I think the counter to rhymer exists but FFG put it in the wrong slot. Cluster bombs

Wrong slot and it is a discard.kf it was an exhaust I would take it in its slot since Electronic Countermeasures is not used much, however a defensive retrofit slot that is usable several times to blast squadrons. . . Priceless

But Imperial players would still run them in lists because there still aren't alternatives. Your lists still wouldn't be improved by deviating from the strategy.

And this is the statement that I'm challenging by showing a list (and a strategy) that can't benefit from either of these but still is pretty strong.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

So basically, demo and rhymer are overpowered due to the prevalence of netlisting amongst imperial ranks?

Its wave 2, how many choices do you want? Increase the number of units and specific strategies will reduce. The interdictor isnt a counter to rhymer or demo, its the new fleet keystone.

I'm not sure it is netlisting, but I do think that the prevalence of Rhymer and Demo are why something may change.

This is worth a read: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/12/21/great-change-in-the-galaxy/

I think there are similarities in the situations.

Off the top of my head,The best rebel strat for dealing for dealing with Rhymer is get Dutch and just pin Rhymer to the board. Though I do beleive this still lines up with the general idea of anti-bomber strat for rebels.

We have been watching the figures in these armies carefully and have come to the conclusion that some of these figures are simply more powerful than the alternatives and their presence inhibits the growth of a healthy metagame. To ensure a diverse and interactive second year of Skirmish, it has become necessary to exercise errata.

Based on the Regionals evidence they could more or less copy/paste that same statement into an article announcing Armada errata.

But Imperial players would still run them in lists because there still aren't alternatives. Your lists still wouldn't be improved by deviating from the strategy.

And this is the statement that I'm challenging by showing a list (and a strategy) that can't benefit from either of these but still is pretty strong.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

Agreed. In my statement I was assuming same player skill.

So basically, demo and rhymer are overpowered due to the prevalence of netlisting amongst imperial ranks?

Its wave 2, how many choices do you want? Increase the number of units and specific strategies will reduce. The interdictor isnt a counter to rhymer or demo, its the new fleet keystone.

I'm not sure it is netlisting, but I do think that the prevalence of Rhymer and Demo are why something may change.

This is worth a read: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/12/21/great-change-in-the-galaxy/

I think there are similarities in the situations.

I think the statistic that we're missing here is the prevalence of Rhymer and Demo (or all archetypes in top-8) over time during regional season.

Off the top of my head,The best rebel strat for dealing for dealing with Rhymer is get Dutch and just pin Rhymer to the board. Though I do beleive this still lines up with the general idea of anti-bomber strat for rebels.

Tie advanced.

Quicker to kill dengar, then any none heavy unit can pin the whole lot. Its Dengar, mauler and fel who are string.

No one complains that rebel squads are too flexible, but thats the reality. Imperials struggle with tie fighters and interceptors as they become fundamentally weak when flown against a zero squad fleet. Rebels just send the awings or xwings at the ships.

Rhymer isnt the problem. Its the viability of zero squadron fleets which make a lot of imperial squadron types redundant. If rhymer was that scary then zero squad fleets wouldnt exist.

Rhymer isnt the problem. Its the viability of zero squadron fleets which make a lot of imperial squadron types redundant. If rhymer was that scary then zero squad fleets wouldnt exist.

Other than Paul's list at Regionals, zero squadrons is faring very poorly. There is a positive correlation between squadrons and placement in Shmitty's data.

You either are ready for Rhymer, or you are Rhymer, if you are winning, tends to be the punch line. It also impact deployment, which matters a lot. Paul is the outlier in terms of zero squadrons and I think he has the unusual combination of higher than average skill and ships that all have brutal anti-squadron (all are 2 black or 1 black 1 blue). Even so, I have doubts about his list against equally skilled players with all-bomber builds, but most people aren't equally skilled, so that's academic for now.

For reference, the only low-squadron (I call it low because I have two squadrons) list I have in wave 2 that is faring well is similar to Paul's (it's six ships, but four are OE Raiders and one is Instigator).

Edit: This is not to invalidate Ginkapo's point about some Imperial squadrons being single purpose and thus very limited in appeal without squadrons to punch, but rather to say the meta itself seems to be moving towards squadrons which may mitigate that concern.

