For the Flotillas to have a decent game affect they still need to be close to the rest of the fleet. Whether that's their Squadrons or Capitals.

Relay. I've had fun throwing a Gozanti off away from the battlefield and relaying his 2 squadron command through a Shuttle. It still provides activation advantage. It's safe to activate at any point, since it's far from the battlefield, yet it's still commanding two squadrons a turn thanks to that Shuttle.

Then you're putting half of its utility on a 16pt Shuttle... Almost Doubling its Base cost...

And that half utility only lasts until the Shuttle dies.

Not saying its a bad idea... Just pointing out its not as cut-and-dry - you are paying a penalty, of sorts, for the ability to run and hide.

For the Flotillas to have a decent game affect they still need to be close to the rest of the fleet. Whether that's their Squadrons or Capitals.

Relay. I've had fun throwing a Gozanti off away from the battlefield and relaying his 2 squadron command through a Shuttle. It still provides activation advantage. It's safe to activate at any point, since it's far from the battlefield, yet it's still commanding two squadrons a turn thanks to that Shuttle.

Yea Relay just breathed new life into the flotilla game. Being able to activate every squad from a single Lambda at distance infinite is amazing (use multiple ships with squad commands).

Granted you can kill the Lambda and it falls apart, but still. Very strong.

I believe many of the new toys actually help take down Flotillas and Flotillas are only powerful now because of their newness. They were seen as just small weak ships for activations but now that their true abilities have been seen they will be hunted down first to limit activation and stop their fleet benefits. Then the game will be normalized once more.

Just my opinion but if you send more than one attack at Flotillas they fall down fast. Then you can focus on the bigger ships as their activations become more limited. Just like sinking tons of points into one ship is a liability (Totally think you have that part right Undeadguy) sinking most of your activations into Flotillas can also bite you back mid game. Everything still seems like a give and take for now. Have your Rogue bombers hit the Flotillas first before swinging in on the big ships. For the Flotillas to have a decent game affect they still need to be close to the rest of the fleet. Whether that's their Squadrons or Capitals.

I don't think you should bring more than 2 flotillas, unless it is a super niche fleet like the 4 MC30 and 3 flotilla stuff.

I almost always would rather kill the damage dealing ships than flotillas if I have an option between the 2 (nothing new there, pretty sure everyone would agree). But I don't find it necessary to create or send a ship to only hunt flotillas like a Raider. Same with bombers. I'd rather hit an ISD than chase a flotilla. And I'd need to send multiple to overload the Scatter. At this point I'm send way too much to kill a little ship.

I'll take my shots when I get them, but almost never focus fire them down.

Always kill the support. With fire.

But on a more serious note I've so far never regretted shooting or going out of my way to kill a flotilla.

1. If the fleet relies on activation advantage, killing flotillas is an easy way to swing it back in your favor. One accuracy is generally all you need, or pull a few hammerhead maneuvers. They also aren't that fast or maneuverable to get out of dodge quick enough.

2. With flotillas around rogues have been on decline. Kill the flotillas and the swarm loses all of it's teeth. You also don't have to kill the fighters.

3. One turn shooting at a flotilla still give you plenty of more turns to shoot other stuff.

-edit- I recognize that #2 only holds true if flotillas are the only fighter pushers. It's just an example and at the very least means some fighters go unsupported.

For the Flotillas to have a decent game affect they still need to be close to the rest of the fleet. Whether that's their Squadrons or Capitals.

Relay. I've had fun throwing a Gozanti off away from the battlefield and relaying his 2 squadron command through a Shuttle. It still provides activation advantage. It's safe to activate at any point, since it's far from the battlefield, yet it's still commanding two squadrons a turn thanks to that Shuttle.

Still a good tactic to keep those Squadron Activations going but I think you understand what you are missing out on too.

As someone who pioneered one of those Squadronless Ship builds. I personally think the game is about what YOU as a player can make work. If you cant take out a Yavaris ball, figure out the issues and plan for them. If Rhymer is causing issues, find how to counter him by changing tactics.

I do feel that there should be meta that can include the triangle of three distinct fleet formations (plus a few random ones). These would be similar to the rock/paper/scissors formula you might find in other games like MtG. Your little to no squadron fleet, squadron support fleet, and your combined arms fleet.

