Its in the timing and the combined arms, indeed.

Imperial Star Destroyers are BattleCarriers basically... To neglect any one part of them is to neglect a point of strength and thus, go into battle one hand tied behind their back...

...As a Rebel, I'd kill for something outfitted like an ISD.

There are lots of things as an Imperial player I'd love from the Rebel side. For instance, some more general purpose hull 5+ fighters that I don't have to pay an arm and a leg for. Activation gimmicks like Yavaris and Adar Tallon would also be nice- only thing we have there is Jendon.

I still don't like Intel. With Jan Ors you can protect a bunch of generic X-Wings, and move her to make sure fighters trying to clear your bombers don't tie up those bombers. So as Empire I'm driving a bunch of TIE Defenders in on you to engage your bombers and stop them from attacking by Star Destroyer? That's nice, here's Jan Ors to allow Norra and friends to wipe out my shields. And Rieekan means even if I manage to kill Jan without losing all my fighters to an X-Wing reprisal and counter, she's still locking them down for another turn. Then someone like Shara Bey can move in and still lock down all those fighters, possibly killing all of them in the process with Counter.

Even if I take Dengar with a Soontir fel Bodyguard, what's 1 damage when a couple of X-Wings fire and finish him off? Generic Jumpmasters have it even worse with no defense tokens and only 4 hull and no counter.

I'm wondering if against a max-fighter build I'm going to have to equip my entire fighter wing to kill it, because there's so much good rebel stuff to overcome. If my fighters can't do that, a general purpose max fighter Rebel list can kill both fighters and capital ships pretty easily if I can't gut it somehow before my capital ships engage.

But then, I would also guess that the community is rarely facing max Rebel fighter builds like I do.

A ship with a Red Antisquadron value.

IMHO I thought the ISD should have had that.

A ship with a Red Antisquadron value.

IMHO I thought the ISD should have had that.

I'm very glad it doesn't, tyvm

Its in the timing and the combined arms, indeed.

Imperial Star Destroyers are BattleCarriers basically... To neglect any one part of them is to neglect a point of strength and thus, go into battle one hand tied behind their back...

A Pure carrier relies just on its squadron component, and lacks the ability to follow up (or lead) with massive damage itself.

A pure battleship relies on just its Guns, and lacks the ability to lead or follow up (or screen itself) with a Fighter Contingent.

The ISD is the Jack of All Trades. To see it as anything else, is to neglect part of it. It has Speed, it has Hull, it has shields, it has Squadron Command and it has Firepower.

And it doesn't seem to compromise on any of those points.

Leveraging all of its strengths isn't a point-and-click matter, at all... But the player who has learned how to utilise it - to launch a squadron screening strike (just when needed), to Speed into and through the enemy, to bring the Guns to Bear, to weather the storm, and to leave the enemy command in its wake (because, frankly, Nothing except another ISD has that wonderful blend of Weapons, Arc, Speed, Shields and Squadron Command that you do)... They're compromising somewhere, where you have the best of all the worlds...

Its an unfortunate observation in my fields that a lot of poeple just want the ISD to be the big bruising badass, and point blankly refuse to learn the subtlety required to balance something that is of the ilk...

You seem to be someone who is experimenting, so I'm sure you'll see it through to the end

As a Rebel, I'd kill for something outfitted like an ISD.

You have one, with everything critical except the squadrons. It's called an MC80 Liberty.

You'll notice that it isn't tearing up the charts. That's not an accident.

The ISD has a decent squadron value. But the gameplay scenarios force you to either focus on squadrons or firepower. And you must build with those in mind. So for the points you end up with either a substandard carrier, gun platform, or tank. In short, it's a jack of a few trades, but hardly a jack of all trades.

The game REALLY favors squadrons. If you have a merely decent carrier, you are at a disadvantage to real specialist carriers. If you have a gunship, you're at a disadvantage vs specialist carriers and squadrons. If you are a tank, you're still at a disadvantage vs squadrons. Only if you have an equally efficient carrier do you have parity.

