...

Because otherwise, the only indication of "Weakest" you have is the points Costs...

Which immediately make Dodonna and Ozzel the weakest Admirals...

Point cost doesn't necessarily mean the weakest. Often many ships and upgrades don't follow the power curve that well. Lower point cost cards tend to default above the curve on error.

Vader for the imps

Ackbar for the rebs

How is vader situational? I use him every attack. Also note: ISDs have that contain token, perfect for vader.

Weakest commanders: ozzel (my lists just wouldn't work well with him).

Completely agree, you almost always collect a token per ship turn one.

So my list that has 2 command 3 ships and 2 command one ships only get a net gain of 4 tokens in round 1 from Garm.

In regards to round five; I've generally, won or lost in round 4, only got half my ships left, can only get limited use of the tokens on those ships anyway or run out of time and finished the game.....

I could get a bank of 4 tokens by spending 12 points on 4 vet captains and still get a cool commander like MM ( unique defensive ability for my 4 ships) the big D ( unique offensive ability for my 4 ships) or AA (gives me a potential extra 12 red dice a turn from one set of arcs, that's 3 points a red dice). I don't use any officers so I could fit the 4 vet captains in (really the more I think about this the better it sounds.....it could have saved my bacon a number of times).

Garm's value is in his flexibility, but he's a bit of a niche commander, and is hard to maximize. He works very well for fleets of large (high-command) ships spamming one command (which tends to be what carriers do), because he gives you access to lesser versions of all the other commands that you don't have enough time to program in. When I run AF2-AF2-Yavaris with a cloud of squadrons, I don't have time to be shuffling in nav commands when the fleets are clashing, even if I did have the perfect foresight to predict three turns ahead when I was going to need it. Similarly, I don't have time to be wasting 1/6 of my turns repairing when I could be enabling clouds of B-wings, and often shuffling around a pair of shields gets the job done for me anyway.

Just like you wouldn't take Ackbar in a list of Nebs and CR90B's, you just have to use him in a build appropriate to his ability. Okay, you may only get a net gain of 4 tokens in your 3/3/1/1 command-ship example; when I run him on 3 AF2's, I get a minimum net gain of 6, with the additional flexibility to actually use that turn 1 nav or even squadron command if I want to (did that just yesterday, in fact)... in which case I'm looking at a net gain of 9, not 4. That's 3 turns of Tarkin across the same number of ships, for 2/3 the cost--and I get that twice, because very rarely does a list with 2-3 AF2's in it get tabled before turn 5. An injection of exactly the right tokens, right at the point in the game where everyone has exhausted all of their resources in the initial clash, is huge. It doesn't seem like it would be, until you start seeing it happen on the table.

I've been saying it since Wave 1: Garm is very good in appropriate lists. He has a very shallow learning curve, but a very high skill cap, and his power is not nearly as immediately obvious as, for example, Ackbar or Dodonna. As a result, he gets dismissed fast. I myself did so for the first half or so of Wave 1.

As for my response to the OP: I don't think the Rebels have a weak admiral, as such. We definitely have one who is overcosted for what he does, and smells like fish to boot...

The Imps do, though. Ozzel sucks. Sorry guys, I hate to agree with IFF but he sucks.

@Ardaedhel : Garm is probably the least niche Rebel commander in my opinion, even with Dodonna in the mix Just because you're not maximizing the tokens byfielding Cd 1 or 2 ships doesn't mean you don't take advantage of his ability.

A CR90 banking either a Nav or Squadron Command allows for more burst than banking them for a few turns, and it allows to focus the ships on commands dials that are the most efficient with the ship. Example : larger ships are more efficient when using squadron commands, while a CF token and a CF command have virtually the same effect. On a CR90, it doesn't force you to spend a turn banking, meaning you can actually use that Nav command to mitigate counter deployment or trap your opponent into something he hasn't seen.

I agree when you say that he isn't straightforward when looking at the card. But he does boost balanced fleets by allowing ships to perform more effectively than their baseline versions.

Well, if we're going to do this, and we're going to take it out of the standard anecdotals, we'll need to define some variables and actually find a system to rank them on, objectively...

Because so far, I've counted 3 different ways to do that, and they've all got different results.

@Ardaedhel : Garm is probably the least niche Rebel commander in my opinion, even with Dodonna in the mix Just because you're not maximizing the tokens byfielding Cd 1 or 2 ships doesn't mean you don't take advantage of his ability.

A CR90 banking either a Nav or Squadron Command allows for more burst than banking them for a few turns, and it allows to focus the ships on commands dials that are the most efficient with the ship. Example : larger ships are more efficient when using squadron commands, while a CF token and a CF command have virtually the same effect. On a CR90, it doesn't force you to spend a turn banking, meaning you can actually use that Nav command to mitigate counter deployment or trap your opponent into something he hasn't seen.

