Slightly off-topic and I'm sure it was probably discussed in other threads - why are non-bomber squadrons allowed to do damage to capital ship shields? Just thinking about it now, shouldn't a capital ship's shields be strong enough to ignore laser fire from snub fighters? If I were to redesign how combat works, I'd say that if a ship's shields are down then they can be attacked by any fighter against that hull zone, but only bombers can damage enemy shields to open up the hull.

Slightly off-topic and I'm sure it was probably discussed in other threads - why are non-bomber squadrons allowed to do damage to capital ship shields? Just thinking about it now, shouldn't a capital ship's shields be strong enough to ignore laser fire from snub fighters?

In the context of Rebels, TIE Interceptors seem to be able to punch through shields and do damage to both Gallofree Transports and Corvettes, all on their own.

And Darth Vader's TIE Advanced was very good at mangling a Pelta-class.

I could see shields being less tough in the newcanon than they were in the EU.

Why don't people fly with more H9s if they are concerned with the flotilla meta?

Also, for the record I regularly lose the squadron war with my mate, yet I've won 5 of our last 5 games. Go figure.

I certainly intend to invest more in H9s, as I become more concerned with flotillas.

Regarding your record, could you give more details, if your point is to dispute the notion of the squadron game being all-important? Do you lose the squadron game because you don't bring enough bombers to get through your mate's fighter screen, or do you not bring enough fighters to contain your mate's bombers. Or, do you both bring balanced squadron complements?

The thing about fighter screens is that you want to bring just enough to diminish the threat from bombers. Any more than that and you're more likely to have lost build-points on the exchange.

Slightly off-topic and I'm sure it was probably discussed in other threads - why are non-bomber squadrons allowed to do damage to capital ship shields? Just thinking about it now, shouldn't a capital ship's shields be strong enough to ignore laser fire from snub fighters? If I were to redesign how combat works, I'd say that if a ship's shields are down then they can be attacked by any fighter against that hull zone, but only bombers can damage enemy shields to open up the hull.

Shields have never been, to my recollection, a complete block to laser-cannon fire. It's just a question of the shield capacitors (modeled in this game by engineering points being spent to bring shields back up) being able to keep the shields up more than the fighters can bring it down.

Slightly off-topic and I'm sure it was probably discussed in other threads - why are non-bomber squadrons allowed to do damage to capital ship shields? Just thinking about it now, shouldn't a capital ship's shields be strong enough to ignore laser fire from snub fighters? If I were to redesign how combat works, I'd say that if a ship's shields are down then they can be attacked by any fighter against that hull zone, but only bombers can damage enemy shields to open up the hull.

Shields have never been, to my recollection, a complete block to laser-cannon fire. It's just a question of the shield capacitors (modeled in this game by engineering points being spent to bring shields back up) being able to keep the shields up more than the fighters can bring it down.

Yeah I guess it just seems a bit strange to me...turbo-lasers that probably require massive amounts of equipment & energy to fire properly do the same damage as a tie-fighter pew-pew-pewing? I would think that capital ship shields would easily be able to absorb/dissipate/whatever the energy output from snub fighters.

IMO, instead of QLTs, we should have had Flak Cannons. For the same price, they fire counter 1 black die instead of blue die. But it's too late now, we have QLTs for 5, so Flak Cannons would likely cost 7...

IMO, instead of QLTs, we should have had Flak Cannons. For the same price, they fire counter 1 black die instead of blue die. But it's too late now, we have QLTs for 5, so Flak Cannons would likely cost 7...

No flak cannon should have critical hits add 1 pt of damage

hmmm actually, I think your idea is what Point defense reroute should have been from the start.

"I don't like star fighters so they are bad."

Star fighters are an important accept of fleet combat. They're supposed to be a problem.

Me thinks someone just built a fotm GenCon fleet and is now mad they can't win with it.

Despite the poor title, this is not the complaint of anyone here. Even Norsehound, a strong proponent of large capital ship lists, is happy for the new TIE Defenders and frustrated by the ineffective and extremely fragile TIE Fighters.

The issue is that so many squadrons are much more efficient than equivalent points in ships, that players who build entirely around a maximized core of quality squadrons cannot be seriously competed against by most all-ship lists. Even lists with dedicated anti-fighter tools are often picked apart with minimal difficulty by massed squadrons, especially Rhymerballs which operate outside the range of most dedicated anti-squadron defenses.