When it comes to gunships vs carriers, there's no contest. Against any target you can imagine, carriers with a decent squadron contingent are many times better than gunships. Against gunships? Carriers. Against squadrons? Definitely carriers.

Want to kill a big bad ISD with Motti and a wave of fighters? The only realistic way is with a big ball of squadrons. Without Motti but still a wave of fighters? Big squadron balls. Same for any ship below it, including that floating tank Interdictor and the scatter-prone Gozanti and the Demolisher and the MC80 with its 15 combined shields and two redirects.

Well, certainly when you build lists you need to know where you're focusing your firepower. The most straightforward way is having the biggest battery on your ships so you can pound enemy craft to death under weight of fire. Once Ackbar upped the ante with the sheer amount of red dice he could pump downrange, players switched to MSU lists (less of a loss when they lose a ship, activation power, multiple small enhanced attacks overload a single ship's defense tokens). Or they switched to fighters (completely immune to Battery pools out of capital ships, multiple small enhanced attacks overload a single ship's defense tokens).

Those multiple small attacks make Brace not as worth it as it used to be when the game was about exchanging large batteries. Now you use it to stop the likely 2-3 damage coming out of BCC supported bombers, or save it until the carrier shoots. But if you preserve it to use it on a future turn, you're taking a lot of that 1-2 point damage creeping on your forward arc... all after Norra peels one off with a critical (which no Rebel fighter player is going to go without BCCs, and Toryn for dice control).

The multiple small attacks also force big ships to exhaust their 3-4 defense tokens readily to protect against the other threats and prevent damage to the hull. If you have brace and two redirects and suffer five bomber attacks with two damage each, how is your ship going to end up? Part of the reason Reinforced Blast Doors will make a surge in popularity is one, ECM is not as useful when getting hit with bomber clouds and two, those Bombers aren't doing enough damage to make Brace really effective.

Killing Motti ISDs is still possible with capital ships. DeMSU lists with loaded APTs and multiple attacks can do it. Big batteries still can do it. The thing is, I feel like specially built bomber balls from the Rebels can still beat all of those kinds of lists, making them superior. All because there is not an effective way to easily remove those hull 5+ fighters from the table.

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

Depends on what it is put on. If you were trading 2-3 anti-ship dice off an ISD-base ship, in exchange for changing anti-squad to red/blue, it probably wouldn't kill squad play.

But a 30-40 point escort with 1 red AA against every squad in arc? yes, that would reduce squad lists to irrelevance, because you could take 3-4 of them for the same cost as a fighter wing, and have multiple overlapping flak bubbles, plus the core of your fleet with it's own AA fire to contribute. A red anti-squad die is not 2x better than a blue one, it's 4x better.

You are really Short sighted. Lets say it is as powerfull as you say and it makes squadron play irrevelant. What Next then? On one hand, People Will bring bigger Guns to one-shot these ships to protect their figthers. Does it help the now struggling big ships? Yes. On the other hand, if it kills the squad game, there Will be no need for tem anymore, People Will bring play them less. With less Anti squad ships, ppl Will bring squads again. There Will be a balance.

Just like with the flotillas. Many of us brings a dedicated flotilla Killer, since Every list has at least one these Days. Did flotillas break the game? Sort of. Is armada Good? Yes. So stop moaning.

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

Depends on what it is put on. If you were trading 2-3 anti-ship dice off an ISD-base ship, in exchange for changing anti-squad to red/blue, it probably wouldn't kill squad play.

But a 30-40 point escort with 1 red AA against every squad in arc? yes, that would reduce squad lists to irrelevance, because you could take 3-4 of them for the same cost as a fighter wing, and have multiple overlapping flak bubbles, plus the core of your fleet with it's own AA fire to contribute. A red anti-squad die is not 2x better than a blue one, it's 4x better.

You are really Short sighted. Lets say it is as powerfull as you say and it makes squadron play irrevelant. What Next then? On one hand, People Will bring bigger Guns to one-shot these ships to protect their figthers. Does it help the now struggling big ships? Yes. On the other hand, if it kills the squad game, there Will be no need for tem anymore, People Will bring play them less. With less Anti squad ships, ppl Will bring squads again. There Will be a balance.

