I think we've all experimented with a projector experts-type regenerating build in the past, and before wave 3/4 I think we've all found it wanting, mostly because ships lacked either the offensive punch to win or because they died too quickly. Rieekan also gave a similar (if temporary) effect, easily and at no cost to offensive firepower.

I wonder if this type of build is more viable now, with new tools like Repair Crews, and new ships like the Liberty which hit hard, have a decent number of hull points, yet which accumulates damage quickly. I've seen some reports of Interdictors built to soak as well.

What are people's thoughts on this type of build now? Will we finally see Redemption and projector experts on the tabletop?

I'm dusting off the Dominator title card for the VSD I and pairing it with Projection Experts on the Interdictor. The Interdictor can move two shields and recharge three of its own every turn. That combination makes a VSD I front arc as nasty as an ISD I. Deployment and maneuvering will be critical.

So, this is the third similar topic, if you look someone is talking about an interdictor list called It won't die on the main board. In the Fleet build someone has started a topic called the ISD that won't die. The basic idea is that it is viable but the general consensus is that they might not have enough punch to win tournaments.

So, one of the things that came to my mind, it might be a luck of the draw in future tournaments if you have a heavy hitter list versus the super fast healing list. So, a true the unstoppable force vs the immovable object. it is definitely going to be interesting.

I'm dusting off the Dominator title card for the VSD I and pairing it with Projection Experts on the Interdictor. The Interdictor can move two shields and recharge three of its own every turn. That combination makes a VSD I front arc as nasty as an ISD I. Deployment and maneuvering will be critical.

Yep. I'm experimenting with that and Devestator (in different lists) plus the interdoctor

I've seen two problems with these builds:

1. Damage from opposing builds tends to trickle in far faster than the ability to repair/heal. Most builds have a way to absolutely pour on the damage. Skirting it with good placement, activation counts, and good maneuvering generally does a lot more than just trying to heal. Furthermore, you can take less damage overall if you simply remove enemy units from play, which is on the whole, much easier to do than trying to heal yourself back.

2. Running an upgrade like Projection Experts tends to force you to activate in a particular order. At least some of the time, this will be disadvantageous. If you can come up with a build that doesn't overly rely on upgrades like Projection Experts or which has a rhythm that allows its use, then I think it could work.

I've seen two problems with these builds:

2. Running an upgrade like Projection Experts tends to force you to activate in a particular order. At least some of the time, this will be disadvantageous. If you can come up with a build that doesn't overly rely on upgrades like Projection Experts or which has a rhythm that allows its use, then I think it could work.

Projection Experts is just one... Passively increasing Enginerring (Engineering Teams + Redemption) is also its own way of going about... Especially when you can utilise something like Redemption for anothermeans, such as a Boat for Flight Coordination Teams.

I've seen two problems with these builds:

2. Running an upgrade like Projection Experts tends to force you to activate in a particular order. At least some of the time, this will be disadvantageous. If you can come up with a build that doesn't overly rely on upgrades like Projection Experts or which has a rhythm that allows its use, then I think it could work.

Projection Experts is just one... Passively increasing Enginerring (Engineering Teams + Redemption) is also its own way of going about... Especially when you can utilise something like Redemption for anothermeans, such as a Boat for Flight Coordination Teams.

Engineering Team and Redemption are nice, but they tend to run into problem 1.

Ships that won't die is a poor way to look at it. Instead, I look at it similar to Reikan. Can I put enough extra shields/hull on target ship to get it through another activation. Can I do this in a way that Reikan isn't simply better? Or is it close enough to Reikan that I get the effect to free up the admiral spot for something different? The best tank build will probably be an interdictor passing out shields to a pair of VSDs with the new admiral for turning. Either that or interdictor with Tarkin/Motti passing out to gladiators.

I've seen two problems with these builds:

2. Running an upgrade like Projection Experts tends to force you to activate in a particular order. At least some of the time, this will be disadvantageous. If you can come up with a build that doesn't overly rely on upgrades like Projection Experts or which has a rhythm that allows its use, then I think it could work.