Edit Edit: Skill vs. Luck vs. Context is an unanswerable question. Hell, I work for an investment bank and will tell you I have read thousands of pages on this exact topic as it relates to trading and portfolio management; the conclusion people have come to is that they don't know what conclusion they should come to.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

How do you suggest I go about this? I think shmitty's regionals data helps prove this. Players who used net listing but did not have the experience lost more often than they won. So that proves the experience, the lists did help them but not as much as experience would of helped them.

Rhymer isnt the problem. Its the viability of zero squadron fleets which make a lot of imperial squadron types redundant. If rhymer was that scary then zero squad fleets wouldnt exist.

Other than Paul's list at Regionals, zero squadrons is faring very poorly. There is a positive correlation between squadrons and placement in Shmitty's data.

You either are ready for Rhymer, or you are Rhymer, if you are winning, tends to be the punch line. It also impact deployment, which matters a lot. Paul is the outlier in terms of zero squadrons and I think he has the unusual combination of higher than average skill and ships that all have brutal anti-squadron (all are 2 black or 1 black 1 blue). Even so, I have doubts about his list against equally skilled players with all-bomber builds, but most people aren't equally skilled, so that's academic for now.

For reference, the only low-squadron (I call it low because I have two squadrons) list I have in wave 2 that is faring well is similar to Paul's (it's six ships, but four are OE Raiders and one is Instigator).

Edit: This is not to invalidate Ginkapo's point about some Imperial squadrons being single purpose and thus very limited in appeal without squadrons to punch, but rather to say the meta itself seems to be moving towards squadrons which may mitigate that concern.

Stop looking at averages and look at the data. There are plenty of zero squad fleets on the top 4 tab of schmittys data.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

How do you suggest I go about this? I think shmitty's regionals data helps prove this. Players who used net listing but did not have the experience lost more often than they won. So that proves the experience, the lists did help them but not as much as experience would of helped them.

Shmitty's data does not prove this. It does not even relate to this. Shmitty defined his variables and his data points in his blog post.

You would need to do the same.

You would start by defining the variable "Player Skill".

How do you measure player skill as an independent variable?

You would first have to remove the other variables form the occasion.

Typically, if you want to prove how much player skill relates other than list building. Then remove list building from the equation. Run a Tournament or a games night, where every person is running identical lists.

This gives you a Baseline.

Then, you break into Control Groups. One control group will run one list, one control group will run another list. Then they head to head.

Correlate those results, and you can have a definite data point on how much Player Skill defines things rather than list building.

Trying to take that data from multiple points without variable control, means you're only pulling ancedotal data.

My problem is I play in a meta where Ryhmer and Demolisher are in the same blasted list. And I find as often as not if I counter Rhymer Demolisher does me in, and if I counter Demolisher Rhymer gets me.

My next experiment if 2xISD's and a Fireball...

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

How do you suggest I go about this? I think shmitty's regionals data helps prove this. Players who used net listing but did not have the experience lost more often than they won. So that proves the experience, the lists did help them but not as much as experience would of helped them.

But the regionals data doesn't speak to the players' skill. We only know the archetypes of their fleets. We don't know how closely they stuck to direct netlisting, or where they got their list from at all. Or how long they've been playing Armada, in terms of time or in terms of games. Or how many tabletop games they've played before that. We don't even know what lists they ran against. Shmitty's data can't inform us on how player skill affects the ability to tackle unexpected or tricky opponents. Be careful about reading conclusions that can't be validated. We can say with certainty that Rhymerballs and Demolisher builds are very common at tournaments, and that they win a lot. I don't think it's justified to assume that the players of these lists must be a bunch of posers who aren't skilled enough to fly anything else.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

How do you suggest I go about this? I think shmitty's regionals data helps prove this. Players who used net listing but did not have the experience lost more often than they won. So that proves the experience, the lists did help them but not as much as experience would of helped them.

Shmitty's data does not prove this. It does not even relate to this. Shmitty defined his variables and his data points in his blog post.

You would need to do the same.

You would start by defining the variable "Player Skill".

How do you measure player skill as an independent variable?

You would first have to remove the other variables form the occasion.