While trying to avoid any direct spoilers, the last two Star Wars films both confirm that AA defenses are indeed effective at defending against squadrons like X-Wings and Y-Wings, even though they are not as effective as other squadrons. This doesn't feel like the case in Armada, where large ships often do not pose any significant threat to most popular squadrons unless they stay in close range for extended periods. It also feels that many large ships don't pose nearly as much of a threat to other large ships as an equivalent cost in squadrons do, even with heavy squadron screens protecting their target.

I'd like to see these spoilers that show capital ships being "effective" against squadrons in the movie. In Rogue One, at least one Star Destroyer would completely disagree with you. In TFA another capital ship had extreme difficulty trying to damage a single ship. Sure, it was able to do so after awhile but that's pretty awful.

Whenever there's a conversation about squadrons and someone insists that TIE Fighters are awful I just get all

Please don't misunderstand me: I'm glad that we're getting some options for Imperial players who would prefer a more durable and flexible fighter squadron (hello TIE Defenders) but the lessons learned in getting good with TIE Fighters pay off with any kind of fighter squadron (they just pay off the most with TIE Fighters because they're effectively required for them to be used effectively). With that said I strongly encourage those who have given up on TIEs to keep at it.

I may revisit them in the future when I'm better at moving squadrons... but my primary opponent now is someone who runs a Yavaris B-Wing ball and I want to crush it. I feel this requires taking fighters that can stand to take a hit, since that Yavaris' X-Wing and B-Wing ball is augmented by an Escort Frigate Yavaris with Toryn Farr. I don't expect Fighters to last long against that if my initial assault wave isn't successful at downing more than a couple of fighters.

Honestly I just want ships with large batteries to be valued for that again instead of their high fighter command rating. What good is a big battery if you can't hit the targets you want to shoot at (Fighters, small ships that hang out at long range)?

I may revisit them in the future when I'm better at moving squadrons... but my primary opponent now is someone who runs a Yavaris B-Wing ball and I want to crush it. I feel this requires taking fighters that can stand to take a hit, since that Yavaris' X-Wing and B-Wing ball is augmented by an Escort Frigate Yavaris with Toryn Farr. I don't expect Fighters to last long against that if my initial assault wave isn't successful at downing more than a couple of fighters.

Honestly I just want ships with large batteries to be valued for that again instead of their high fighter command rating. What good is a big battery if you can't hit the targets you want to shoot at (Fighters, small ships that hang out at long range)?

Run an all ship list of MC30s, a flotilla or two, maybe a TRC corvette. Run a huge bid for first, go first, one shot his Yavaris with an MC30.

The trick is using initiative to drive a high speed MC30 into close range of Yavaris (you out activate with an all ship list so he won't fire back, you might take a couple of B-wing shots but with Mothma and redirects you should survive), then next round have that MC30 blow its load and then get out of there at speed 4 so its out of range of bombers. Honestly your other ships are irrelevant because you can just have them goofing off in corner because their real purpose is for out activating. You can just win the game by just killing Yavaris and just baiting/running away with your other ships. It's cheesy but it'll teach these people to think twice about their squadron heavy list.

I may revisit them in the future when I'm better at moving squadrons... but my primary opponent now is someone who runs a Yavaris B-Wing ball and I want to crush it. I feel this requires taking fighters that can stand to take a hit, since that Yavaris' X-Wing and B-Wing ball is augmented by an Escort Frigate Yavaris with Toryn Farr. I don't expect Fighters to last long against that if my initial assault wave isn't successful at downing more than a couple of fighters.

Honestly I just want ships with large batteries to be valued for that again instead of their high fighter command rating. What good is a big battery if you can't hit the targets you want to shoot at (Fighters, small ships that hang out at long range)?

Also. if you want to beat someone with squadrons... The best defense is more fighters. ISN'T THAT DUMB??

(Okay, for real though, a non-paltry number of fighters, ... say more thna 6, around 8 to 10, which already eats into your points count, and then adding things like Raiders, but at that point you're not playing the game you want to play. You're playing his **** game of beat the **** fighters. And you definitely don't have enough room now to kit a nice large ship AND not lose to MSU tactics.)

