I mean, look at Worlds.

I've had the growing thought that in order to play a list with a fair shot at competitiveness across the board, you'll need fighters. There's almost literally no drawback to investing in them, especially Rebel fighter swarms. Once you have a lineup of fighters between you and the enemy it's only a matter of time before the enemy collides with the wall and is easily able to exhaust the target ship's defense tokens rapidly with repeated attacks too small for one brace to counter effectively.

The lists I like to play are heavy Star Destroyers... one ISD, two VSDs as gunship support. My last attempt was putting a single Raider in with Quad Laser Turrets, Kallus, and a title. It did something like three points of squadron damage after it moved before it died, leaving me with no squadron response. My VSDs crumbled soon after.

When I think about tweaks, anything effective moves me away from the heavy gunship builds because QLTs, even with ship support, isn't enough to kill rebel fighters. In a perfect world, over a turn, a VSD with QLTs is doing two points of damage to every squadron it interacts with... if the dice behave. Meanwhile, those X/B/Y wings are obliterating shields and chewing away hull.

So I'm forced to downgrade the VSDs to GSDs just to get access to the two dice AA stat and be able to have a turn engaging my targets instead of dying in transit... but there goes the archetype of max-hull heavy battleships, unless you want to go tripple ISDs. If I keep the VSDs, it's switching their function to carrier builds so they can project damage beyond the range of their batteries.

All this thinking is leading me to the wonder, yeah, if effective lists MUST require fighters. That means for Empire maxing out on TIE bombers with Rhymer and Ruthless Strategists... or an ace mix. Generic TIEs and Interceptors die to capital ship sneezes after all.

Rebels still have Yavaris, and with Bomber Command Center support they'll have the crits they need. Rieekan makes it all the better.

The only exception I can think of are MSU lists, where even if you run into a fighter ball, losing one ship won't cost you your list. You out-activate your opponent and can out-survive them as long as you do the damage. You can afford to activate ships out of a carrier's reach before jumping in. We've all seen it with DeMSU.

Nothing is mandatory.

I don't like QLTs on small ships, as it only takes ~4 good bomber rolls to kill you. Thats (on average) 2 points of damage on two squadrons for 5 points. Slightly more against uniques with Kallus, but you are paying for him too.

Personally, I feel a gozanti and a couple TIEs give you more AA utility, but its mainly a playstyle thing; a titled raider can provide decent AA support.

Main thing to remember- AA with ships, as your only defence, is an all or nothing thing- just like attacking ships, you won't kill anything if you don't commit to it.

I run a lot of no/few fighter lists when I play Empire, as I think that the ones they have now suck big time and are just giving points to the other player. However when I play Rebels I go fighter heavy as I think that theirs are so much better and just rip things apart. If you go no fighters and run into a heavy fighter list you may be in trouble, but I feel that the Empire does better with using the points that normally would be spent on fighters being spend on some AAA ships. Now I know that there are lots out there who disagree with me, but all I can say is to each their own, however their local meta flows.

The lists I like to play are heavy Star Destroyers... one ISD, two VSDs as gunship support. My last attempt was putting a single Raider in with Quad Laser Turrets, Kallus, and a title. It did something like three points of squadron damage after it moved before it died, leaving me with no squadron response. My VSDs crumbled soon after.

I think you have two problems here. One is general, the other specific.

The general problem is that I feel that the game is designed to have squadrons playing a major role. I'm sure many will point out that the lists that have been doing well at the top level lately have made strong use of fighters, and are built for flexibility rather than relying on a couple of major ships. Until the next phase in the game I think if you take <100 points in squads you had better have a really solid backup option.

The specific problem is using VSDs. Any time recently I have fielded or seen one of these fielded it has ended in tears. My last tourney my VSD got killed in two shots every single game. Once you deploy it your opponent knows exactly where it is going to be at any point in the next 6 turns. The other night it did even better, being killed in a single shot by an ISD1 devastator. There are just so many things in the current game that find the VSD just awesomely easy to kill, and the few roles the VSD still can do, you can just about fill with gozantis. Imperials desperately need a more flexible medium ship.

The lists I like to play are heavy Star Destroyers... one ISD, two VSDs as gunship support. My last attempt was putting a single Raider in with Quad Laser Turrets, Kallus, and a title. It did something like three points of squadron damage after it moved before it died, leaving me with no squadron response. My VSDs crumbled soon after.