Typically, if you want to prove how much player skill relates other than list building. Then remove list building from the equation. Run a Tournament or a games night, where every person is running identical lists.

This gives you a Baseline.

Then, you break into Control Groups. One control group will run one list, one control group will run another list. Then they head to head.

Correlate those results, and you can have a definite data point on how much Player Skill defines things rather than list building.

Trying to take that data from multiple points without variable control, means you're only pulling ancedotal data.

Oddly enough, of we look at the tournaments we know about and the lists associated with those tournaments you can see direct correlations of player skill vs list. Take PT106's build. It would require experience to run it properly and a few mistakes will ruin any chances. Luck also plays a part because of who you play in a tournament.

You can't do "control" groups in Armada, too many factors change things. The placement of obstacles, objective selection, and the player using the list will change the data dramatically.

Rhymer isnt the problem. Its the viability of zero squadron fleets which make a lot of imperial squadron types redundant. If rhymer was that scary then zero squad fleets wouldnt exist.

Other than Paul's list at Regionals, zero squadrons is faring very poorly. There is a positive correlation between squadrons and placement in Shmitty's data.

You either are ready for Rhymer, or you are Rhymer, if you are winning, tends to be the punch line. It also impact deployment, which matters a lot. Paul is the outlier in terms of zero squadrons and I think he has the unusual combination of higher than average skill and ships that all have brutal anti-squadron (all are 2 black or 1 black 1 blue). Even so, I have doubts about his list against equally skilled players with all-bomber builds, but most people aren't equally skilled, so that's academic for now.

For reference, the only low-squadron (I call it low because I have two squadrons) list I have in wave 2 that is faring well is similar to Paul's (it's six ships, but four are OE Raiders and one is Instigator).

Edit: This is not to invalidate Ginkapo's point about some Imperial squadrons being single purpose and thus very limited in appeal without squadrons to punch, but rather to say the meta itself seems to be moving towards squadrons which may mitigate that concern.

Edit Edit: Skill vs. Luck vs. Context is an unanswerable question. Hell, I work for an investment bank and will tell you I have read thousands of pages on this exact topic as it relates to trading and portfolio management; the conclusion people have come to is that they don't know what conclusion they should come to.

No squadron lists need experienced handlers. A few mistakes and they will fail. I provided this myself in both regionals I attended.

No squadron lists can indeed handle things like Rhymer and other squadrons but you as a player need to be aware of what risks you can take and what ones you should not take.

Any strategy can work, it is up to the player to make it work. This is not X-Wing, 40k,etc where there is an end all be all to what you take (or near enough of that), this is Armada, where the experience of the player accounts for 75% of your game. 20% is list and he other 5% is a bit of luck

When you can prove those numbers scientifically and/or empirically, I will take them seriously. In the meantime, its just your personal opinion, not fact.

How do you suggest I go about this? I think shmitty's regionals data helps prove this. Players who used net listing but did not have the experience lost more often than they won. So that proves the experience, the lists did help them but not as much as experience would of helped them.

Shmitty's data does not prove this. It does not even relate to this. Shmitty defined his variables and his data points in his blog post.

You would need to do the same.

You would start by defining the variable "Player Skill".

How do you measure player skill as an independent variable?

You would first have to remove the other variables form the occasion.

Typically, if you want to prove how much player skill relates other than list building. Then remove list building from the equation. Run a Tournament or a games night, where every person is running identical lists.

This gives you a Baseline.

Then, you break into Control Groups. One control group will run one list, one control group will run another list. Then they head to head.

Correlate those results, and you can have a definite data point on how much Player Skill defines things rather than list building.

Trying to take that data from multiple points without variable control, means you're only pulling ancedotal data.

Oddly enough, of we look at the tournaments we know about and the lists associated with those tournaments you can see direct correlations of player skill vs list. Take PT106's build. It would require experience to run it properly and a few mistakes will ruin any chances. Luck also plays a part because of who you play in a tournament.

You can't do "control" groups in Armada, too many factors change things. The placement of obstacles, objective selection, and the player using the list will change the data dramatically.

Then you define Player skill as:

"A Players Ability to control and utilize the sub-skills of placement of obstacles, objective selection and Dice mitigation OUTSIDE of List Creation to achieve victory."

