Alright, Ly and HERO, I don't mind you arguing with one another and I actually giggle like a schoolgirl when I read the arguments, but don't you dare hijack my threads to do that. One more argumentative stuff, and I'll humiliate you both on Vassal, teaching you the meaning of 11-0.

So, on topic, tried Vader first player today. It is truly amazing. It is breathtaking. I don't think I'd ever run it second player again and willing to bid up to 30 points just to do so.

Alright, Ly and HERO, I don't mind you arguing with one another and I actually giggle like a schoolgirl when I read the arguments, but don't you dare hijack my threads to do that. One more argumentative stuff, and I'll humiliate you both on Vassal, teaching you the meaning of 11-0.

So, on topic, tried Vader first player today. It is truly amazing. It is breathtaking. I don't think I'd ever run it second player again and willing to bid up to 30 points just to do so.

You can try but when you get humiliated I will tease you about it.

My view is that there is nothing set in stone in Armada. The only thing set is your own mind

Big talk !

But yeah, seriously, this is getting old for everyone around here. Just cut that argument between you two please.

Or, better yet, make a thread dedicated to that fight.

Alright, Ly and HERO, I don't mind you arguing with one another and I actually giggle like a schoolgirl when I read the arguments, but don't you dare hijack my threads to do that. One more argumentative stuff, and I'll humiliate you both on Vassal, teaching you the meaning of 11-0.

So, on topic, tried Vader first player today. It is truly amazing. It is breathtaking. I don't think I'd ever run it second player again and willing to bid up to 30 points just to do so.

Let's make another bet. What's the lowest you've ever bid? I think mine was 380.

302!

(Not intentionally, I accidentally left 96 points of Squadrons at home and had to play without 'em)

Big talk !

But yeah, seriously, this is getting old for everyone around here. Just cut that argument between you two please.

Or, better yet, make a thread dedicated to that fight.

*waves hand* it's inconsequential, I have him blocked so i don't have to deal with his false "facts" or abuse.

I might miss laughing at him but alas it is better for the forums this way.

Hmmmm so MoffZen, why do you think any Admiral is good for one player or the other?

302!

(Not intentionally, I accidentally left 96 points of Squadrons at home and had to play without 'em)

You could not borrow? I thought your regionals list had few to no squadrons.

It wasn't recently. Quite some time ago. Plus, I was the only Rebel player in a sea of imperials, there were none to borrow


...

I don't think of Admirals as 1st or 2nd preferred... I look at Objectives and my fleet interaction with them. The admiral is part of the fleet. It doesn't get a second category of its own for the purposes of the discussion.

Rieekan can work just as well as a 1st as he does as a 2nd... The # of activations effects that, either way... (Going 1st with more activations is just as useful as going 2nd with Rieekan, for example, in my opinion)...

So I feel its more the entire fleet composition that makes it, rather than just a single aspect.

Big talk !

But yeah, seriously, this is getting old for everyone around here. Just cut that argument between you two please.

Or, better yet, make a thread dedicated to that fight.

*waves hand* it's inconsequential, I have him blocked so i don't have to deal with his false "facts" or abuse.

I might miss laughing at him but alas it is better for the forums this way.

Hmmmm so MoffZen, why do you think any Admiral is good for one player or the other?

Fortunately for me, I don't have him blocked so I can still have a good laugh, like right now. He might be the only person I've ever met in my entire life that looked data in the face and only saw the nose hairs.

@Drasnighta - Did you win at least?

I came close. 4-6 loss, but scored a bunch by racking up Precision Strike objective points with just my ships... Hit, Flip, Run. A lot of Zoidberging Frigates.

Really, it was playing a 280 point list, with all the Squadron-based upgrades I'd put on them...

Garm pulled triple duty in pulling THAT mess back together.

I came close. 4-6 loss, but scored a bunch by racking up Precision Strike objective points with just my ships... Hit, Flip, Run. A lot of Zoidberging Frigates.

Really, it was playing a 280 point list, with all the Squadron-based upgrades I'd put on them...

Garm pulled triple duty in pulling THAT mess back together.

I'm so excited for Madine you have no idea. He's going to make those big fish dance.

Garm though, he's the man. If anyone can pull big plays on Turn 5 it's him.

Let's define "Zoidberging."

Zoidberging: when a ship or squadron that can't win in a straight up fight runs away to preserve itself, and inadvertently ends up winning the match.

@Dras: Yep, the admiral is part of a fleet, but let's look at Tarkin vs Vader for example and brainstorm around that. How would you say Tarkin helps a first player endeavour (which is playing an objective that is suiting the enemy fleet, but getting the ability to kill enemy ships before they even activate) compared to Vader which trades in defense tokens (which you might not need if you gib the git in front before he shoots !).

Let's take the reverse now, in which cases would you say Vader helps an objective-centric fleet ?

Not trying to set up an argument or anything, just curious to see your reasoning

____

@Lyr :

For Imperials, I would say the following :

1) First player :

- Screed : Ability to ensure damage with a lot of synergy with black dice variants of ships that like going first (ACM, APT, all solid choices).

