Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Say hello to Yavaris and double blue AA

There is so much wrong with a blanket statement like that I don't know where to begin.

There are lots of things wrong with Blanket statements when they're not clarified.

The main problem is calling someone out on a Blanket Statement, when its in reply to your own Blanket Statement...

Because unfortunately, it started here with "Low number TIEs are viable."

...

I used to play against a lot of TIE Swarms - even a couple of weeks ago, SkyCake was experiementing with taking 10x TIE Fighter Squads again, and I believe he only had mixed success with them.

The trouble is matchups and committing, I feel. Now, the first one, Matchups, is pretty well mitigated for me by the campaign - the one thing a TIE Fighter Swarm doesn't want to see on the other side of the table is, for example, Mauler Mithel. Being able to take 1/3rd of the hull straight off a group that has been tied up is a big deal, after all... But in the campaign, that won't happen. So yay for that.

The second part I kind of touched on above... Committing. At some point you're going to have to take a certain amount of fragile fighters and put them in Harm's Way... How many, at what time, at what place - those are questions you can answer separately, but they can start to mitigate there... But if you don't... Then yes, its Statistically Plausable for only two ships to delete a significant portion of your fighter swarm incidentally... But even that being said, 10 TIEs are 80 Points... A Liberty can delete 2 Raiders with almost the same amount of incidental, so that may just be game design anyway.

I have experiemented with using TIE fighters as quick harassers... If I can send 3 to kill an enemy Squadron, I can... Especially if its a unique one, and I feel I can get away with it... I'll also throw one or two at an enemy ship to attempt to plink off a shield or two in the meantime, and make them decide on wether to shoot a ship or to shoot a pair of TIE fighters...

Really, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with TIE fighters is.... They are going to Die. Really, they are. They are going to Die.

Its wether or not the loss of those admittedly small points are going to stop you from doing them... In some cases, in some tournaments, yes, you don't want to bleed a single MOV point, but TIE fighters are going to get you to manage your expectations well.

Low number TIEs are viable. I don't understand why people insist otherwise.

Sure you won't win 1v1 cs an XWing, but should 8 points beat 13?

Last time I anyone in my local area used TiE Fighters he had a ISD I, and and VSD both set up as carriers, then had 16 TiE fighters. They lasted all of three turns, with the first turn being movement only. What did they kill you ask, only three X-wing. Between the (3) X-wings, (3) A-wings and (2) Neb-B's they killed them all in two rounds of combat. So in the experience of my local area no number of TiE Fighters are worth it, the three hull just is points to the other player as they die so fast and easy it is almost imposable to get even close to their number of points back.

Really, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with TIE fighters is.... They are going to Die. Really, they are. They are going to Die.

If you don't have the fortitude to send TIE pilots to their deaths for the greater glory of the Emperor...

...then go play Rebels, you weak-kneed milquetoasts.

Side reveal:

Dunno if anyone noticed, but it looks like you can see the "Armed Station" card in the front page banner.

Looks like it's got 13 hp, a battery armament of 2 red 2 blue, and a single blue anti-squadron.

Uhhhhh. You got the squad and ship batteries mixed up.....

So I have. That's disappointing in an 'Armed' station. More like a flak battery.

Red anti-squadron though.

pt106 posted some pictures he took at Gencon, you can see those cards much clearer in this one:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_RH9mJUwdj1QUczV2ZEWTR2T0E

Looks like it's 2 blue and 2 black. No reds. It does look kind of red in the banner, but maybe that's just some img light trick.

And Shara Bray looks like Counter 3 with I'm guessing crits adding to damage?

Side reveal:

Dunno if anyone noticed, but it looks like you can see the "Armed Station" card in the front page banner.

Looks like it's got 13 hp, a battery armament of 2 red 2 blue, and a single blue anti-squadron.

Uhhhhh. You got the squad and ship batteries mixed up.....

So I have. That's disappointing in an 'Armed' station. More like a flak battery.

Red anti-squadron though.

pt106 posted some pictures he took at Gencon, you can see those cards much clearer in this one:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_RH9mJUwdj1QUczV2ZEWTR2T0E

Looks like it's 2 blue and 2 black. No reds. It does look kind of red in the banner, but maybe that's just some img light trick.

And Shara Bray looks like Counter 3 with I'm guessing crits adding to damage?

So there's no confirmation on antiship battery yet.

Armed station was 2 red 2 blue AA, and from that banner, it's showing 1 blue AS.