I dislike rock/paper/scissors balance for wargames. battles should be decided by careful fleet design and tactics, not matchups.

example of rock/paper/scissors balance and why it is bad for wargames:

army A has crazy offensive melee , makes a mockery of armour and has good threat range, but is super fragile and easy to hit.

army B has great shoting power. automaticaly defeats army A.

army C has amazing stamina to withstand shooting and/or can turn completely invisible(like, UNTARGETABLE) against shooting . automaticaly defeats army B. automaticaly loses to army A due to lesser threat range.

in theory, these armies are balanced. in practice, when they play they just have to look at the cards and the losing matchup concedes. no need to play the game, the winner is decided. i am not making this up, there is an actual wargame out there, proponent of rock/paper/scissors balance, that is like that. like, "the whole army turns invisible for one turn" stuff, or "the whole army shoots twice" stuff. complete skew "if it works game over, if it doesnt then game over for the one using it" thingy.

i do not think we want an armada like that. where matchups decide the victor and the battle is a chore, the losing matchup having few, if ANY AT ALL, chances. rock/paper/scissors balance is a can of worms. do not open it.

edit: in rock/paper/scissors, you play in 1 minute. in mtg, you play for some minutes. even if you are in a losing matchup, you dont realy have to spend hours on end fighting a battle already lost. in armada and other wargames, after matchups are shown, you start playing and keep playing. its just no fun if its not at least close to 50/50.

the issue with claiming rock/paper/scissors is technically everything in any game is that way. Unlike in rock/paper/scissors though, rock CAN beat paper in most games but it isnt easy.

Hell, probably one of the best RTS games ive ever played was Command and Conquer, which used a very obvious r/p/s system. Tanks butchered buildings/vehicles, lost to grenade/rocket infantry, which lost to machinegun infantry/vehicles. In a nutshell, that was the game. But Tanks could run over infantry and machine guns could take out tanks if they juked enough.

Being such an old game it was obvious in its tactics and simplistic, but just about every game does the same thing. Unless you do what most FPS games do (each team is literally identical), how else would you balance factions that have different tactics other than have some gimicks not work that well against certain factions, but work great on others? The trick is keeping it from being as bad as r/p/s where rock cant beat paper no matter how hard rock tries. Which i havnt seen ANY game thats gotten off the ground be that bad, not even 40k is that bad.

the issue with claiming rock/paper/scissors is technically everything in any game is that way. Unlike in rock/paper/scissors though, rock CAN beat paper in most games but it isnt easy.

Hell, probably one of the best RTS games ive ever played was Command and Conquer, which used a very obvious r/p/s system. Tanks butchered buildings/vehicles, lost to grenade/rocket infantry, which lost to machinegun infantry/vehicles. In a nutshell, that was the game. But Tanks could run over infantry and machine guns could take out tanks if they juked enough.

Being such an old game it was obvious in its tactics and simplistic, but just about every game does the same thing. Unless you do what most FPS games do (each team is literally identical), how else would you balance factions that have different tactics other than have some gimicks not work that well against certain factions, but work great on others? The trick is keeping it from being as bad as r/p/s where rock cant beat paper no matter how hard rock tries. Which i havnt seen ANY game thats gotten off the ground be that bad, not even 40k is that bad.

Also unless you're playing a completely symmetrical game like Chess where the players have the exact same pieces you will always have a Rock-Paper-Scissors feel just like real life battles. Real life war is totally like this and is never a one-size-fits-all approach to Tactics. A military commander Has to think on their feet and adjust their strategy to the battle as it unfolds or you lose the battle, really really bad. Just look at every single great military historical example, history favors those that adjust their strategy and tactics to the battle and punishes those who adhere to a ridged style.

So you can play a symmetrical game that gives players the exact same tools and rules or you can play a War Game where you have to adjust your tactics to the flow of the game.

rock-paper-scissors doesnt mean "different tactics/characteristics". it means "inability to win/lose due to matchup being too important of a factor". the main characteristic of the rock/paper/scissors actual game, is its lack of tactics and reliance in guesswork.

warmachine is that bad. it literaly has abilities like "my army is untargetable by shooting for one turn, wha, you play gunline? gg i rush forward and open it and charge next turn." it also has abilities like "once per game, the whole enemy army loses one turn, WHA, you play an offensive army? gg i now get to attack you twice while you sit back and watch". in theory it is balanced, in practice it is completely matchup-dependant.

i prefer armada balance: all fleet styles are available to both factions, differences being in mere details.

you wanna play rebels with big ships matching star destroyers? sure, go take libs/mc80s instead of ISDs.

you wanna play imperials with ace pilots matching rebel heroes? sure, just use Rhymer/Mithel instead of the iconic Luke/Wedge.

you wanna play "small ship Imps? guns-blazing rebels? no cliches here. everyone can do everything, just tiiiiny details for flavor".

so, no matter what the "best list for the meta" is, both factions will be able to play it.