Projection Experts is just one... Passively increasing Enginerring (Engineering Teams + Redemption) is also its own way of going about... Especially when you can utilise something like Redemption for anothermeans, such as a Boat for Flight Coordination Teams.

Engineering Team and Redemption are nice, but they tend to run into problem 1.

Yeah, that tends to be a huge problem for some of the lists I've seen. The best idea I've seen so far is to use Konstantine and Titus to force one of the opponents to "rush" (with the increase to their speed) way ahead of the rest of their fleet and deal with it before the other ships. If the fleet is set up correctly, the tanky ship will be relatively unharmed or only have suffered minor damage. The success can work pretty well depending on the opponent's fleet, the objectives, and placement.

I was going to make a post earlier in the day when I saw the other threads, but hell, I'll try to sum it up all up here in this one.

Here's my take on how players should view repair-related strategies: It roughly breaks down into two key arguments for me whenever I decide to explore a build that focuses on preservation and attrition. The first one argument is the environment, the landscape of the games you play in, or roughly the metagame of whatever tournament that you're playing in. For the sake of this argument, I'm only going to use competitive environments even though the principles discussed here can apply to even the most casual of games. Whenever you examine the landscape that you play in, you have the factor in what kind lists that people are playing. In my environment, I see a multitude of different competitive builds ranging from MC30s, Demos, Rebel Carriers, Swarms and Rhymer/Fireballs. So what do I mean when I say break it down and what it has to do with whether or not repair mechanisms will be effective? I like to think of it as an analysis on damage per activation: Roughly how much damage do you expect a certain source to do against one of your ships within one activation. When you start profiling attack sources like this, you start to have a much clearer picture of which ones do obscene amounts of damage in very-high spikes vs. those that do consistent damage over time. The best example of this would be a ISD-II vs. something like a TRC90. While the TRC90 can put out pretty impressive and consistent damage, it doesn't nearly have the same and game-changing damage swing that the ISD-II can deliver. When you start factoring in upgrades like the XI7s and Intel Officers, you can clearly start to see what kind of damage X source can do compared to Y. Where some damage trickles in like squadron-related damage, others swing hard enough that your ship can explode e.g. Demolisher.

This is key when determining whether or not a repair-heavy build will be effective. While you can read some battle reports online, you rarely get the feel of exactly how much damage is being done over a course of a game. Repair, whether by command or by activation via Repair Crews on a transport, are done in activation order. Naturally, it will be more effective against damage that slowly trickles over time vs. the damage spikes that can destroy a ship in a round or two. Of course, dice can always be finicky, but the average damage should be able to tell a clearer story. After all, you can't repair a dead ship, and the fact that activation order plays a key role in whether or not you want damage lifted, or whether or not the repair party might be too late to make a difference. The best picture that I can paint right now is imagine that you're trying to heal a MC80 from the wrath of a ISD-II when that player has the initiative. While your little repair boats and shield maidens might be able to heal the damage that trickles in, it will not prevent your ship from being near two-shotted on average dice as long as certain upgrades are in place. Not if you don't go in there with a plan ahead of time (more on this in a sec). Just something to think about when trying to design any list that wants to win through attrition.

The second component here is command efficiency. When I look at the repair boats and the Interdictor/Projection Experts combo, I don't see just heals. The heals are an afterthought for me because what I'm thinking is that I no longer need to queue certain commands on my other ships. In the situation that I have a couple healbots on my side of the table, the first thing I will be looking for is being able to focus on other commands such as moving into more opportune locations, or blowing them away with Concentrate Fire. I think overall, players need to stop looking at the text that Repair Crews can heal 1 card worth of damage, but rather that is 3 engineering points worth of command efficiency that your ISD no longer needs to execute. Of course, when you work in conjunction with the ISD healing as well, you get double the benefit. Once again, this only comes into play if you know what kind of environment you're fighting in, whether or not you know how to plan for that damage, and how well you can execute it when the time comes. The example here would be queuing up Engineering on an ISD that wants to see combat on T3 expecting big damage, then on T3, hopefully your healers kick in at the same time as your Engineering command the damage your opponent thought he was going to do disappears in an instant. This, is how you really win the attrition war: That's to bait your opponent into an overconfident/superior position and then flip the tables on him. Tasty.