The specific problem is using VSDs. Any time recently I have fielded or seen one of these fielded it has ended in tears. My last tourney my VSD got killed in two shots every single game. Once you deploy it your opponent knows exactly where it is going to be at any point in the next 6 turns. The other night it did even better, being killed in a single shot by an ISD1 devastator. There are just so many things in the current game that find the VSD just awesomely easy to kill, and the few roles the VSD still can do, you can just about fill with gozantis. Imperials desperately need a more flexible medium ship.

I used to think VSD were awful as well. But if they are properly equipped and have a fighter escort, they can deal out a lot of damage and take it in return. I've had great mileage with them recently, simply because I figured out what they are good at, which is are carriers. Anyone who tries to run them in like an ISD-I will be disappointed because they don't have the speed or defense to stay in at close range for very long.

I view the VSD like the Raider. It is incredibly hard to fly, but one you figure out how to use it correctly, it really pulls its weight.

Yes. Tycho is mandatory.

So currently if we think of the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy we like to throw around...

If you bring NO squadrons, there will be many a Rock or a Paper (seriously who fears a paper?) or even sharp scissors coming your way. Your no squadron list will be matched up with MANY lists with bombers that will chew through it hard.

At worlds the 95% of lists had some type of squadron support. Most had a lot of squad support. I do think what will eventually start to happen is a push for anti-squadron (non-bomber) Squadrons. That will make taking a squadron-less list more appealing, since anti-squadron lists aren't as effective against ships.

So right now:

Squad Heavy > No Squads

Anti Squad > Squad Heavy (Few doing this currently)

No Squads > Anti-Squad (Very-few doing this currently)

This is, of course, an oversimplification. I cannot wait for Wave 5 and Correllian Conflict and the new objectives. Hopefully we'll have a lot of time to work with these waves to figure out the overall meta this time.

To deal with the squadron game you have to have a plan to deal with the squadron game. Right now I’ve not seen an effective plan that deal with Squadrons besides squadrons.

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

Well said.

To further build on the damage mitigation, bringing cheap squads like Ties, Tie/I and A-Wings are a good option to reduce bomber damage. Keep them out of range of your opponents squads and ships, and when you see their intentions with bombers, jump in and try to kill the Intel. You will likely be in AA range, but force your opponent to choose hitting your ships or squads by keeping them in the same arc. Accept your squads will die, but you are essentially "trading up" by throwing ~40 points into the meat grinder that buys you time to kill the carriers. A dead carrier means inferior squads which you can dance around and take less damage. I find this tactic very effective with VSDs.

So, your issue is that you have two conflicting goals for your fleet. You want to fly a heavy battleship fleet, and you also don't want to take squadrons. I think that right now, you'll be hard pressed to build a successful battleship fleet with no fighter cover.

Which kind of makes sense thematically: "the Empire doesn't consider a small, one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense." "We'll have to destroy them ship-to-ship. Get the crews to their fighters." Bombers are a threat that heavy hardware can't effectively address, so you have to make concessions in your build to provide defenses against them if you're likely to encounter them (which, because they're all the rage right now, you are).

Now that doesn't mean that you can't build a fleet that doesn't incorporate squadrons. Like you said, the MSU's can still handle them. I've been experimenting with a 4 MC30/3 GR-75 list. It works really well against massed squadrons; less well against--you guessed it--heavy battleships with no anti-squadron investment.

It's the same cycle we've seen many times before. Build A gets popular; it hard counters Build B, so you can't bring Build B competitively; somebody finds Build C that hard counters Build A; Bulls X gets popular; everybody forgets that Build B was a thing until somebody remembers that Build B counters Build C; wash, rinse, repeat.

Don't despair. Polish up your Star Destroyers and get good with them until the meta comes back around and you're the baddest dude on the block again. I think that time is coming sooner rather than later. In the mean time, take some disposable TIEs to due heroically in defense of your destroyers. It's what they're there for.

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

Well said.

To further build on the damage mitigation, bringing cheap squads like Ties, Tie/I and A-Wings are a good option to reduce bomber damage. Keep them out of range of your opponents squads and ships, and when you see their intentions with bombers, jump in and try to kill the Intel. You will likely be in AA range, but force your opponent to choose hitting your ships or squads by keeping them in the same arc. Accept your squads will die, but you are essentially "trading up" by throwing ~40 points into the meat grinder that buys you time to kill the carriers. A dead carrier means inferior squads which you can dance around and take less damage. I find this tactic very effective with VSDs.

This is a great succinct description of how to run a fighter screen. It's very tempting, especially for players who haven't invested time in learning the squadron game, to fling their fighter screen out ahead of them way too aggressively. This is why the TIE interceptor is so reviled around some parts: it uniquely severely punishes players who **** this up, but also is aimed at players who want to take a light squadron screen, which tend to be the players who haven't invested much time into learning the squadron game.