I admit i barely know anything about Warmahordes Mk3, as i played in Mk2 but didnt play for long as the local cutthroat tourny people were pissing me off. But you did spark some memories that it had some insanely hard counter mechanics to it *cough* Sightless Sniping tactics *cough* - i almost got back into it just because i really want an obsidian-themed golem army from the Circle but i dont think i can support 3 games lol. It kinda sounds like it went down the "Everything is OP so everything is balanced!" route that DOTA does - except in a turn based scenario that doesnt work all too well. In a Real Time scenario, you can truely balance that way because of reactions being a factor. No idea how many times ive countered a Faceless ult with a well timed Pudge hook lol.

Armada definitely as a well-rounded list feel to it. Even as a rookie i feel massive gaps in a list i make that would cripple me if my opponent would just happen to have that tactic in his list. Probably my xwing experience blinding me more than legit fear though lol.

armada is a wargame.

Yeah, I agree, and as you mentioned this article is very old in the terms of a living game.

Armada at its core is a game before a, well, rpg. I would just prefer if the more iconic ships like x-wings were just more viable than they are currently. It isn't a big enough issue for me to go up in arms and stop playing, just grumble and continue playing a fantastic game.

Something i do not think most people realize is that it is a living game. Eventually a new meta will spring up where squadrons are worthless again, just the ebb and flow of waves.

armada is a wargame.

Yeah, I agree, and as you mentioned this article is very old in the terms of a living game.

Armada at its core is a game before a, well, rpg. I would just prefer if the more iconic ships like x-wings were just more viable than they are currently. It isn't a big enough issue for me to go up in arms and stop playing, just grumble and continue playing a fantastic game.

Something i do not think most people realize is that it is a living game. Eventually a new meta will spring up where squadrons are worthless again, just the ebb and flow of waves.

i understand. however, some insight:

1) wave 1 world champ was not gencon special. wave 1 world champ was assault frigates and 8 x a-wings (in 300 pts list... thats almost full limit squadrons). squadrons were never realy useless. just people were getting lazy in their usage.

2) right now there are ZERO ships and squadrons that do not have a place in any competitive list. sure, they may not combine well, and they may not have the same role. more improtantly, there are few, if any, ships worth taking in multiples (except flotillas) but if you buy a model of (insert ship/squadron name) with all its cards, there is ZERO chance of it just collecting dust in the shelf.

for example, x-wings and victory class star destroyers have bad rep, but in fact they are staples in some of the most long-running efficient lists- x-wings to escort Moldy Crow, for a mighty fighter screen (or bomber screen if you can invest more points), and victory class as carriers in rhymerball lists. the same applies to other ships/squadrons too.

i DARE you to play any other wargame capable of boasting that.play something else and watch your models dusting on the shelf.

i DARE you to play any other wargame capable of boasting that.play something else and watch your models dusting on the shelf.

I absolutely agree. Like I said, fantastic game that is incredibally balanced. I think someone else mentioned that the only viable way for revels to take down an isd is through a bombing run (I mean, look at rogue one).

Wait, in a game where Rebels have Bomber Command Centers, Toryn Farr, Z-95s, Y-Wings (and assorted extra special unique Y-Wings), Biggs, and Jan Ors, how are X-Wings anything but staple fundamental squadrons?

Awings mostly

Dont think the x is real great until you start suppotting it with the other stuff ypu mentioned minus the Zs amd Ys

Ie BCC xs with biggs seem pretty fine against anytjing

rock-paper-scissors doesnt mean "different tactics/characteristics". it means "inability to win/lose due to matchup being too important of a factor". the main characteristic of the rock/paper/scissors actual game, is its lack of tactics and reliance in guesswork.

warmachine is that bad. it literaly has abilities like "my army is untargetable by shooting for one turn, wha, you play gunline? gg i rush forward and open it and charge next turn." it also has abilities like "once per game, the whole enemy army loses one turn, WHA, you play an offensive army? gg i now get to attack you twice while you sit back and watch". in theory it is balanced, in practice it is completely matchup-dependant.

i prefer armada balance: all fleet styles are available to both factions, differences being in mere details.

you wanna play rebels with big ships matching star destroyers? sure, go take libs/mc80s instead of ISDs.

you wanna play imperials with ace pilots matching rebel heroes? sure, just use Rhymer/Mithel instead of the iconic Luke/Wedge.

you wanna play "small ship Imps? guns-blazing rebels? no cliches here. everyone can do everything, just tiiiiny details for flavor".

so, no matter what the "best list for the meta" is, both factions will be able to play it.

There's one major problem with that and it's the idea that the definition you use for the idea of rock/paper/scissors: one of absolutes and it's essentially a fallacy. Here's a good example of what rock/paper/scissors can mean in a game: link

Sure, you might say this is about a card game but it doesn't really matter if it deals with a war game, card game, living card game, or whatever. Yes, it talks about a sideboard (something that armada doesn't use) but just look at the basic points that are made. Particular interest about meta gaming or even about hybridization. Yes, meta gaming in armada has been brought up.