I agree when you say that he isn't straightforward when looking at the card. But he does boost balanced fleets by allowing ships to perform more effectively than their baseline versions.

Sure, I'm not saying he doesn't add value to other lists, or that he couldn't be used in creative new ways I haven't thought of. I just think the 3x AF2 carrier fleet is to Garm what the CR90 swarm is to Mon Mothma: his comfort zone, if you will.

Now I kind of want to throw Garm into my CR90 swarm and see how he does...

Now I kind of want to throw Garm into my CR90 swarm and see how he does...

The reason Garm doesnt fit here is that you have no squadrons and dont intend to repair.... It never had anything to do with command value. CR90 swarm is an inherently inflexible list.

I choose to interpret the question as "least worth the points," as you can build good fleets around all the commmanders if they were all free (but then some would have stronger effects than others).

I don't get the Ozzel hate. Ozzel is legit. I love running Engine Techs Gladiators with Ozzel. Your Navigate commands get super-charged and allow you to be extremely flexible with the placement of them (I'm anywhere between speed 1 and 3, with an extra click and an optional extra 2-click speed one maneuver once it's done!), outmaneuvering just about everyone. Raiders are obviously good with him as well (as they'd prefer to skip on over speed 3).

For Imperials, my vote for weakest commander is Tarkin. Dude is extremely expensive and his effect is somewhat limiting. The free tokens are appreciated, but they all need to be the same for each use which means you will get wasted tokens. You can spam small ships to get the most tokens but they can't hold many of them in reserve or you can go for larger ships (VSDs seem ideal) that can hold numerous tokens but don't really let you get too many ships in the fleet, making him about a 13 point upgrade for 3 different ships.

I've seen all the Rebel commanders do well and be a solid value for their points, though. I've got no candidates there. Garm is amazing for a heavier carrier-focused fleet that doesn't want to rely on aces/Rieekan shenanigans.

Now I kind of want to throw Garm into my CR90 swarm and see how he does...

The reason Garm doesnt fit here is that you have no squadrons and dont intend to repair.... It never had anything to do with command value. CR90 swarm is an inherently inflexible list.

It could be interesting to try it out, but I feel you should have a couple of squadrons to go along just for the flexibility Garm offers.

I say General Riekien is the weakest. His effect only triggers when you have a ship or named squadron destroyed. He does nothing at all if you fail to meet his trigger, and if you do trigger him, you are still losing his points. I think he also the least played commander based on my observations.

I feel the opposite, believing he is the best. When utilized (from fleet construction to objective selection) he simply wins battles, at least in the ~12+ games I've seen him in.

I say General Riekien is the weakest. His effect only triggers when you have a ship or named squadron destroyed. He does nothing at all if you fail to meet his trigger, and if you do trigger him, you are still losing his points. I think he also the least played commander based on my observations.

I feel the opposite, believing he is the best. When utilized (from fleet construction to objective selection) he simply wins battles, at least in the ~12+ games I've seen him in.

Vader for the imps

Ackbar for the rebs

I judge commanders on how much they, "break," the game in terms of modifying rules. That's why I love Mon Motha so much: she changes evades from sometimes being useful to always being useful. Riekan is similarly unique. However, his ability hinges on the destruction of your fleet, which is something you should be avoiding. I don't think he's good for competitive play.

As for the Imperials, I think they have been dealt much shoddier commanders. Tarkin is very expensive and inflexible, and can act as a crutch to poor command dial decisions. Vader is expensive, docks your survivability, and his ability seems non-unique when you consider how many ways you can get re-rolls. I'd say it's a toss up between those two as to who is weaker.

As for Ozzel, I agree that his use is very specific, but he really glows in certain lists. Not to mention that he is the cheapest commander the Imps get, which is important in the faction of expensive ships.

I just won a tournament with an Ozzel list today. I also got third in store champs with an Ozzel list...so how is he the weakest? lol.

I've won 7 straight tourney games right now and 6 of them were Ozzel.

Weakest Imperial Admiral IMO is Darth Vader. And I don't say that cause his ability sucks, but because his ability is costed too expensive for what it also costs you in defense tokens.

I have to agree with all of this, Ozzel is my new go to guy and Vader is a never take.

Weakest could mean by costliest.... Or least cost...etc...lots of ways to delineate the term.

If we are talking about "weakest efficiency" then, cost per value usage is important.

E.g. Do I value being able to,adjust speed rapidly? Ozzel if valuable. Vader not. Do I value survivabilty? Mothma valuable. Screed not.

