For those talking about overextended squadrons in Fighter Ambush, remember that Relay is coming...

And Ghost.

As second player in Fighter Ambush there are advantages and disadvantages.

Disadvantages

• You can't use pairs of fighters to delay placing ships so the enemy get a good idea, rather quickly, where you are deploying. When the first player may have deployed a Gozanti and 4 Tie fighters - the second player will have deployed most of his fleet.
• Your fighters may be cut off or overwhelmed if deployed too aggressively in an ambush. Watch out for their ISD with expanded hangar, flight controllers and 5 Tie Interceptors which will get a first player turn one alpha strike on your infiltrating (40K term) Y-wings.

Advantages

• You can deploy all your fighters last.
• You can deploy squadrons deep into the play area near an obstacle. This is a tactical decision you have to judge. You don't have to do it and should look at enemy fighter strength and possible turn one enemy squadron commands. If the enemy have few fighters or you are confident your sources of intel will hold up and enemy ships are slow or predictable (VSDs etc.) or if you can get a fast, large carrier with a Flight Commander and Boosted Comms near your ambushing squadrons then by all means go for it.
• Even though you have a deployment disadvantage you could encourage the enemy to deploy away from an area by placing an obstacle there with the threat that lots of fighters may appear just before turn one. This could be great fun when - in your mind - you have already decided to deploy squadrons in the normal manner or near a more neutrally placed asteroid not too far from your ships.

The final effect can be neutral but is probably the most important part of Fighter Ambush.

15 points per fighter attack that inflicts a damage card to a ship.

Having many squadrons (preferably bombers) is the main reason to take this mission. Beware! It works for both players. The mission choice could backfire if your 80 points of X wings get swamped by 134 points of fighters taken by the first player. For this reason I think Fighter ambush will only be taken by fleets with 120+ points of squadrons and will never be selected by the first player unless they too have a similar squadron strength. There would have to be really nasty Red (ok I can believe red) and Blue (less convinced) missions for a first player with only a token fighter force to be pressured into selecting Fighter Ambush.

Another advantage is deploying slow squads (speed 2) closer to where you predict the battle will be, without the need for multiple ships with Fighter Coordination Team. Hiding them inside obstacles will be common, waiting for their mothership.

For those talking about overextended squadrons in Fighter Ambush, remember that Relay is coming...

And Ghost.

As second player in Fighter Ambush there are advantages and disadvantages.

Disadvantages

• You can't use pairs of fighters to delay placing ships so the enemy get a good idea, rather quickly, where you are deploying. When the first player may have deployed a Gozanti and 4 Tie fighters - the second player will have deployed most of his fleet.
• Your fighters may be cut off or overwhelmed if deployed too aggressively in an ambush. Watch out for their ISD with expanded hangar, flight controllers and 5 Tie Interceptors which will get a first player turn one alpha strike on your infiltrating (40K term) Y-wings.

Advantages

• You can deploy all your fighters last.
• You can deploy squadrons deep into the play area near an obstacle. This is a tactical decision you have to judge. You don't have to do it and should look at enemy fighter strength and possible turn one enemy squadron commands. If the enemy have few fighters or you are confident your sources of intel will hold up and enemy ships are slow or predictable (VSDs etc.) or if you can get a fast, large carrier with a Flight Commander and Boosted Comms near your ambushing squadrons then by all means go for it.
• Even though you have a deployment disadvantage you could encourage the enemy to deploy away from an area by placing an obstacle there with the threat that lots of fighters may appear just before turn one. This could be great fun when - in your mind - you have already decided to deploy squadrons in the normal manner or near a more neutrally placed asteroid not too far from your ships.

The final effect can be neutral but is probably the most important part of Fighter Ambush.

15 points per fighter attack that inflicts a damage card to a ship.

Having many squadrons (preferably bombers) is the main reason to take this mission. Beware! It works for both players. The mission choice could backfire if your 80 points of X wings get swamped by 134 points of fighters taken by the first player. For this reason I think Fighter ambush will only be taken by fleets with 120+ points of squadrons and will never be selected by the first player unless they too have a similar squadron strength. There would have to be really nasty Red (ok I can believe red) and Blue (less convinced) missions for a first player with only a token fighter force to be pressured into selecting Fighter Ambush.

.The truly important fact is that a dedicated 134 point fighter bomber list now has three missions that can provide significant points, fighter ambush, superior positions and precision strike give player one very bad options. It means you can max out on points and laugh as the opposition decides between giving you first player and a nasty Alpha strike or giving away points. I think It's probably the single biggest boost to max fighter bomber lists so far, not in that it's OP it just completes the set of three missions.

This is exactly what so many people are missing. The deployment issue is valid sure but the idea of having my squadrons alphastruck is a joke unless I set up my squadrons within range of your alpha strikers knowing full well that you will have first turn. If I'm that stupid then I deserve it. There is always a risk that your opponent will turn the tables and out squadron you but hell, if you picked the objective for your deck you must be confident that it can work else, as above, you're and idiot and deserve it for putting this objective in when you only had a token fighter screen. But seriously how often do we actually see people who pick objectives that give a clear advantage to the first player who is picking the mission? I'd love it if someone running nothing bigger than demo includes advanced gunnery in their list, but it never happens... because people aren't idiots.