Just like with the flotillas. Many of us brings a dedicated flotilla Killer, since Every list has at least one these Days. Did flotillas break the game? Sort of. Is armada Good? Yes. So stop moaning.

I'm pointing out why this specific idea is a bad one for anti-squad options. Look at the other posts I've made in the thread. I've thrown out several ideas for other ways to make ships deal with bombers better, that wouldn't risk breaking the game.

Keep putting out ides of your own. But respect that any offensive option you come up with needs to have ways to overcome it with smart flying. Increasing anti-squad firepower in specific arcs, for example. look at defensive options as well.

"Want to kill a big bad ISD with Motti and a wave of fighters? The only realistic way is with a big ball of squadrons."

Am I the only person that kills Motti ISDs with ship focused list? (sounds way more snarky than I intend but a serious question because I am actually kind of curious now)

Tactica just to be helpful: A lot of people are incredibly worried about keeping their ships intact, but in most wargames the general strategies come down to piece trading. Too often when people play Armada they tend to play too tentatively. If you take a ship focused list you have to play aggressive. You can't kill a Motti ISD by shooting it once or twice a turn. Start at speed 3+ and fire your entire fleet at it. You will be surprised at how quickly it melts. I take Defiance and 3 TRC90s and if I decide to play aggressively and roll average dice, it melts a Motti ISD in two to three turns reliably. I might lose a TRC90 or two doing but I come out ahead.

That is one of the issues I see most new players have with big ships. New players overload them with points, play defensively, and then start speed 1 meaning that your investment gives you nothing. You have to leverage and use the points you spend in this game effectively to be successful.

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

Depends on what it is put on. If you were trading 2-3 anti-ship dice off an ISD-base ship, in exchange for changing anti-squad to red/blue, it probably wouldn't kill squad play.

But a 30-40 point escort with 1 red AA against every squad in arc? yes, that would reduce squad lists to irrelevance, because you could take 3-4 of them for the same cost as a fighter wing, and have multiple overlapping flak bubbles, plus the core of your fleet with it's own AA fire to contribute. A red anti-squad die is not 2x better than a blue one, it's 4x better.

You are really Short sighted. Lets say it is as powerfull as you say and it makes squadron play irrevelant. What Next then? On one hand, People Will bring bigger Guns to one-shot these ships to protect their figthers. Does it help the now struggling big ships? Yes. On the other hand, if it kills the squad game, there Will be no need for tem anymore, People Will bring play them less. With less Anti squad ships, ppl Will bring squads again. There Will be a balance.

Just like with the flotillas. Many of us brings a dedicated flotilla Killer, since Every list has at least one these Days. Did flotillas break the game? Sort of. Is armada Good? Yes. So stop moaning.

I'm pointing out why this specific idea is a bad one for anti-squad options. Look at the other posts I've made in the thread. I've thrown out several ideas for other ways to make ships deal with bombers better, that wouldn't risk breaking the game.

Keep putting out ides of your own. But respect that any offensive option you come up with needs to have ways to overcome it with smart flying. Increasing anti-squad firepower in specific arcs, for example. look at defensive options as well.

I don't think you risk breaking the game by adding a cheaper long range AA option. Most people put it on a cheaper ship because if you put it on something as survivable as a large base you may just break the game. In a practical sense a red AA is really giving your ships another turn of shooting, that's it. People could find new and creative ways to use it but let's say you put it on a non-scatter flotillas, the additional round of shooting won't be the apocalypse to the fighter game and it may just get people comfortable enough to get over the fighters is god perception.

I don't think you risk breaking the game by adding a cheaper long range AA option. Most people put it on a cheaper ship because if you put it on something as survivable as a large base you may just break the game. In a practical sense a red AA is really giving your ships another turn of shooting, that's it. People could find new and creative ways to use it but let's say you put it on a non-scatter flotillas, the additional round of shooting won't be the apocalypse to the fighter game and it may just get people comfortable enough to get over the fighters is god perception.