The only thing in Armada that is explicitly mandatory, is a Fleet Commander.

Everything else is optional.

Of course, some of it is optional in the sense that, if you don't do it, you immediately lose...

Like taking at least one Ship... But anything beyond that is certainly optional-optional....

...

Unless you take Hyperspace assault as one of your objectives. Then you better really have a second ship, if your first ship is Small or Medium... But that's optional, too - the FAQ just spells out what happens when you don't...

...

So, no.

Fighters are not "Mandatory". Not even in the sense that you would be stupid to not take them, or would lose if you did not take them...

You are only stupid if you do not account for them... It is entirely plausable that either side can play without using any squadrons of their own... Entirely plausable. The only question is - how do you account for them on the enemy's side, because you can't make them not take them either. Not without some serious meta-gaming... or meta-threatening... or meta-getting-drunking... You know what I mean.

All I've ever asked of someone who says "fighters a crap, I'm not taking them..." Is to have an answer for: "Okay, I can respect that decision. But I love the hell out of them, so what's your plan?"

If you don't want to take them...

What's your Plan for when the enemy Does?

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

While I can agree with this, what I'm saying here is that I have the feeling a load of fighters is more effective at destroying a ship than an equivalent amount of points in fighters. At that rate, is there much hope in trying to make mediums and heavies work? Or would it be better to scrap any thought of fielding a medium-large ship and instead take an equivalent small (Flotilla/Yavaris) and fighters.

If possible I would like to build a VSD gunship powerful enough to one-shot small ships once I got into range and survive/ignore a round of fighter barrages. But I have the feeling that is going to fail more often than succeed.

In a perfect world, over a turn, a VSD with QLTs is doing two points of damage to every squadron it interacts with... if the dice behave. Meanwhile, those X/B/Y wings are obliterating shields and chewing away hull.

In a perfect world, a VSD with QLTs and Ruthless Strategists does four points of damage a turn to every squadron it interacts with, with a minimum of squadron support.

Fighters aren't strictly mandatory but the benefit you derive from including them is high enough that you'd be foolish not to include at least a few. Flak on its own is insufficient to see you through against a competent bomber fleet in wave 4, and that's fine. Flak is a great compliment to your own fighter squadrons, though.

People have been crying about this since Yavaris in wave one and for the life of me I don't understand what's so upsetting about investing a small percentage of your fleet points into fighters.

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

While I can agree with this, what I'm saying here is that I have the feeling a load of fighters is more effective at destroying a ship than an equivalent amount of points in fighters. At that rate, is there much hope in trying to make mediums and heavies work? Or would it be better to scrap any thought of fielding a medium-large ship and instead take an equivalent small (Flotilla/Yavaris) and fighters.

If possible I would like to build a VSD gunship powerful enough to one-shot small ships once I got into range and survive/ignore a round of fighter barrages. But I have the feeling that is going to fail more often than succeed.

Dominator VSD 1 with EL and XI7 can one shot medium ships at close range. Problem is thas a LOT of points, can be hard to line the shot up, and you will need to invest in some anti squad as bombers will tear that tasty target up

No not mandatory but can help

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

While I can agree with this, what I'm saying here is that I have the feeling a load of fighters is more effective at destroying a ship than an equivalent amount of points in fighters. At that rate, is there much hope in trying to make mediums and heavies work? Or would it be better to scrap any thought of fielding a medium-large ship and instead take an equivalent small (Flotilla/Yavaris) and fighters.

If possible I would like to build a VSD gunship powerful enough to one-shot small ships once I got into range and survive/ignore a round of fighter barrages. But I have the feeling that is going to fail more often than succeed.

There is a very important difference, and one that will have great significance from wave V onwards.

Squadrons require Intel in order to do ship damage. Ships do not require intel to do ship damage.

Introduce snipe units and suddenly intel becomes a lot harder to protect. In all honesty I am very surprised we havent seen more anti intel squadron builds. IG-88 and Mauler combine very well to target intel units, and once you can add Saber squadron....

Personally I believe we are looking at Squadrons to much in a vacuum on these forums. Like they are this separate entity from the game or something. When you build your list you should not be thinking on whether you want Squadrons or not, but on rather how you want to make your list work overall in a game. For example how do you want to deliver damage to your opponent during the course of a game, and how do you want to mitigate damage from your opponent during the course of the game. There are many ways to do this by using various setups of ships, squadrons, mission selection, etc. You have to look at everything as various pieces to accomplish that.