2 Red, 2 Blue Battery and 1 Blue Anti-Squadron seems reasonable.

looking at that photo again.. I realize it does look red.. just turned really dark in the image. my bad.

2 Red, 2 Blue Battery and 1 Blue Anti-Squadron seems reasonable.

I believe it's the other way around, as the symbols are the same as on a squadron card.

Oh man, I just saw Dagger Squadrons anti-squad. I really like the 1 black 2 blue

Really, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with TIE fighters is.... They are going to Die. Really, they are. They are going to Die.

If you don't have the fortitude to send TIE pilots to their deaths for the greater glory of the Emperor...

...then go play Rebels, you weak-kneed milquetoasts.

I have no problem sending my TiE pilots to their death, I just want something for their deaths beside them just dieing for nothing.

Really, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with TIE fighters is.... They are going to Die. Really, they are. They are going to Die.

If you don't have the fortitude to send TIE pilots to their deaths for the greater glory of the Emperor...

...then go play Rebels, you weak-kneed milquetoasts.

I have no problem sending my TiE pilots to their death, I just want something for their deaths beside them just dieing for nothing.

It's called: "The Greater Glory of the Empire".

Come on, get with the program here!

Thats why I spring for TIE Interceptors. They kill things even as they die. I look out from the bridge of my star destroyer, and think "All those little fireballs are for the greater glory of the Empire... and only half of them were on our side!"

Thats why I spring for TIE Interceptors. They kill things even as they die. I look out from the bridge of my star destroyer, and think "All those little fireballs are for the greater glory of the Empire... and only half of them were on our side!"

Unless the other side has any ships, they they still die and it is for nothing still. It is the three hull that just makes them worthless.

A good commander wants no losses. But he has to accept, that the enemy won't shoot himself, only because you ask him politely to do so.

Was just thinking about the special missions in CC and a thought occurred to me.

What if winning the Special Assault missions could have "special" outcomes? In particular, I would love a rule where if a faction won their own Special Assault - they could pick a single enemy ship or squadron and forbid it from being refit if it is scarred at the end of the turn.

Both the missions could easily represent a disruption of logistics against the enemy. And this would allow players to effectively target and eliminate particularly troublesome enemy ships. It would also put a lot of pressure on the defending player in a Special Assault to win that battle.

Was just thinking about the special missions in CC and a thought occurred to me.

What if winning the Special Assault missions could have "special" outcomes? In particular, I would love a rule where if a faction won their own Special Assault - they could pick a single enemy ship or squadron and forbid it from being refit if it is scarred at the end of the turn.

Both the missions could easily represent a disruption of logistics against the enemy. And this would allow players to effectively target and eliminate particularly troublesome enemy ships. It would also put a lot of pressure on the defending player in a Special Assault to win that battle.

I would really like there to be more consequences to objectives than what we see written on the cards that have been revealed. What you're suggesting sounds pretty cool.

Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I think they're going to try to keep it all pretty simple. I do, however, think they're going to have a mechanism by which you get to draw from a deck of objective cards to have more options available to you as time goes on. That is, unless you have to discard an objective card after you use it in a battle.

Of course there is nothing that could forbid us individually from running our campaigns in any way we see fit.

I think that is the true beauty of this. Because it isn't a tournament, or OP. The rules are there, but the very nature of the framework lends itself to house ruling and customizing because THAT is where it is intended to be played.

I think adding a house rule regarding an inability to unscar sounds like a perfect example of how the rules can be adapted so that when playing with a group of experienced Armada players of similar skill would make the campaign much more exciting. However, I agree with Mikael that it seems an unlikely part of the base rules set.

Of course there is nothing that could forbid us individually from running our campaigns in any way we see fit.

I think that is the true beauty of this. Because it isn't a tournament, or OP. The rules are there, but the very nature of the framework lends itself to house ruling and customizing because THAT is where it is intended to be played.

I think adding a house rule regarding an inability to unscar sounds like a perfect example of how the rules can be adapted so that when playing with a group of experienced Armada players of similar skill would make the campaign much more exciting. However, I agree with Mikael that it seems an unlikely part of the base rules set.

Agreed.

I'm already having ideas for fleshing the campaign out, so much so that I'm more interested what I can build on top of the Corellian Conflict than I am in the Corellian Conflict itself. That is, of course, premature. The first order of business, for me, will be to try and run a league with the RAW of the Corellian Conflict.