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).

Its pretty much patently false at the moment.

Mostly imo because FFG intends for squadrons to be a heavy part of a "tactical" game, as opposed to a "oooh big ships" game as the game seemed to be.

For many of us who just like big ships and star destroyers, this is turning out to be not viscerally what we wanted, due to the lack of efficacy of said large ships beyond a number of 1. Two large ship builds exist, but are not considered strong enough in the meta, local or net-wide. Even then, for visceral feeling, two large ships doesn't a fleet make. =/

There is basically an unsaid design proposal by FFG that squadrons are required due to the power level of squadrons. People who like to play no squadrons... those days are over.

People who like to play no squadrons... those days are over.

No, they're not. Ref: my comments in the other thread about how squadrons are mandatory. You just have to recognize that you're going to have to play against them if you're playing competitively, and adapt your fleet build accordingly. Just like you do when anything else becomes prevalent in the meta.

The most straightforward way to deal with nearly-guaranteed squadrons is to take fighters of your own. Thus, because we have a surge of bombers in the meta, we're seeing a corresponding surge of fighters. But fighters aren't the only way to address them.

Admiral Needa agrees with you, squadrons do suck.

Admiral Needa agrees with you, squadrons do suck.

That's actually Admiral Piett.... Needa was killed by Vader, but at least his excuses were accepted.... just like yours will be.

Ummmm ..... Admiral Needa agrees, Sith do suck. And he may have hated squadrons too......

So the argument I hear is that you want to run a One-Trick-Pony and are having issues with lists that are ready for that horse.

I think your answer is right there. You want to build a Capital Ship Killer list and you are being outsmarted by players bringing Squadron Heavy lists that are a counter to that exact list. You're complaining about your scissors being smashed by the rock and want your opponents to bring paper instead.

Bring a rounded out list and you will see better results against those lists or you can continue to bring the OTP lists that are easy to counter and were very popular last year. But as you're experiencing those lists don't do well at all now after players learned how to counter them.

So the argument I hear is that you want to run a One-Trick-Pony and are having issues with lists that are ready for that horse.

I think your answer is right there. You want to build a Capital Ship Killer list and you are being outsmarted by players bringing Squadron Heavy lists that are a counter to that exact list. Your complaining about your scissors being smashed by the rock and want your opponents to bring paper instead.

Bring a rounded out list and you will see better results against those lists or you can continue to bring the OTP lists that are easy to counter and were very popular last year. But as you're experiencing those lists don't do well at all now after players learned how to counter them.

I think his problem, and I agree with him, is that the game dis-incentivizes medium and large ships for competitive play. All the best titles and upgrades are designed for small, agile ships with particular emphasis on upgrade combos to make them punch way harder per point than most large and medium ships. Similarly, a cheap flotilla with the right upgrades and a large core of squadrons can hit significantly harder than a ship of equivalent cost.

So the argument I hear is that you want to run a One-Trick-Pony and are having issues with lists that are ready for that horse.

I think your answer is right there. You want to build a Capital Ship Killer list and you are being outsmarted by players bringing Squadron Heavy lists that are a counter to that exact list. Your complaining about your scissors being smashed by the rock and want your opponents to bring paper instead.

Bring a rounded out list and you will see better results against those lists or you can continue to bring the OTP lists that are easy to counter and were very popular last year. But as you're experiencing those lists don't do well at all now after players learned how to counter them.

I think his problem, and I agree with him, is that the game dis-incentivizes medium and large ships for competitive play. All the best titles and upgrades are designed for small, agile ships with particular emphasis on upgrade combos to make them punch way harder per point than most large and medium ships. Similarly, a cheap flotilla with the right upgrades and a large core of squadrons can hit significantly harder than a ship of equivalent cost.

Samething happens when someone brings a Bomber Heavy list only to be meet with Raiders and Tie swarms. This is a list that is good at only one thing, hence a One-Trick-Pony. Those lists get beat often because of the Rock, Paper, Scissors nature of those specialized lists. It's building a list based on only one aspect of the game while ignoring the other 70% of the game. And we all remember the early time of Armada when the Empire had almost nothing but the Capital Ship Killer lists, and the Rebel players had to figure out how to counter them. So now it's not a surprise when we see the list on the table and the advantage you think you brought turns out to be your biggest disadvantage.

Now if player laid off those nasty Capital Ship Killer lists people would stop building lists with those in mind and maybe they will be good again one day. But the blame appears to be misplaced. Don't blame the pistol for being bad at deer hunting when you picked the wrong tool.

So the argument I hear is that you want to run a One-Trick-Pony and are having issues with lists that are ready for that horse.

I think your answer is right there. You want to build a Capital Ship Killer list and you are being outsmarted by players bringing Squadron Heavy lists that are a counter to that exact list. Your complaining about your scissors being smashed by the rock and want your opponents to bring paper instead.