- Vader : Ability to make sure big rolls don't whiff. Tried it today on a 375 points fleet against Mothma and it was a brutal 9-2 for me (First catch of the day, yes ! So happy to finally be on par with the Imps )

- Ozzel : It's hard to tell with Ozzel because he is very clumsy. But getting in early and slowing down to speed 1 once you're where you want is a pretty cool move for me.

2) 2nd player :

- Motti : Allows to tank more. His ability is great, but I don't really see its benefits when going first. If you could churn out more dakka for each attack, getting as close as possible to ensure a skewering of a ship before they activate, Motti is about 180° for that. Going second and forcing maybe an extra attack or an extra CF command is quite good to force the opponent to gang up more though.

- Tarkin : Flexible each turn and allows the ships to do multiple stuff on a case by case basis, or get the most out of their current commands. I found that optimization in Armada might not all be about building specialty, but countering the deficiencies of a ship (Demolisher for instance doesn't make the ship do more damage. It counters the core rule inability to move after shooting, which is a godsend on a black dice heavy ship).

It's probably that this view is biasied with my current reasoning of : I-classes are when you want to go first and II-classes are when you want to go second with Imperials. It's a simplistic thumbrule, but so far it seemed to have paid out in my recent games.

Perhaps the Admirals are correlated to initiative because they buff ships that are naturally suited for initiative, which is the case in my biased view.

For Rebels :

I think Rebels can be more flexible because Admirals clearly help out some specific ship builds. Still, one could argue :

1) First player :

- Dodonna : More control over the damage, choosing your crit is like choosing which nut to kick before suckerpunching someone.

- Ackbar : Because putting ships down from range before they even get the chance to move in is priceless

2) Second player :

- Riekaan : Survivability and the chance for payback.

- Garm Bel Iblis : Same reasoning as Tarkin : flexibility.

- Mon Mothma : Because it helps with survivabilty to be able to use defense tokens at a distance they weren't initially designed for.

The difference with Imps though is that as Rebs I'm comfortable fielding anything whether going first or second;

@Dras: Yep, the admiral is part of a fleet, but let's look at Tarkin vs Vader for example and brainstorm around that. How would you say Tarkin helps a first player endeavour (which is playing an objective that is suiting the enemy fleet, but getting the ability to kill enemy ships before they even activate) compared to Vader which trades in defense tokens (which you might not need if you gib the git in front before he shoots !).

Let's take the reverse now, in which cases would you say Vader helps an objective-centric fleet ?

Not trying to set up an argument or anything, just curious to see your reasoning

____

@Lyr :

For Imperials, I would say the following :

1) First player :

- Screed : Ability to ensure damage with a lot of synergy with black dice variants of ships that like going first (ACM, APT, all solid choices).

- Vader : Ability to make sure big rolls don't whiff. Tried it today on a 375 points fleet against Mothma and it was a brutal 9-2 for me (First catch of the day, yes ! So happy to finally be on par with the Imps )

- Ozzel : It's hard to tell with Ozzel because he is very clumsy. But getting in early and slowing down to speed 1 once you're where you want is a pretty cool move for me.

2) 2nd player :

- Motti : Allows to tank more. His ability is great, but I don't really see its benefits when going first. If you could churn out more dakka for each attack, getting as close as possible to ensure a skewering of a ship before they activate, Motti is about 180° for that. Going second and forcing maybe an extra attack or an extra CF command is quite good to force the opponent to gang up more though.

- Tarkin : Flexible each turn and allows the ships to do multiple stuff on a case by case basis, or get the most out of their current commands. I found that optimization in Armada might not all be about building specialty, but countering the deficiencies of a ship (Demolisher for instance doesn't make the ship do more damage. It counters the core rule inability to move after shooting, which is a godsend on a black dice heavy ship).

It's probably that this view is biasied with my current reasoning of : I-classes are when you want to go first and II-classes are when you want to go second with Imperials. It's a simplistic thumbrule, but so far it seemed to have paid out in my recent games.

Perhaps the Admirals are correlated to initiative because they buff ships that are naturally suited for initiative, which is the case in my biased view.

For Rebels :

I think Rebels can be more flexible because Admirals clearly help out some specific ship builds. Still, one could argue :

1) First player :

- Dodonna : More control over the damage, choosing your crit is like choosing which nut to kick before suckerpunching someone.

- Ackbar : Because putting ships down from range before they even get the chance to move in is priceless

2) Second player :

- Riekaan : Survivability and the chance for payback.

- Garm Bel Iblis : Same reasoning as Tarkin : flexibility.

- Mon Mothma : Because it helps with survivabilty to be able to use defense tokens at a distance they weren't initially designed for.

The difference with Imps though is that as Rebs I'm comfortable fielding anything whether going first or second;

I think this can be summed up as:

Any Admiral that promotes damage (Ackbar, Vader) wants to go first to capitalize on said damage before their big hitter suffers damage.

A very loose presentation of the meaning of first player, but I would say that this is the closest from my train of thought.

@Dras: Yep, the admiral is part of a fleet, but let's look at Tarkin vs Vader for example and brainstorm around that. How would you say Tarkin helps a first player endeavour (which is playing an objective that is suiting the enemy fleet, but getting the ability to kill enemy ships before they even activate) compared to Vader which trades in defense tokens (which you might not need if you gib the git in front before he shoots !).