I am interested in trying out 2 MC80 Liberty class ships with the Redemption/Raymus Antilles/projection experts build.

I am interested in trying out 2 MC80 Liberty class ships with the Redemption/Raymus Antilles/projection experts build.

Raymus isn't actually necessary. Redemption can bank a token turn-1, project some shields over (hopefully) at the end of turn-2 with no shield loss. From there on out, it is one shield loss per turn. At some point, it becomes likely that Redemption is dead and for the most part, the shields are the rear shields that you didn't need anyway. What gets really interesting is if you Rieekan+Projection Experts to remove shields from a dead ship to one that is alive.

Hero's point about command efficiency is any phases of the game. That's exactly what the flotillas add to the game: Command efficiency.

I tried out the Interdictor and general Tagge for the first time yesterday with an OLP VSD-II and a Gunnery team ISD-I + 5 fighters. The interdictor was the combat version with Scrambler and projection experts. To fit into the points all ships had only 2 upgrades but it did well.

The VSD took the brunt of the attention on my left flank getting hit by a Liberty, Neb and MC30s for 2-3 turns. In this time it received 6 shields from the Interdictor and repaired 2 itself. This got me a long range shot and 2 med-close range shots with my VSD one of which was double arced, the flank blue dice fired first and got an OLP crit.

The Targeting scrambler did well saving me from 2 nasty volleys one from an MC30 and the other next turn from the Liberty. The look on his face as I asked him to reroll those double hits from his TRCs...

The VSD died of course but it savaged the enemy Liberty and absorbed a lot of fire. My ISD finished off the flagship. It was a bit touch and go getting the shieldless Interdictor away from the fighters and orbiting MC30 late in the game but it just kept on repairing one hull and a rear shield as it plodded away until turn 6.

I got a lot of use from the VSD that benefitted greatly from the supporting Interdoctor. Would I have done better with another tooled up VSD instead of the support ship? I don't think so. I would have lost one of them a lot earlier so the liberty wouldn't have been shot for as long and wouldn't have been pinned in place while the ISD T-Boned it later.

General Tagge was ok. He didn't get my brace back on the VSD as the crunch turn was on turn 4 and it was dead by turn 5, but the Interdictor was able to frivolously spend a red brace in full knowledge that it would come back next turn. Saved me 2 damage which I don't think is worth an admiral. Motti would have saved more damage or Konstantine (my other favourite) would have been useful in keeping the Nebulon in arc to get another kill.

In casual play, absolutely.

In tournament play, I dont think so, but hope to be proved otherwise.

I built an "immortal MC80" recently that did rather well. Everyone hides behind the MC80 for cover, and spams Engi commands and gives shields to MC. Leia gives better commands as opportinity arises. Ackbar helps give the dmage boost that is lost due to the build type.

Ackbar

MC80AC

-Raymus

-Engi Team

-ECM

-Adv Proj

-Leading Shots

-XI7

Neb-B

-Redemption

-Project Exp

CR90A

-Jaina's Light (to hide behind the MC80 ans still shoot)

-Leia

-Project Exp

-Redun Shields

6x A-wing

In tournament play, I dont think so, but hope to be proved otherwise.

Is it even possible to create such a balance?

Some lists spew out a lot of damage in short burst, others use many smaller attacks, yet others strip tokens first, then strike, etc.

How to create tank options that are both viable against a range of enemy builds, yet doesn't invalidate a number of other builds.

I don't think that's possible. So while it's certainly possible and desirable to create tanky setup, I don't think we'll see many lists that has pure damage soaking as the key route to victory.

In tournament play, I dont think so, but hope to be proved otherwise.

Is it even possible to create such a balance?

Some lists spew out a lot of damage in short burst, others use many smaller attacks, yet others strip tokens first, then strike, etc.

How to create tank options that are both viable against a range of enemy builds, yet doesn't invalidate a number of other builds.

