I try to control my opponent's choices. From initiative to objective choice to attaking my fleet, I try to limit what he can do at any given time.

I lose a lot, but with only 14 games under my belt, I'm learning and improving. My tactics and fleet building have gotten much better.

I try to control my opponent's choices. From initiative to objective choice to attaking my fleet, I try to limit what he can do at any given time.

I lose a lot, but with only 14 games under my belt, I'm learning and improving. My tactics and fleet building have gotten much better.

Boring, defensive, slow... I like to force my opponent to come to me. I play with fewer ships (3-4, usually 3) that are typically upgraded to be survivable and limited squadron support (2-4) although Intel is becoming interesting to adapt to. I have yet to give away a massive victory with this mindset, neither wins or losses are often by significant margins. The combo of low model count and defensive build style puts me at a pretty clear disadvantage when I decide to be the aggressor and those are the matches I tend to lose by a lot. All of that being said, I am much more comfortable with 6-4 and 7-3 results in the 400 point world. Causing and ending up on the positive side of activation advantage swings are the source of my rare large victories.

I enjoy a style I call Chumming the Waters. I play mainly rebels and I enjoy a mix of heavy hitters and bait (Read: Small fish) my deployment is a little wonky compared to what I've seen but it creates this vortex of carnage, the whirlpool of space destruction as they either focus on my big fish and my little guys chomp away or my little fish take the focus and sure they get 50 points but then there is a round or two of them sitting and getting blasted. Granted I play in a very imperial heavy meta, and the ISD is super popular. I also take a very healthy squadron fleet cause they're my favorite. They usually are anti squads. But sometimes I run some bomber action.