http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2or4js

I dont think posting a video which features about 100 ties to 12 ish star destroyers is really going to help your case....

100 ties = 333 points (ignoring that armada ties are actually squadrons but never mind)

12 star destroyers = 1200 points

hmmm a third of your fleet points can be squadrons.

Shocking.

there were around 2520 tie fighter type craft in that battle if you use the full load of ships there.

there was one 10 sec. seen alone where there were 48 fighters moving in and out of the shot that took the FX guys 6 weeks to film. so they did everything they could to make it look like the space was full of fighters.

there were around 2520 tie fighter type craft in that battle if you use the full load of ships there.

So thats 53 squadrons of tie fighters, or 424 points of tie fighters.

It seems FFG may be allowing us to take too many squadrons to in our fleets!

I, for one, love the title of this thread. *throws firebomb* Squadrons are amazing thankfully and I don't think ffg should make their cost come from a separate pool.

Having more squads really bogs down the engine, and drastically increases turn time... not pleasant to have games running 3 plus hours, I think squads is good where it is right now...

*throws firebomb*

May I just state that I am very glad you elected for the Firebomb, rather than taking the option to beat me over the back with a Folding Chair...

not pleasant to have games running 3 plus hours,

To be Fair, both You and your Opponent both had 100+ Point Rhymer Balls, and decided to play Catch-The-Bomber-Potato rather than just getting Ships to do their Thing

Game works well. *fighting words

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

Have you SEEN Episode 4? The opening scene man. Like, Literally the very first Star Wars scene anyone ever saw.

My point of view is that of someone who also plays X-Wing. I get my "small fighter" fix in there, and prefer Armada for my "Huge" and "Fleet" fixes. I don't like using squadrons. Sometimes I'll field a couple, but I almost never fly a rhymerball, fireball, or any heavy squadron list. I can fly those ships when I play X-Wing.

(Obviously I know the mechanics are different, but the theme feels too similar if I've got Han Solo, Boba Fett, and Luke's X-Wing all flying around.... in both games).

Ha ha... pic reminds me of the old painting of the battle of Lepanto (i think thats what is was). Venitian times. Claustrophobia rules the waves!

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

Have you SEEN Episode 4? The opening scene man. Like, Literally the very first Star Wars scene anyone ever saw.

That was a chase that lasted maybe 30 seconds. That was not a battle.

I'd also be willing to bet that near the end of the Rogue One film we will be seeing an impressive space battle (with cool fighters and all) in which this very same CR-90 flies away with the plans and the ISD leaving said battle to chase after it.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

Yes 50 points would give you some points for a flotilla and an extra 17 points for an extra fighter or two. That's not going to break the game. I like a lot. You can have my vote.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

So, bump fleet budget up to 450, mandate at least 50 points are spent on squadrons IF you're going to have squadrons. I believe Crabbok should be able to go squadronless if he so chooses.

The less requirements and prerequisites for anything the better. A mandatory minimum if you choose to include squadrons is basically the worst of both worlds. Let people decide what they want to bring and if someone wants to bring no squadrons at all, he can be wrong and suffer for it on his own when bomber blobs start devouring all his ships with no meaningful opposition. That's his choice.

When I started in wave one and squadronless fleets were in vogue, I wanted a separate pool of squadron points too, but I've come to see this as a bad idea altogether. Squadrons are fine.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

Wow, at no point did I mean "valid" as "what happened in movies" because thats just plain stupid. I mean valid as in "worth bringing to the table"

If you built games around being true to fluff rather than balanced and fun the FFGs Star Wars property would collapse into un-entertaining nonsense garbage faster than Episode 1.

Mandating a minimum for squadrons would be as bad a mistake as limiting them to 1/3 fleet points was a good idea.

I IMMENSELY dislike being pigeon holed into having to take something.

Why should a players flexibility in their fleets building be limited becuase some players feel it is not "Star Wars" enough?

OK, OK, but do we all like 450 points?

OK, OK, but do we all like 450 points?

I mean I do like the idea of 450 points, but I'm not sure I'd like the reality of even longer tournaments, or 150 points of squadrons.

Plus it would set up a precedent that with every new wave, the points value goes up. That's just unsustainable.

OK, OK, but do we all like 450 points?

I mean I do like the idea of 450 points, but I'm not sure I'd like the reality of even longer tournaments, or 150 points of squadrons.

Plus it would set up a precedent that with every new wave, the points value goes up. That's just unsustainable.

Good points . . . 420 then?

20 points is such a small increase that I can't see how the confusion would justify any kind of reward. What would make the game noticeably better about 420 points instead of 400 points?*

*Other than the stoner jokes, of course.

I wouldn't mind 450 points.

I feel limiting squadrons to 1/3 of total fleet cost is smart at ANY point total and having a separate pool of fighter points opens up a whole can of worms and unintended consequences including actually killing off entire branches of valid builds.

50 extra points, however, would not terribly harm the game times but allow you just enough extra wiggle room to bring some extra toys, which can equal more fun without too many cascading consequences.

One could argue that lists that don't include squadrons at all are not valid since at no point in any Star Wars movie or TV show has there been a battle between capital ships without (and last time I checked this was a Star Wars game). Fighter-less combat is Star Trek space combat territory. The designers were smart enough to realize the potential of fighters and so put a 1/3rd of the points limit on them but IMO they should have had a minimum. Who knows maybe that since the supported points limit goes up with each Wave, Maybe in the future we will see a squadron minimum appear. I think a 50 point minimum in 400 point games is fair and won't shake things up too much.

Wow, at no point did I mean "valid" as "what happened in movies" because thats just plain stupid. I mean valid as in "worth bringing to the table"

If you built games around being true to fluff rather than balanced and fun the FFGs Star Wars property would collapse into un-entertaining nonsense garbage faster than Episode 1.

Mandating a minimum for squadrons would be as bad a mistake as limiting them to 1/3 fleet points was a good idea.

So was Warhammer ruined by having a minimum 25% allowance of rank & file troops or was it ruined when they said screw it make an army with whatever models you want?

So was Warhammer ruined by having a minimum 25% allowance of rank & file troops or was it ruined when they said screw it make an army with whatever models you want?

Irrelevant Argument. The Games, even in fleet/army building, are vastly different to the point of being Apples and Left Shoes.