Weakness is very vague and generally ambiguous. On a per points per value usage I think Vader is the worst in imps. For Rebs, ackbars value is too constraining to play and maneuver thus limiting his value.

Most valuable are mothma and motti. They both increase the likelihood of more turns of existence and more combat loss value increase.

For me it's Vader, he is too expensive for what he does, and absolutely eclipsed by Ackbar.

Most valuable Imperial-wise are Motti and Tarkin. Tarkin is excellent all-round but pricey, while Motti provides similar survivability (better survivability even vs alpha strikes, potentially worse survivability over the course of an entire battle) but no flexibility at a much more affordable cost.

Simple. There is no weak commander, there is just pros/cons/how it's used.

There is no way to "objectively rank" Commander. Such a ranking can't take into account builds/play style/meta etc...

Clearly the people saying Ozzel have never played Ozzel.

Simple. There is no weak commander, there is just pros/cons/how it's used.

There is no way to "objectively rank" Commander. Such a ranking can't take into account builds/play style/meta etc...

Clearly the people saying Ozzel have never played Ozzel.

Hmmm I think you are dead on here. I believe as you do. Each commander has his/her uses. Vader requires a special style of build

Simple. There is no weak commander, there is just pros/cons/how it's used.

There is no way to "objectively rank" Commander. Such a ranking can't take into account builds/play style/meta etc...

Clearly the people saying Ozzel have never played Ozzel.

Hmmm I think you are dead on here. I believe as you do. Each commander has his/her uses. Vader requires a special style of build

The reason I keep argueing about how bad he seems to me is that I feel so very underwhelmed with my FAVORITE character EVER!! It is like I was betrayed. So I am still bitter /Rant over

Simple. There is no weak commander, there is just pros/cons/how it's used.

There is no way to "objectively rank" Commander. Such a ranking can't take into account builds/play style/meta etc...

Clearly the people saying Ozzel have never played Ozzel.

Hmmm I think you are dead on here. I believe as you do. Each commander has his/her uses. Vader requires a special style of build

I shall continue to argue that the "special style" of Vader can be replicated without him using screed and Reroll mechanics. I don't believe he has a "niche" and instead feel he is completely redundant.

The reason I keep argueing about how bad he seems to me is that I feel so very underwhelmed with my FAVORITE character EVER!! It is like I was betrayed. So I am still bitter /Rant over

Except at that point you are paying far more and it is EXTREMELY inefficient.

Screed Requires that you sacrifice dice which means less average damage so less efficient.

Leading shots requires that you are at Blue range AND you have to lose a blue die so once again LESS efficient.

Vader on the other time can EASILY spend 1 of 2 redirects if you are not going to take many hits that turn or they cant hit you. If you think otherwise then your style of play is ridiculous for vader anyways.

I totally agree that there are no weaker or even weakest commander, but the last one I would put on that list is Screed. Screeds primary advantage is to effectively turn every black die shot rolled into a minimum double hit with critical hit effect . For imperials that are black dice heavy Its a "every shot is a crit" card when rolling black dice. There are crazy good combos for that like Assault Concussion Missiles and Assault Proton Torpedoes, not to mention some of the bonus effects that can be leveraged with title cards like Demolisher... then there is ION effects. So many ways to leverage that.

As for Screed doing "less average damage" .... eh no .. statistically you are guaranteed to do more damage with screed then you are without. The only mathematical way you could lose out is if you roll all double hits, in which case screed does nothing or if you roll 1 blank and double hits with everything else, in which case you have no net gain from screed. Both scenarios leave you on top anyway and not having him doesn't actually improve your result any either.

While I don't believe there are any "worst" or "best" commanders as everything is list specific, for 26 points given his ability undoubtedly makes him the most cost effective in the game.

Let's not be heated in our debates about Vader. I know that such a dark side presence inspires fear, anger, hatred, but let's remember the Jedi Code on the forums

It is true that Darth Vader may be redundant with other upgrade cards, but let's look at him in a different light. Let's assume (and a good case could be made for that) that the reroll upgrades (Leading Shots and Ordnance Experts to name a few) are more points efficient than taking the man Darth Vader himself. It might be a strong assumption, but let's look at it as an hypothesis for our analytics framework, so that we can find the niche for Darth Vader himself where he has no competition.

So, black dice can be rerolled with an upgrade, at medium range you get access to an upgrade that allows to reroll all dice. The only place where Darth Vader makes a difference is at long range.