I don't think that's possible. So while it's certainly possible and desirable to create tanky setup, I don't think we'll see many lists that has pure damage soaking as the key route to victory.

Its different to that. Tanky builds can reliably win 7-4, but that currently isnt good enough. If the skew lists start to struggle to clean strike a tournament, then tanky lists will rise.

I'm with Gink in believing that the Interdictor along with Repair Crews could usher a swing towards beefier fleets. I think we will see a slight rock paper scissors thing form with builds as we get more "tricks" (Experimental, Fleet Command slots).

Ultimately you're going to either play a fleet with a plan (and risk hitting a counter) or you're going to have to build with more flexibility but risk not winning with larger margins.

Either way, I don't mind what comes.

Keep in mind the cool thing about projection experts and repair crews is that they happen on a DIFFERENT ship activation than the one being healed.

Allow me to arrive late to the party and take the punch bowl away before flipping the table:

No, tank builds are not viable. Go home. You're drunk.

Why do I say this so definitively? There are three reasons:

• Damage output is still orders of magnitude greater than damage repair. If we take the ideal case of an Interdictor with Targeting Scrambler and Wulff Yularen, so that it can generate 4 shields per turn and costs only 102 points, that thing still eats 8.5 damage per turn from an equivalent amount of Firesprays (5.67 of them, in this case, and furthermore yes, I can use a 2/3rd of a Firespray because it's my thought experiment and you are just along for the bumpy, disjointed, paranoid ride).
• Every point you spend on durability is a point that you are not spending on dealing damage (this can be useful at times, but is sub-optimal as a general strategy). If you think of Armada as a game where you are trying to score points faster than you lose them, then refusing to lose any points but not scoring any produces, at best, a tie. On the other hand, glass cannon builds where you just deal insane amounts of damage (DeMSU) but take some back still work as long as you dish it out faster than you take it.
• Therefore, to really make a list with durability work, you would need the following all to align:
  • Your damage dealt + damage absorbed > opponent damage dealt + damage absorbed
  • Objectives that reward durability and just "being there"
  • Maneuverability such that you can prevent your opponent from concentrating all their firepower on a single ship at a time (long-term durability doesn't matter if 7 TRC vettes all double arc you in a single turn)

This is not achievable currently. The most durable ships don't have the maneuverability to avoid concentration of force, and the damage dealt vs. damage absorbed paradigm means most ships are more points-efficient in an offensive than defensive role.

This doesn't mean tanking is bad, by the way; an extra turn or two of offense because you survived longer can be hugely valuable! Just make sure you understand the point of defense is to allow you to play offense, not a goal in and of itself. Making ships that are doing nothing other than standing around like a drunken idiot Tarkin in space survive longer has no value.

So durability is good, if you find it in points efficient ways. Building a fleet around it, however, is likely counterproductive given how one actually wins at this game, which is not just by surviving.

Unless, you're Rieekan, in which case you survive so you can do damage in return. So yes, it's always about doing damage.

This doesn't mean tanking is bad, by the way; an extra turn or two of offense because you survived longer can be hugely valuable! Just make sure you understand the point of defense is to allow you to play offense, not a goal in and of itself. Making ships that are doing nothing other than standing around like a drunken idiot Tarkin in space survive longer has no value.

So durability is good, if you find it in points efficient ways. Building a fleet around it, however, is likely counterproductive given how one actually wins at this game, which is not just by surviving.

This is where I think the Interdictor + Dominator VSD title might be the right mix. It alternates trading defense for offense and vice versa. In some ways, it's kind of like having an Engineering command and a Concentrate Fire command every turn.

I'm dusting off the Dominator title card for the VSD I and pairing it with Projection Experts on the Interdictor. The Interdictor can move two shields and recharge three of its own every turn. That combination makes a VSD I front arc as nasty as an ISD I. Deployment and maneuvering will be critical.

Having recently fielded the Dominator on a VSD I with a spam of Engineering Commands, I can guarantee that it is a force to be reckoned with. It dueled effortlessy with an AFMK2 which is pretty awesome all things considered.