Bring a rounded out list and you will see better results against those lists or you can continue to bring the OTP lists that are easy to counter and were very popular last year. But as you're experiencing those lists don't do well at all now after players learned how to counter them.

I think his problem, and I agree with him, is that the game dis-incentivizes medium and large ships for competitive play. All the best titles and upgrades are designed for small, agile ships with particular emphasis on upgrade combos to make them punch way harder per point than most large and medium ships. Similarly, a cheap flotilla with the right upgrades and a large core of squadrons can hit significantly harder than a ship of equivalent cost.

This isn't true.

The stable GT, ECM, XI7 (+ maybe Leading Shots) are all heavily in favor of heavy ships.

Defiance (5 pts): I get to toss a blue or black at long range? For one 5 pts? WoW!

Relentless (3 pts): Because why wouldn't I want a 2-command ISD for 3 ptd!?

Avenger (5 pts): Oh, you're tokens are red? How unfortunate. You're dead. Or the mere presence of this title made you too afraid to use your tokens against other ships? Also dead. At 5 pts?

And this is just a small sample.

So the argument I hear is that you want to run a One-Trick-Pony and are having issues with lists that are ready for that horse.

I think your answer is right there. You want to build a Capital Ship Killer list and you are being outsmarted by players bringing Squadron Heavy lists that are a counter to that exact list. Your complaining about your scissors being smashed by the rock and want your opponents to bring paper instead.

Bring a rounded out list and you will see better results against those lists or you can continue to bring the OTP lists that are easy to counter and were very popular last year. But as you're experiencing those lists don't do well at all now after players learned how to counter them.

I think his problem, and I agree with him, is that the game dis-incentivizes medium and large ships for competitive play. All the best titles and upgrades are designed for small, agile ships with particular emphasis on upgrade combos to make them punch way harder per point than most large and medium ships. Similarly, a cheap flotilla with the right upgrades and a large core of squadrons can hit significantly harder than a ship of equivalent cost.

This isn't true.

The stable GT, ECM, XI7 (+ maybe Leading Shots) are all heavily in favor of heavy ships.

Defiance (5 pts): I get to toss a blue or black at long range? For one 5 pts? WoW!

Relentless (3 pts): Because why wouldn't I want a 2-command ISD for 3 ptd!?

Avenger (5 pts): Oh, you're tokens are red? How unfortunate. You're dead. Or the mere presence of this title made you too afraid to use your tokens against other ships? Also dead. At 5 pts?

And this is just a small sample.

Want to know what Defiance costs? Minimum?

111 points.

Avenger? 125.

The cheapest ship that can currently take Gunnery Teams, ECM, and X17s is the MC30 Torpedo Frigate.

It costs 83 points.

8 YT-2400s costs 128 points, and have a combined 48 hull points. They have battery armament roughly on par with a naked ISD front arc, and are more maneuverable than any ship in the game. They can engage up to eight enemy squadrons with double the same Anti-Squadron battery as an ISD. And of course, they don't need commands to use that capability.

Think about that for a moment.

If you had the option, which would you take?

Similar math can be easily applied to all the major large ships, and strong arguments for the medium ships in most situations. Only for small ships, flotillas and squadrons do you start seeing similar value per point levels.

@Beatty you seem to be continually saying that the OP wants to take a "large ship killer" list. I don't think that's what he wants to do at all; what he wants to do is to take a list of large ships, because this was (somewhat) billed as a large ship game.

Increasingly it is looking like this isn't a large ship game; it's a space combat involving big ships and fighters game. If that's what it is, then fair play, but a lot of us came into this thinking this was about the big guys.

Many, many space games have this same problems; bombers and fighters, etc, overshadow the larger ships due to the way the game is designed. The maths as to why are right there in TheCactusMan17's post - fighters etc have too much hull, large ships don't do enough damage to them. A reduction in squadron hull points, flak dice doing damage on a crit, or ships having 3-4 blue vs one target instead of 1 blue vs every target, anything like that would have added to the balance, but the game seems intentionally designed to encourage you to play the squadron minigame and ships are just AWFUL at flak. Which, from a competitive PoV, can only ever end one way; you take enough points of them to have a shot at winning said game (max or near max), or you don't play at all. Anything else is inefficient. Which again, is fine, just not what everyone had hoped this game would turn into.

Personally I hope we see some cheap upgrades that make ship heavy lists viable. I don't think it need to be viable to run 0 squadrons, but it would be nice to be able to effectively (truly effectively) use squadrons+flak as an option. Focused flak fire turning your blues into 3-4x the number vs a single target. An upgrade to your flak dice. Something.

Why would you put GT/ECM on a MC30 Torpedo? At any rate it has a little less staying power than the ISD, so I'm OK with a lower price

Why are you comparing ships to squadrons when talking about ship upgrades?

Because we're not taking about ships, we're talking about squadrons. And in order to understand the value proposition of squadrons, we need to understand the value proposition of the ships they replace.