So with the idiot factor removed from the equation what I see is for the first time my 134pt squadron fleet having 3 solid objective choices in precision strike/superior positions and fighter ambush as opposed to now where I run 2/3 and everyone naturally picks the soft 3rd objective (contested outpost). With my new deck the decision is basically to try and out fighter me with superior or fighter ambush which you might do if you're as invested in squads as me, or else your best option is precision strike if you aren't. And that's not much of a best option really.... much stronger deck now thanks to CC. Anyone who doesn't see that yet will be educated at the next comp they go to.

This is exactly what so many people are missing. The deployment issue is valid sure but the idea of having my squadrons alphastruck is a joke unless I set up my squadrons within range of your alpha strikers knowing full well that you will have first turn.

So if you are looking across the table at a fellow 130+ squadron list, what exactly is your advantage as second player? I'm not saying it's not a huge advantage when you as the second player are the one getting a clear advantage from the special rule. My worry is when both players can, because then I'm seeing zero advantage for the second player. In your Precision Strike/Fighter Ambush/Superior Positions, and I'm using a squadron heavy list myself as first player, I'm taking Fighter Ambush without a moment's hesitation. Also, Precision Strike is hardly a bad choice either. Take Most Wanted since you probably have a flotilla or two

This is exactly what so many people are missing. The deployment issue is valid sure but the idea of having my squadrons alphastruck is a joke unless I set up my squadrons within range of your alpha strikers knowing full well that you will have first turn.

So if you are looking across the table at a fellow 130+ squadron list, what exactly is your advantage as second player? I'm not saying it's not a huge advantage when you as the second player are the one getting a clear advantage from the special rule. My worry is when both players can, because then I'm seeing zero advantage for the second player. In your Precision Strike/Fighter Ambush/Superior Positions, and I'm using a squadron heavy list myself as first player, I'm taking Fighter Ambush without a moment's hesitation. Also, Precision Strike is hardly a bad choice either. Take Most Wanted since you probably have a flotilla or two

If we see a shift of the 130 point fighter boys moving to these three missions I think it will fix the dominance of that type of list. Yes it's a neutral pick if you are both fighter heavy ( you can use asteroid placement as a weapon of mis direction, he goes first) but the meta is very mixed and for all the rest I think the addition of this mission will let you heavy fighter types own the drivers of ship heavy lists like mine. I predict that I will be seeing a lot more lists with 130+ points of fighters.

This is exactly what so many people are missing. The deployment issue is valid sure but the idea of having my squadrons alphastruck is a joke unless I set up my squadrons within range of your alpha strikers knowing full well that you will have first turn.

So if you are looking across the table at a fellow 130+ squadron list, what exactly is your advantage as second player? I'm not saying it's not a huge advantage when you as the second player are the one getting a clear advantage from the special rule. My worry is when both players can, because then I'm seeing zero advantage for the second player. In your Precision Strike/Fighter Ambush/Superior Positions, and I'm using a squadron heavy list myself as first player, I'm taking Fighter Ambush without a moment's hesitation. Also, Precision Strike is hardly a bad choice either. Take Most Wanted since you probably have a flotilla or two

I agree. Most Wanted would be my preferred red option for my Rieekan MC80c, Yavaris, 2xGR75 4xB-Wing, 4 Aces list. I was caught out by Precision Strike when facing a Dodonna opponent with bombers and 3 APTs and it wasn't pretty.

I will still risk Fighter Ambush with only a measly 119 points of fighters as Tallon and Yavaris can beef up their effectiveness in the bomber or fighter roles. Contested outpost has become a potential liability due to Interdictor Gravity Shift.

Superior Positions is always a favourite.

Planetary Ion Cannon is my go to now. Zero risk, all benefit. Even if you don't get a shot, it helps you dictate deployment. I need to play around with Fighter Ambush to confirm my worries, but Planetary Ion Cannon is just so...safe. It's also not all that scary for the first player since you may be able to avoid the tokens and there are no victory tokens that the second player can rack up.

So if you are looking across the table at a fellow 130+ squadron list, what exactly is your advantage as second player? I'm not saying it's not a huge advantage when you as the second player are the one getting a clear advantage from the special rule. My worry is when both players can, because then I'm seeing zero advantage for the second player. In your Precision Strike/Fighter Ambush/Superior Positions, and I'm using a squadron heavy list myself as first player, I'm taking Fighter Ambush without a moment's hesitation. Also, Precision Strike is hardly a bad choice either. Take Most Wanted since you probably have a flotilla or two

The advantage comes if you play it better. You both have lots of squads so the guy who wins the squadron fight will get heaps of points and add that to his total. I'm a fan of any mission where the potential exists to expand your margins call it the risk high reward.

The other side of the advantage that you don't have to pick a different yellow. Contested outpost isn't an ideal objective for someone running full squads, but it's what you have at the moment. Hyperspace assault can be great but it can seriously bite you in the arse. If I was running Imp squads and still including demo I'd probably go for hyperspace over fighter ambush but the equivalent ship that is almost as powerful as second player doesn't exist for Rebs which makes hyperspace less of a great option. I've seen it backfire too many times for me. Much like fleet ambush.