Yes, but on the flipside of that... There is a portion of that crowd that, basically, If all their getting is an extra round of shooting, then they're likely to say "this is crap and does nothing."

There's no middle ground of comfort.

There's either Fighters Threatening them, or Fighters Not Threatening Them... They have the First, they want the second.

I don't think you risk breaking the game by adding a cheaper long range AA option. Most people put it on a cheaper ship because if you put it on something as survivable as a large base you may just break the game. In a practical sense a red AA is really giving your ships another turn of shooting, that's it. People could find new and creative ways to use it but let's say you put it on a non-scatter flotillas, the additional round of shooting won't be the apocalypse to the fighter game and it may just get people comfortable enough to get over the fighters is god perception.

Yes, but on the flipside of that... There is a portion of that crowd that, basically, If all their getting is an extra round of shooting, then they're likely to say "this is crap and does nothing."

There's no middle ground of comfort.

There's either Fighters Threatening them, or Fighters Not Threatening Them... They have the First, they want the second.

Can't make everyone happy right? Within this same thread...One red dice is useless...One red dice would make fighters obsolete. All I want is more options that help me be competitive, not auto win.

"Want to kill a big bad ISD with Motti and a wave of fighters? The only realistic way is with a big ball of squadrons."

Am I the only person that kills Motti ISDs with ship focused list? (sounds way more snarky than I intend but a serious question because I am actually kind of curious now)

I was wondering the same thing. Folks make it sound like the game has devolved into nothing but bomber-blobs and support for them, but that runs contrary to the games I watch. (The games I play are so far removed from the meta that they really don't count for this.)

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

I'm not suggesting it would be a hard counter, I'm suggesting it would make Maj Rhymer futile. My original idea forbade any AA fire against squadrons at distance 1. That would mean that with Maj Rhymer, you can sit at a distance, and get shot at with the ship's anti-squadron fire + red, OR you can close to standard fighter attack range, and take no AA fire at all. And if you're closing anyway, you don't need the Major.

Remember all of those times we saw capital ships sniping squadrons from extended ranges?

Or those times when the Empire was like "Bah, it's just a few fighters. We'll just let our point defense weapons take care of it"?

Its in the timing and the combined arms, indeed.

Imperial Star Destroyers are BattleCarriers basically... To neglect any one part of them is to neglect a point of strength and thus, go into battle one hand tied behind their back...

...As a Rebel, I'd kill for something outfitted like an ISD.

There are lots of things as an Imperial player I'd love from the Rebel side. For instance, some more general purpose hull 5+ fighters that I don't have to pay an arm and a leg for. Activation gimmicks like Yavaris and Adar Tallon would also be nice- only thing we have there is Jendon.

I still don't like Intel. With Jan Ors you can protect a bunch of generic X-Wings, and move her to make sure fighters trying to clear your bombers don't tie up those bombers. So as Empire I'm driving a bunch of TIE Defenders in on you to engage your bombers and stop them from attacking by Star Destroyer? That's nice, here's Jan Ors to allow Norra and friends to wipe out my shields. And Rieekan means even if I manage to kill Jan without losing all my fighters to an X-Wing reprisal and counter, she's still locking them down for another turn. Then someone like Shara Bey can move in and still lock down all those fighters, possibly killing all of them in the process with Counter.

Even if I take Dengar with a Soontir fel Bodyguard, what's 1 damage when a couple of X-Wings fire and finish him off? Generic Jumpmasters have it even worse with no defense tokens and only 4 hull and no counter.

I'm wondering if against a max-fighter build I'm going to have to equip my entire fighter wing to kill it, because there's so much good rebel stuff to overcome. If my fighters can't do that, a general purpose max fighter Rebel list can kill both fighters and capital ships pretty easily if I can't gut it somehow before my capital ships engage.

But then, I would also guess that the community is rarely facing max Rebel fighter builds like I do.