Let's take the reverse now, in which cases would you say Vader helps an objective-centric fleet ?

1) Tarkin as first player. The flexibility he governs and gives, essentially, powers up the fleet based on what the fleet can do. That can be defensive (with Repair tokens), or highly offensive with, for example, Squadron Tokens. Tarkin guaranteeing a Squadron or Concentrate Fire token to the heavy hittier, activating first, is essentially talking free damage - free damage that could be crippling to the opponent. It also allows you, on the defensively-offense side, to save a ship with a repair that has been heavily damaged the turn before, as it will activate before the opponent... Navigations allow you to not only preemptively strike the opponent, but to block the opponent based on your choice of the enemy ship.

Tarkin, to me, is neither 1st Player, nor 2nd Player preferred. Tarkin just is. As befitting the Grand Moff.

2) Vader as second player.

Depending on the objectives that you hve, Vader can be very aggressively used... Especially with Red Objectives. Vader makes Red objectives more likely to be taken, because in utilising Vader, you're often not stacking on those upgrades that makes those objectives non-takers. Its the objetives you build to, more than the Admiral at play there... Yes, you should always be looking at destroying your enemy before you die. That's one of the points. Yes, you should always be looking at destroying the enemy before they complete their objectives, and at first or second for that, I feel Vader is equally useful.

The trade off being, as Second player, yes, the opponent will have an opportunity to shoot you before you activate, potentially causing you to utilise defence tokens before shooting yourself... The flipside of that is, it is entirely possible the enemy will have no shot and be forced to come into your range on its activation, allowing you to vader up bonus damage for no ill effect for a turn.

Tradesy-tradesy.

I still find the fleet composition, and how I intend to play said fleet, more of a favouritism between 1st player and 2nd player in Admiral stance.

If you look at some metadata on the game, the more potent a damage-dealing ship is in the fleet, the higher the player bid. This to me suggests that it's more fleet dependent than Admiral dependent. However, I'm also going to piggy-back on my statement that typically, the Admirals who like to push more damage also enjoy the higher bid simply because they directly support the big damage dealer.

302!

(Not intentionally, I accidentally left 96 points of Squadrons at home and had to play without 'em)

349 here with a borrowed tycho for same reason.

I tabled every match for store champ win.

Horrific.

@Dras : Interesting points

I see your poins for Tarkin, although I still think the race for damage (and so Admirals that help push more damage) will be a stronger choice. That extra CF token is nice but nothing compared to the power of the Force (of Vader !) or the special gear that Screed brings.

Actually, like you mentionned, Tarkin is pretty great for sustaining the ships in an active manner with Engineering tokens. Actually, one of the great strength of Tarkin imho is to be able to let the ships spam Engineering Commands while still retaining some form of usefulness with the other tokens.

With Vader, your point about the Reds is very interesting ! I'll need to take a look at this more deeply.

The issue MoffZen is that I think you are not fully considering how activation advantage will let you run any player with any general. Even without activation advantage, if you have a 3 ship list, you WANT to catch several ships after they have moved. This takes careful movement and planning to pull off but going second allows you to trap several ships.

The issue MoffZen is that I think you are not fully considering how activation advantage will let you run any player with any general. Even without activation advantage, if you have a 3 ship list, you WANT to catch several ships after they have moved. This takes careful movement and planning to pull off but going second allows you to trap several ships.

It also allows them to make you react to their movements, and with the larger number of activations, they can completely dance around when first player. I know because I've played Rebel swarms for quite a while before moving to Imperials.

Opposedly, when going first player with lower amounts of activations but nastier arcs, your early moves set the opponent's first movements if he's having a large activation list. This is where in Turns 1 and 2 you can chase off a critter CR90 to the flank and have it useless for turns 2-4 and also force the enemy to split part of his force to deal with something tanky like a VSD or an AFMK2.

Don't worry my friend, I know full well the power of activation advantage That said, being able to actually capitalize on the initiative to set up where your opponent will move his ships so that the target you want to elude don't drift in your nasty arcs (meaning you'll get some freeby next turn !) is also quite interesting, even with fewer, larger ships.

They can't completely dance though. There are several tricks that let you counter high activation fleets. You start reactive and end proactive.

True, true !

(Underbidding them seriously comes to mind I've recently tested a 375 points list with 3 activations and it really wasn't a big issue).

True, true !

(Underbidding them seriously comes to mind I've recently tested a 375 points list with 3 activations and it really wasn't a big issue).

Dont usually need to underbid. A good technique is leaving when to jump into the space. You create the space by going slow to start and surprising them with a sudden jump in. Just watch out. Ackbar can take you out. . .

Yeah, Ackbar is quite annoying for that. I remember my first Wave 2 game. Awful

I've reviewed my previous post about which admirals for first and second, and I'm starting to believe that Garm might be more suited to first player. Contrary to Tarkin, he gives the tokens in a burst, which means that you can't really react as well as you could if you got a token a turn. So, he is more proactive than reactive.

Obviously, this could still be wrong !