While I can agree with this, what I'm saying here is that I have the feeling a load of fighters is more effective at destroying a ship than an equivalent amount of points in fighters. At that rate, is there much hope in trying to make mediums and heavies work? Or would it be better to scrap any thought of fielding a medium-large ship and instead take an equivalent small (Flotilla/Yavaris) and fighters.

If possible I would like to build a VSD gunship powerful enough to one-shot small ships once I got into range and survive/ignore a round of fighter barrages. But I have the feeling that is going to fail more often than succeed.

There is a very important difference, and one that will have great significance from wave V onwards.

Squadrons require Intel in order to do ship damage. Ships do not require intel to do ship damage.

Introduce snipe units and suddenly intel becomes a lot harder to protect. In all honesty I am very surprised we havent seen more anti intel squadron builds. IG-88 and Mauler combine very well to target intel units, and once you can add Saber squadron....

Shhhhhhh don't let people get ideas. I enjoy my double Intel Rhymer ball.

Just chuck out the escorts in favour of more intel units. Doesnt matter how sharp your scalpel, it takes time to kill five intel units....

You can go all ship, you just can't go all ISD+VSD. Both imps and rebels have good cost effective flack ships, they just don't happen to be large battle ship types. glad 2s, Raiders, neb b escorts and flotillas all give out cost effective flack. Speed 4 small base is also king for an all ship lists facing fighters, speed 3 or less and large bases are a bit of a death sentence against bombers.

So currently if we think of the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy we like to throw around...

If you bring NO squadrons, there will be many a Rock or a Paper (seriously who fears a paper?) or even sharp scissors coming your way. Your no squadron list will be matched up with MANY lists with bombers that will chew through it hard.

At worlds the 95% of lists had some type of squadron support. Most had a lot of squad support. I do think what will eventually start to happen is a push for anti-squadron (non-bomber) Squadrons. That will make taking a squadron-less list more appealing, since anti-squadron lists aren't as effective against ships.

So right now:

Squad Heavy > No Squads

Anti Squad > Squad Heavy (Few doing this currently)

No Squads > Anti-Squad (Very-few doing this currently)

This is, of course, an oversimplification. I cannot wait for Wave 5 and Correllian Conflict and the new objectives. Hopefully we'll have a lot of time to work with these waves to figure out the overall meta this time.

Actually it is not just squad heavy but what they built their squadrons for.

• In squad heavy list you are looking at what I call Assault formation which are bombers and for now the escorts to break the fighter screen.
• Anti-squad would be the fighter screen. Anti-squad is not just anti squadron firepower but squadrons meant to intercept bombers. Right now the current meta is making screen some what weaker as Rebels have a good mix of escorts with intel and counter allowing for bombers to pass through easily. But I think some of the Wave 5 squadrons will soon tip the scales in favor.
• No squadron or minimal squadron what I call harass. But this is actually where you put an emphasis on anti-squadron firepower values to work against bomber heavy list. To be honest a player that doesn't plan for enemy squadrons is like a player who takes no anti-vehicle weapons in 40k. The first vehicle you encounter is going to tear through half your army and you will end up losing.

I personally like where the meta is. At the first Gencon taking squadrons was a point sink. Now that more squadrons have came out and I like the possibility that a squadron type could have several "aces" in place of upgrade slots is a good move. I still feel the focus is still on the ships (after all no ships left = loss) and I don't think that the game is set where you no longer think about ship to ship firepower. I still see them trade bouts in every game so I know they do something but at least the squadrons have a say too. After all there still is no squadron game; winning the squadron game but still losing every ship is still a loss.

So currently if we think of the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy we like to throw around...

If you bring NO squadrons, there will be many a Rock or a Paper (seriously who fears a paper?) or even sharp scissors coming your way. Your no squadron list will be matched up with MANY lists with bombers that will chew through it hard.

At worlds the 95% of lists had some type of squadron support. Most had a lot of squad support. I do think what will eventually start to happen is a push for anti-squadron (non-bomber) Squadrons. That will make taking a squadron-less list more appealing, since anti-squadron lists aren't as effective against ships.

So right now:

Squad Heavy > No Squads

Anti Squad > Squad Heavy (Few doing this currently)

No Squads > Anti-Squad (Very-few doing this currently)

This is, of course, an oversimplification. I cannot wait for Wave 5 and Correllian Conflict and the new objectives. Hopefully we'll have a lot of time to work with these waves to figure out the overall meta this time.

Back in the day, we called this Edsel-Blerg Theory. While theoretically compelling, it did not seem to have empirical support (much less Imperial support, which is more important, of course).