Have you never played against a Howlrunner, Dengar, Interceptor squadron force controlled by Flight Controllers? They simply chew through Rebel fighters, aces and all. Before wave 5, the Empire had the cheaper fighters but for the cheapness they were clearly defined anti-squad or bomber. They were bloody good too but lacked the versatility of the more expensive Rebel fighters. Now with wave 5 the Empire finally has access to some multipurpose fighters similar to the Rebels, but with that comes the increase in cost.

The thing is, as the Empire it was ok to bring a more dedicated anti-squad fighter selection, simply because their capital ships tended to carry bigger batteries than their Rebel counterparts.

...But on the other hand, I like the game to remain as "star wars-ey" as possible. "Fleet Combat" that doesn't require squadron support just feels... off. Star Wars isn't realistic space battles or even fantasy naval battles, it's star wars space battles. And Star Wars seems to show capital ships consistently weak against squadrons when not adequately supported by their own.

On the other hand, I think this is a concern for heavy ship players like myself, we don't want a zoomed out version of X-Wing epic play. We came to this game to do most of the fighting and list-building for our starships. We don't want the game to be determined by what mix of squadrons you have on the table. Ships should be the end all decider of which list wins or not. And I'm not talking about which carriers and carrier upgrades are the winners.

Fighters is an interesting addition to the game, but I and I think others feel this should be a sideshow. And for that, we need some defensive upgrades for ships to put fighters back in their place.

Nora and friends can strip the shields of big ships easily. Combined with how hard it is now for big ships to harm fighters, something's wrong. The only reason I'm investing in my big ships now is to ramp up the fighter rating so my interceptors can mulch Nora and her friends and score points that way.

But if you were to ask me what I'd like Armada to be about, I want it to be about my decked out space gunships with a serviceable fighter screen. We are far from that reality. We may not go entirely back to that, but I want Imperial big ships to have reason to bank concentrate fire again.

...But on the other hand, I like the game to remain as "star wars-ey" as possible. "Fleet Combat" that doesn't require squadron support just feels... off. Star Wars isn't realistic space battles or even fantasy naval battles, it's star wars space battles. And Star Wars seems to show capital ships consistently weak against squadrons when not adequately supported by their own.

On the other hand, I think this is a concern for heavy ship players like myself, we don't want a zoomed out version of X-Wing epic play. We came to this game to do most of the fighting and list-building for our starships. We don't want the game to be determined by what mix of squadrons you have on the table. Ships should be the end all decider of which list wins or not. And I'm not talking about which carriers and carrier upgrades are the winners.

Fighters is an interesting addition to the game, but I and I think others feel this should be a sideshow. And for that, we need some defensive upgrades for ships to put fighters back in their place.

Nora and friends can strip the shields of big ships easily. Combined with how hard it is now for big ships to harm fighters, something's wrong. The only reason I'm investing in my big ships now is to ramp up the fighter rating so my interceptors can mulch Nora and her friends and score points that way.

But if you were to ask me what I'd like Armada to be about, I want it to be about my decked out space gunships with a serviceable fighter screen. We are far from that reality. We may not go entirely back to that, but I want Imperial big ships to have reason to bank concentrate fire again.

Do you even movie bruh?

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

I'm not suggesting it would be a hard counter, I'm suggesting it would make Maj Rhymer futile. My original idea forbade any AA fire against squadrons at distance 1. That would mean that with Maj Rhymer, you can sit at a distance, and get shot at with the ship's anti-squadron fire + red, OR you can close to standard fighter attack range, and take no AA fire at all. And if you're closing anyway, you don't need the Major.

I dont see a difference in the terminology.

I like the donut hole limitation rather than retaining the option to either fire at range or up close - something that versatile should be very expensive.

Its in the timing and the combined arms, indeed.

Imperial Star Destroyers are BattleCarriers basically... To neglect any one part of them is to neglect a point of strength and thus, go into battle one hand tied behind their back...

...As a Rebel, I'd kill for something outfitted like an ISD.

There are lots of things as an Imperial player I'd love from the Rebel side. For instance, some more general purpose hull 5+ fighters that I don't have to pay an arm and a leg for. Activation gimmicks like Yavaris and Adar Tallon would also be nice- only thing we have there is Jendon.