I'd like to see these spoilers that show capital ships being "effective" against squadrons in the movie. In Rogue One, at least one Star Destroyer would completely disagree with you. In TFA another capital ship had extreme difficulty trying to damage a single ship. Sure, it was able to do so after awhile but that's pretty awful.

That's why.

I'd like to see these spoilers that show capital ships being "effective" against squadrons in the movie. In Rogue One, at least one Star Destroyer would completely disagree with you. In TFA another capital ship had extreme difficulty trying to damage a single ship. Sure, it was able to do so after awhile but that's pretty awful.

When are we going to come full circle and say Demolisher is OP again?

Armada was designed, and sold to the public, as a game about large ships fighting each other. Squadrons weren't a big sell, or a big push - FFG has X-Wing for that. More of a "side action" to the main business of large ships shooting at each other again and again. If a squadron or few did happed to attack and deal damage to a ship, great, if not, no big deal. I remember podcasts talking about only taking 4 TIE Fighters as a starfighter screen, and being effective at it.

Then Worlds 2015 happened and Jonathan Reinig showed just how powerful an A-Wing swarm can be against the Gencon Special, and the amount of damage that they can dish out during a game. The same thing happened in 2016 but with Y-Wings supported by HWK's and YT-1300's.

I believe that for their point cost, compared to what starships can do, squadrons are under costed, or at least have way to much health for their price. That, coupled with flotillias and Bomber Command for multiple bomber reroll's, squadrons are necessary, and a max point squadron section is almost required.

Let me break it down this way. The GR-75 Combat Retrofit (24 points) has a single blue die to deal with starships, and another blue to deal with squadrons. It boasts a total of 4 points of damage absorption "life", with only a single scatter to try stop damage. The single evade is good for long and medium distances, but is worthless close up. So, as long as the attacker is able to deal 4 damage and have a single accuracy (or 2), the GR-75 is all but guaranteed dead. And that doesn't include all the other things that the ship can do, like upgrades that it can take. So, for 24 points you get a really good ship.

Now, lets compare that to a single A-Wing squadron (11points). It has speed 5 so it goes faster than the GR-75. It has the same "life" at 4. It has a better anti-squadron armament at 3 blues, and can attack ships at range 1 with a single black die. And, it has an ability to attack with 2 dice against a squadron that just attacked it. True, it doesn't get any tokens or have the ability to take upgrades. But, for a single A-Wing Squadron, you are getting a lot of bang for your buck, and if you want to compare points to points, you can take 2 A-Wings for less than the cost of the GR-75.

Even worse is the Y-Wing(10 points) when compared to the GR-75. It can move about the same speed as the GR-75, can attack squadrons with 2 blue dice, and ships with a single black die. And, because the Y-Wing is a bomber, the crit on the black die counts as more damage, and the ship can be affected by cards that affect bombers (I'm looking at you Bomber Command). I am ignoring heavy as it has no affect with/against starships. All that, and 6 points of hull. So. no single attack can actually kill the Y-Wing, and it generally takes 2-3 squadrons to attack the Y-Wing be able to kill it, as accuracies mean nothing, as well as crits. Finally, for 20 points you get two of them.

So, how do we fix this problem? First off, starships need to be able to deal more damage a turn against squadrons. Or, instead of rolling dice to see if you damage squadrons, have a set amount of damage on each arc that the ship can do, and the player can put that damage on how many ship(s) they want. So, like, the GR-75 might be able to deal 1 damage to a single squadron (guaranteed) out of each arc, an ISD might be able to deal 6 damage per arc. That's total, so against 2 A-Wings 1 would be dead, the other at 1/2 health. But, against a couple of YT-1300's, 1 would be at 1 hull, the other at full hull.

Or, reduce the number of hull points each squadron has. Reducing the amount of hull a squadron has allows them to die easier to not only other squadrons, but ships as well. I can easily see a reduction of 1 hull point for every squadron.

Finally, I can see a squadron being reduced in points from 134 to 100. While that won't make the problem go away, per se, it does make the issue a little less hard to deal with. Or, make Bomber Command unique.

And now, on to wave 5. Right now, there is very little in the wave that I see changing the squadron heavy mindset. And, some of it, like Relay, only makes it worse. True, they did come out with some nice new abilities, but how many of them can really, truly change the meta? The ships? Same thing.