You are correct, that combo on a torpedo frigate is generally not cost efficient. Yet it is also the cheapest variant of that option as of the latest wave of ships. It is a little under 40 points less than the ISD or Squadrons, yet even with the upgrades changed costs stay relatively inefficient for the points.

When discussing the merits of fleet composition, cost efficiency is a critical issue. One of the primary elements of JJ's Worlds fleet was his ability to exploit the cost efficiency out of Y-Wings and squadron activations in the new meta.

I too want to run nothing but 3x ISD with Motti because that sounds like the most fun thing in the world.

I too want to run nothing but 3x ISD with Motti because that sounds like the most fun thing in the world.

Except 3 large-base ships just get in each others way - you'll never get to actively use more than 2.

I too want to run nothing but 3x ISD with Motti because that sounds like the most fun thing in the world.

Except 3 large-base ships just get in each others way - you'll never get to actively use more than 2.

They do, but I just kinda think that's what the large ship aficionados are asking for, just large ships that do everything and can handle everything at once.

I kinda think snipe is going to make it harder to make an unstoppable bomber swarm with just one or two intel giving ships.

I too want to run nothing but 3x ISD with Motti because that sounds like the most fun thing in the world.

Except 3 large-base ships just get in each others way - you'll never get to actively use more than 2.

This is entirely dependent on how they are used. Never using more than 2 is fine if the third one is being used to set up targets for the other two. Just because all three ships aren't shooting each turn doesn't mean that all three ships aren't getting their full value in their impact on the game.

Cactus, I find your opinions at odds with your obsession with Devestator.

Cactus, I find your opinions at odds with your obsession with Devestator.

Devastator had a very odd niche set of abilities that could be exploited in the wave 2 meta that made it excellent against a number of popular builds, and I'm still frustrated at how long it took for me to recognize them. I'm experimenting to see how drastically it has been affected by the new ships and squadrons, but the general increase in non-rogue squadrons is a big challenge to making it work right.

Ships bad at flak? Somebody hasn't been on the receiving end of 2xFlotillas sandpapering squad screens.

Or more fun, 2xMC80 Battlecruisers using those gunnery teams to hit ships and splattering entire squad wings with double black dice.

I need to point out a frustrating statistic: between YT-2400s, Firesprays, and Major Rhymer, both sides could theoretically field 400 points of Rogue squadrons that would be mathematically superior to similar numbers of large ships in every significant way. More damage output, more hull, more maneuverability, greater threat range, etc. etc.

Its almost like it was intended that they were limited to 1/3rd from Day one or something....

To be completely honest I think the answer right now to the OP post is: YES, squadrons are mandatory (at a competitive level), deal with it.

A lot of very good points have already been made in this thread, and I agree with most of what's been said. Most of all, I agree with this.

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)

The Armada meta is in constant evolution, and right now we're at the point that most people percieve bombers heavy list and bomber shaenigans as optimal list building. This opens up a window of opportunity for those of us who are not that interested in investing in squadrons: while no squadrons at all is really a gamble right now, a dedicated screen (or, even better, a "killer" screen) is more effective than ever. In fact, the most common objection to bringing large AS flights is what you're gonna do with them if the enemy has no squads: look no further, this problem is finally solved. as everybody now has to have some squadrons.

All in all, I feel that this shift towards squadron play has several effects on the meta, the most notable being the resurgence of fighter screens. While, as I stated countless times now, when I jumped into the game this was supposed to be about ships and I'd like to see the focus shift back at least a little, I feel the current meta rewards clever list building and movement skills most than ever, and that's a good thing for sure.

To be completely honest I think the answer right now to the OP post is: YES, squadrons are mandatory (at a competitive level), deal with it.

A lot of very good points have already been made in this thread, and I agree with most of what's been said. Most of all, I agree with this.

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)

The Armada meta is in constant evolution, and right now we're at the point that most people percieve bombers heavy list and bomber shaenigans as optimal list building. This opens up a window of opportunity for those of us who are not that interested in investing in squadrons: while no squadrons at all is really a gamble right now, a dedicated screen (or, even better, a "killer" screen) is more effective than ever. In fact, the most common objection to bringing large AS flights is what you're gonna do with them if the enemy has no squads: look no further, this problem is finally solved. as everybody now has to have some squadrons.

All in all, I feel that this shift towards squadron play has several effects on the meta, the most notable being the resurgence of fighter screens. While, as I stated countless times now, when I jumped into the game this was supposed to be about ships and I'd like to see the focus shift back at least a little, I feel the current meta rewards clever list building and movement skills most than ever, and that's a good thing for sure.

(My current DeMSU list would get absolutely trounced by an all ship no squad list.)

Squadrons are not mandatory. There are several squadron-less builds that can and do fine in tourneys when played correctly. Right now, properly played squadron-less fleets are what I fear most. Choosing your objectives in builds with close to or at 400 points is extremely difficult when considering you may face a well-played MSU. Brutal.