I'm wondering now if 2-3 large or medium Imperial ships might benefit from blockade run and just slow roll to the other side

I'm wondering now if 2-3 large or medium Imperial ships might benefit from blockade run and just slow roll to the other side

I can see this coming:

Imperial player waits with 2 Vics 1 Dictor at his deployment zone at speed 0.

Rebel player speeds up so it takes 5 turns to reach just outside the opponent deployment zone.

Turn 6, rebel player speeds up, ends in deployment zone. Cashes-in the points while the imperial player missed his opportunity?

I'm really not sure about this objective

I'm wondering now if 2-3 large or medium Imperial ships might benefit from blockade run and just slow roll to the other side

I can see this coming:

Imperial player waits with 2 Vics 1 Dictor at his deployment zone at speed 0.

Rebel player speeds up so it takes 5 turns to reach just outside the opponent deployment zone.

Turn 6, rebel player speeds up, ends in deployment zone. Cashes-in the points while the imperial player missed his opportunity?

I'm really not sure about this objective

I think as an Imperial player going first you would have to aggressively hunt them down and try to stop them. It's perfect if you happen to be running a Konstantine/ tractor beam list but I don't see the point in building my list around an objective my opponent might have

I'm not too bothered by slippery MSU fleets playing Blockade Run as second player.

My fleet only has to get 2 kills to gain 40 points while let say the enemy slips past with 4 ships scoring 80. So I'm 40 points down but I have killed 2 ships. Combat is still the primary way both sides should be getting their VPs as is usual for most games of Armada.

A second player who purposefully avoids contact to score touchdowns (_{sorry, I just picked up my new copy of Blood Bowl and can't help but see the similarities}) with each of his ships isn't inflicting much damage and risks being caught out by an ISD forking 2 corvettes and loosing one.

A nice review on Bell Of Lost Souls of the new objectives:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/11/sw-armada-new-corellian-objectives-reviewed.html

A nice review on Bell Of Lost Souls of the new objectives:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/11/sw-armada-new-corellian-objectives-reviewed.html

Caveat:

They start by saying Fighter Ambush is Awesome, and then go on to say Planetary Ion is awful... So If you have an established Mindset like our buddy Truthiness, be forwarned

BOLS also declared Ackbar as the best Rebel commander in existence not that long ago, so take them for what you will.

*EDIT* They're not far off on the general points. They at least recognize that Fighter Ambush can go the other way. They don't seem to recognize how large distance 3 is, but that's forgivable unless you've seen it on the table. The Ion Cannon is definitely not a huge advantage, and I generally prefer objectives with victory tokens as well. However, it is undeniably safe. As Biggs put it, it's fairly akin to Minefields, with all the deployment manipulation that goes with that.

I'm not so sure about blockade run, it doesn't have that capasity to force a game like some of the others do. I mean if you want to sit in the endzone making it a fortress and too tough for the opponent they will just park in the middle of the board and win by default as second player. Since you only get the points in turn 6 as well it seems like your movement becomes pretty predictable which is never a good thing.

I'm not so sure about blockade run, it doesn't have that capasity to force a game like some of the others do. I mean if you want to sit in the endzone making it a fortress and too tough for the opponent they will just park in the middle of the board and win by default as second player. Since you only get the points in turn 6 as well it seems like your movement becomes pretty predictable which is never a good thing.

Blockade Run seems to have the interesting effect of giving some initiative to the second player insomuch as it basically reads "the second player will win the game unless you stop him." This is also true of positional objectives like Fire Lanes and Contested Outpost but it's not as immediately apparent with Blockade Run. A first player that is too aggressive risks having the second player's ships overshoot him and be thenceforth uncatchable. A first player that is too passive risks having the second player's ships wait him out and grab the points at the end of the game for at least a 7-4 win. If the first player tries to stagger his forces (with a front line to break up blockade runners and then a rear line to destroy them) he risks being destroyed piecemeal by the entirety of the enemy fleet focusing on his separated components. It puts the first player in a tough spot and gives the second player a lot of good options. The fact that it's not immediately seen this way gives it the impression of being a "safe" choice, but I think that perception is potentially extremely dangerous.

And if first player turtles in the deployment zone than all second player has to do is just finish his move on turn 6 there and survive. Not very hard to do since you will probably have activation superiority if you took blockade run.

BOLS also declared Ackbar as the best Rebel commander in existence not that long ago, so take them for what you will.

*EDIT* They're not far off on the general points. They at least recognize that Fighter Ambush can go the other way. They don't seem to recognize how large distance 3 is, but that's forgivable unless you've seen it on the table. The Ion Cannon is definitely not a huge advantage, and I generally prefer objectives with victory tokens as well. However, it is undeniably safe. As Biggs put it, it's fairly akin to Minefields, with all the deployment manipulation that goes with that.

Ion cannons could be nasty, as you say it's a large area of the board covered, add in playing your obsticals well, maybe with interdictor for further battle field sculpting, some good speed modification and it's going to be a mare for the opposition.