There you go. Variable Contained and Defined.

Placement of Obstacles and objective selections are now part of Player Skill.

Oddly enough, of we look at the tournaments we know about and the lists associated with those tournaments you can see direct correlations of player skill vs list. Take PT106's build. It would require experience to run it properly and a few mistakes will ruin any chances. Luck also plays a part because of who you play in a tournament.

You can't do "control" groups in Armada, too many factors change things. The placement of obstacles, objective selection, and the player using the list will change the data dramatically.

1) Your statement is Anecdotal, as it relies on "just believe it". How do you PROVE it would take experience to run it properly, rather than just sheer luck? (With no disrespect to PT106, this is purely for the proving of the statement)

2) You certainly CAN do control Groups. You just need to up your sample size. I gave you the method to do it. Repeat. Repeating your research and gaining the same results is a cornerstone of science, after all.

Mostly, when you make a statement that is: "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS"... I want you to be able to answer my Schoolyard Taunt. "Oh, Yeah? Prove it!"

Until you can. It shall remain, in my mind, as a Schoolyard Boast. That is all.

Besides, you don't have to answer me at all...

Seems to me the simple solution is a wave 5 commander or ship title that allows the interruption of another players activation. Like Han Solo but in command of a ship.

So, there is some evidence that's shows the Demolisher title and Rhymer are both very prevalent upgrades in overall attendance, top fleets, and winning fleets.

Based on the Imperial Assault article that I linked, FFG will errata cards if they are too prevalent in the meta.

What I am curious about is what is that threshold before FFG would act?

So, there is some evidence that's shows the Demolisher title and Rhymer are both very prevalent upgrades in overall attendance, top fleets, and winning fleets.

Based on the Imperial Assault article that I linked, FFG will errata cards if they are too prevalent in the meta.

What I am curious about is what is that threshold before FFG would act?

If only Imperial Assault had a master list of all of the forces taken to the Imperial Assault Worlds Championships last year, so we could see how much "too prevelant" actually is.

Rhymer isnt the problem. Its the viability of zero squadron fleets which make a lot of imperial squadron types redundant. If rhymer was that scary then zero squad fleets wouldnt exist.

Other than Paul's list at Regionals, zero squadrons is faring very poorly. There is a positive correlation between squadrons and placement in Shmitty's data.

I agree and this is a real issue with Rhymer balance-wise. Its not the extra range he gives, it is the fact that he practically shuts down a lot of low-squad/zero-squad builds by allowing a bomber fleet to ignore ship-based AS upgrades.

Unfortunately I have only anecdotal evidence, but how often do you see QLT or PDR being used? And the main reason they are almost extinct is that they don't work against Rhymerballs.

So, there is some evidence that's shows the Demolisher title and Rhymer are both very prevalent upgrades in overall attendance, top fleets, and winning fleets.

Based on the Imperial Assault article that I linked, FFG will errata cards if they are too prevalent in the meta.

What I am curious about is what is that threshold before FFG would act?

If only Imperial Assault had a master list of all of the forces taken to the Imperial Assault Worlds Championships last year, so we could see how much "too prevelant" actually is.

I don't think it was just Worlds that caused the decision. From what I recall the issue was brought up during Regionals. I remember looking at the Imp Assault tables at Gencon and seeing lots of repetitive squads with those units.

My guess is they knew about the issue, but opted to not make a big change to the meta until after Worlds. Which makes sense to me.

But yeah, knowing the forces taken to worlds would be an interesting data point in this discussion.

And the fix for Riekan and his MSU plus unique squadrons? Is there an FAQ entry that takes away the just plain stupid effect he has? Hmmm?

Okay, I'll bite.

Crit effects crush Rieekan. Build a fleet to put ongoing crit effects on his ships and he's effectively neutered. Screed, Dodonna, APT's, Luke, Dodonna's Pride, any bomber. Go second and build to win your yellow objective, because he can't pick either PS or SP.

Beyond that, just practice against him. I played him religiously for the first half of the wave, and I've moved on to Dodonna now that people aren't thrown off by his impact on the activation order anymore.

EDIT: And I worked for them way back when they released their space combat game, so I know of what I speak.