"Great, MoffZen, you've won the Sherlock Holmes award from Captain Obvious inc, but I don't care about long range, because the Empire's most effective range is at medium and short range !" and this where I reply : "Right ! And also wrong !". Even if it is true that the optimal range of Imperial ships is close to medium range depending on the class, not caring about long range is a tactical error that I've seen many Imperials make in my local meta !

While it's true that the Imperial Ships' optimal range is close medium, the Empire is stronger at long range than its ship cards hints at, and this is especially true the larger the ships get (which is Vader's comfort zone anecdotically). Imperial Ships have one factor that is often overlooked, it's the fact that except the Raider (and even then, a very iconic upgrade card can be used to remedy that), every Imperial ship is either a carrier or an off carrier because the squadron values of Imperials are always above or at 2 squadrons.

But, how does that relate to Vader ? His ability doesn't affect squadrons, or does it ? Looking at all standard issue Imperial squadrons, they all have a speed of 4 or 5, meaning that if they are placed next to the Imperial ship's front arc, they can be activated, move and hit at long range in respect to the ships (actually a tad beyond because range 1 is longer than range 5, but let's not dwell on details just yet). Because the larger the ship gets in the Imperial Navy, the better a carrier it becomes (through activating tons of fighters), larger ships in the Imperial Navy are the best long range fighters the Imperials currently have.

But, again, why would any Imperial Commander care about staying at long range when the obvious killzone is close to medium range ? Well, due to how the game is made and assuming the opponent is a smart player, there is one type of ship that will be able to stay within the red range of an Star Destroyer or any size : other small ships like the CR90, the Nebulon B and the MC30. Coming from a Rebel play in Wave 1, it is a rare occurence when I had my arc dodging ships in the killzone of a Star Destroyer, and my larger ships had trouble arc dodging due to their wider footprint, but they had the defense tokens to tank a few shots. I ever only have had CR90s in the medium range of a Victory 2 or an Imperial 2 twice and learned to fear that zone like plague.

However, due to the Evades, at long range my Rebel ships were comfortable tanking 3 to 4 red dice without much trouble.

Once again, how does that relate to Vader ? It's relatively easy for an Imperial player to go into brawling range of larger ships, but to damage nimble ships at red range Imperial ships must rely on squadrons and red dice. And this is where Vader comes in : in lists where an ISD is carrying 4 squadrons, or VSDs are carrying 3, he respectively allows to throw 8 dices at long range, 4 of which are rerollable, or 6 dice at long range, 3 of which are rerollable.

Let's look at the average damage for an ISD2 at long range after activating 4 TIE Fighters, without then with Vader. Each red dice has a 0,625 probability to do damage, and the average damage of each hit is 1.2, so it gives us :

1) Without Vader : 2 average damage from 4 TIE Fighters, 3 damage from the red dice (4 x 0.625 x 1.2) for a total of 5.

2) With Vader : 2 average damage from 4 TIE Fighters, 4.125 damage from the red dice for a total of 6.125 (4 x (0.625 + 0.375 x 0.625) * 1.2).

Through Darth Vader, the average long range damage from an ISD2 has increased by 22.5% when including squadrons and by 37.5% over standard red dice.

In game terms, what that means is that within 2 activations, a CR90 will be destroyed (strip 4 shields with the redirect in a single activation,finish it off in the second activation). It might not seem much, but we're talking about the least effective of Imperial ships' ranges, and with no Bombers activated.

If we take a VSD as an example (long range, activating 3 TIE Fighters) :

1) Without Vader : 1.5 average damage from the squadrons, 2.25 damage from the red dice for a total of 3.75

2) With Vader : 1.5 average damage from the squadrons, 3.09 damage (+37.5%) from the red dice for a total of 4.59 damage (+22.5%)

Similar results for the GSD due to the rerolls offering a flat bonus.

What this means is that Vader is the only Imperial Commander capable of improving the firepower of the Imperial Navy at long range, and as such makes him a serious contender for the best Alpha Strike Commander in the Empire.

For some reason however, I rarely see Imperial Commanders in my meta maximizing their potential Squadron activations with their bigger ships. It's a shame, I find this lack of squadrons disturbing when it's obviously meant to be a great tool for the Imperial ships.

Vader also helps at closer ranges but he is best on ISD 2's and VSD 2's

Vader also helps at closer ranges but he is best on ISD 2's and VSD 2's

He does, but as good cases have been made for upgrades providing similar effects, so I was really exposing his niche.

Which isn't a bad niche at all. It explains why I've been so effective with the ISD 2 at killing small ships at long range, through the power of the math side. Now that the analytics are even clear, I can't help but loving the man even more, mitigating the Imperials' weak spots rather than capitalizing on their strengths.

And I mean, increasing the firepower of red dice at long range by almost 40% just made him well worth the points for me.