not at all concerned about flying it into the interception course of a Victory or even an Imperial SD. But aiming for the double arc is actually coming in at a 45° angle rather than going head on. A ship like the AFMK2 and ECM can tank an ISD 2's front arc with XI7 on its side at medium-close range no problem. Let's say the bad boy does 7 damage (which is a pretty good roll), Brace down to 4, redirect 1 to the front and voilà, you've got a disappointing Imperial player.

If he himself didn't set up a double arc on your ship (which I think every big Imperial ship should try to do), you even get to refresh your defense tokens for the same stuff next turn. And, if you actually figured out that you were going to fly into a kill zone, boy I'm sure glad you expertly placed that Engineering Command that's going to reduce by half the potency of his attack so he can start all over again

If you also time your activations so that he will only be able to get a long range shot on your but will go into medium range, you've netted not only a 3 dice advantage against an ISD (4 on the side + 3 on the front vs 4 red dice), but you've also netted an attack advantage because you'll be throwing 2 attacks instead of 1 which make defense tokens management more tricky.

In terms of tactics as well, if I bait my opponent into flying straight towards my AFMK2, which I know can take a hit, I'm also tempting him to forgo a double arc on me because of how easy of a catch the AFMK2 might seem. And that's not theorycrafting, that's behavioral analysis applied to the tabletop

Let's take a clear cut example : Ackbar and an MC80. The optimization logic should indicate to only fire through the sides to maximize the effect of the card. But, when your MC80 is given the opportunity to get a double arc on a ship, and if that double arc yields one more dice because it's at medium range, then it's worth taking over trigerring Ackbar's ability. Not only you gain an extra die but you'll also have more chance of removing one or more of his defense tokens.

There are 3 things that win an Armada game : More attacks than your opponent, stronger attacks that your opponent, more defense token mitigation than your opponent. That's how defense tokens are gotten rid of or completely rendered useless. But that's not all done with list building and flying is a key part of taking advantage of this winning Triforce.

Not understanding this balance is why many players in my area and all around I'm sure go to extreme upgrade lengths to make heavy hitting ships like the ISD more viable by adding expensive upgrades like XI7 and Gunnery Team and what not, just because they're trying to "optimize" their front arc and fly only to the main strength of their ship (which is the front arc in the case of an ISD no doubt).

And by "optimizing" their ship's main strength and thinking it's the best way to optimize the ship, they don't understand that they're only getting use of a hull zone that has a relative advantage over other their own other hull zones, rather than trying to get a relative advantage against the enemy fleet.

Let's take an example : Arguably, the front arc is the best arc of a CR90A. Would one player only try to get that front arc ? Or would it try to get both arcs to almost double the output of its Corvette ? It's no different for medium and large ships

___

Finally, regarding your point about flexibility, I think you completely misunderstood me but I may not have been abundantly clear either.

When I mean flexibility, I don't mean reactivity. Reactivity is bad, because it meant you allowed your opponent to dictate in which conditions the battle is going to take place, and these conditions are never to your advantage.

When I mean flexibility, I mean options. With Gunnery Team of an AFMK2, I have the option to either go for the standard double arc, either shoot my strongest arc and still kick an anti-fighter barrage off. Having options allows me to choose which one has the highest chance of benefitting my overall strategy.

Every ship in Armada is a generalist, but some are more well rounded than others, and which is why I'm advocating fleet building with at many squadron as you can activate with all your ships for example. Because, not having that squadron to activate on an Neb B Support when I have 2 Firesprays without Intel on my side arc is cutting myself out of a possible response and exposing a weakness, while also giving me a clear wasted opportunity when the enemy fleet has no squadron and that extra "ping" is one extra attack when it comes to resolving defense token expenditure

So, yeah, I'm all for fighting against players maximizing their ship's intrinsic relative strengths into engineering work of pure art. I'll gladly expose their weaknesses and ruthlessly take advantage of them

So I just saw this:

MC30c Torpedo Frigate x4, Assault Proton Torpedoes, Advanced Projectors

Dodonna on one of them.

CR90A Corellian Corvette

3xYT-2400

I think that may be the most all-in aggression rebel list I have seen in this wave yet. The guy playing it has told me he is seriously considering subbing out the CR90 and 2xYT-2400 to just bring it to five MC30c torpedo frigates.

Apparently he hasn't yet played a game with the list where he didn't table someone or get tabled, which sounds pretty hysterical. He was playing Most Wanted so I didn't get to see the other objectives, but IIRC Minefields was one of them.

Oh man, I'm glad I scrolled down the forum, I almost missed this.

And in what way am I wrong ? Don't throw sentences like that without referring clearly to what is wrong

I was definitely just joking around when I said you're wrong, lol. I'm just saying your philosophy is not intrinsically better or worse than mine, just different. Didn't mean to come across as combative.

As for the rest of your post--yeah, I get what you're going for, I just don't agree. But if it works for you, don't let the opinion of a guy 3,000 miles away stop you.

Cheers.

Haha, don't worry, I didn't take it the wrong way or whatever I don't mind combativeness, people who usually challenge my ideas in a sound way usually bring a lot of food for thought which I like.

I agree that there isn't one optimal way to play Armada and build a fleet, and thankfully so, otherwise the game would become very boring very quick

Although I think my analysis of how to inflict maximum damage (high number of attacks, high potential damage per attack, defense token mitigation) is on the money, there are just different ways to go about it. An Ackbar kiting fleet with 2 AFMK2s with Gunnery Team is another way to go about it, because you can make sure each AFMK2 is getting a side arc on 2 targets that the second one can target as well. In which case double arcing is less interesting.