I still don't like Intel. With Jan Ors you can protect a bunch of generic X-Wings, and move her to make sure fighters trying to clear your bombers don't tie up those bombers. So as Empire I'm driving a bunch of TIE Defenders in on you to engage your bombers and stop them from attacking by Star Destroyer? That's nice, here's Jan Ors to allow Norra and friends to wipe out my shields. And Rieekan means even if I manage to kill Jan without losing all my fighters to an X-Wing reprisal and counter, she's still locking them down for another turn. Then someone like Shara Bey can move in and still lock down all those fighters, possibly killing all of them in the process with Counter.

Even if I take Dengar with a Soontir fel Bodyguard, what's 1 damage when a couple of X-Wings fire and finish him off? Generic Jumpmasters have it even worse with no defense tokens and only 4 hull and no counter.

I'm wondering if against a max-fighter build I'm going to have to equip my entire fighter wing to kill it, because there's so much good rebel stuff to overcome. If my fighters can't do that, a general purpose max fighter Rebel list can kill both fighters and capital ships pretty easily if I can't gut it somehow before my capital ships engage.

But then, I would also guess that the community is rarely facing max Rebel fighter builds like I do.

Have you never played against a Howlrunner, Dengar, Interceptor squadron force controlled by Flight Controllers? They simply chew through Rebel fighters, aces and all. Before wave 5, the Empire had the cheaper fighters but for the cheapness they were clearly defined anti-squad or bomber. They were bloody good too but lacked the versatility of the more expensive Rebel fighters. Now with wave 5 the Empire finally has access to some multipurpose fighters similar to the Rebels, but with that comes the increase in cost.

The thing is, as the Empire it was ok to bring a more dedicated anti-squad fighter selection, simply because their capital ships tended to carry bigger batteries than their Rebel counterparts.

The last time I tried facing that fighter ball, I had:

Dengar / Fel / Cienna / Saber Squad / 3x VTs. Every activation had Flight controllers.

Still didn't work. Zombie Wedge blew up Dengar and pinned down my other fighters. Shara came in and I couldn't escape her. Cienna went next, followed by the Sabers. Out of his max list it was only two X-Wings down, I recall. Nora was still on the table and my VTs were slow to get into position. I called the game with one fresh VSD facing Norra, a couple of B-Wings, and Gold squadron.

I was considering taking TIE aces, I went to interceptor aces because they have bigger AA and defense tokens. Toryn Farr still ensured there was enough accuracy for every X-Wing attacking that needed it, so it didn't matter.

I do have the thought of pushing further into more Ties, more aces. Problem is the more aces you dedicate to squadron attack (like dropping a VT for more points for such) the less capable you are against capital ships. Empire is unique to this problem, since the Rebels are much more multirole. All of our multirole options (TIE Advanced, TIE Defender, VT) are on the pricey side, and lack something so universal and key like Bomber using stacked BCCs.

In theory the balance is supposed to be on how heavy imperial ships are with their battery... but Rebel fighters are overcoming them too much from where I'm sitting.

What about an upgrade that just lets a Ship count Crit rolls as damage against squadrons? That seems... pretty simple. If it was incredibly cheap, it could find a home in some.

If too ineffective, you could... have a crit count as 2 damage? Just make it more expensive / on a more "in demand" slot.

Note that this would hurt rebels, but it would make Major Rhymer all but useless.

I thought about making it something like, "If you are attacking at medium/long range, add one red die to battery." Either would be an interesting play.

I dont really see a single red die being a complete hard counter to a Rhymer-ball. Would it help? Hell yeah, but totally shut it down? I think thats a bit much.

Depends on what it is put on. If you were trading 2-3 anti-ship dice off an ISD-base ship, in exchange for changing anti-squad to red/blue, it probably wouldn't kill squad play.

But a 30-40 point escort with 1 red AA against every squad in arc? yes, that would reduce squad lists to irrelevance, because you could take 3-4 of them for the same cost as a fighter wing, and have multiple overlapping flak bubbles, plus the core of your fleet with it's own AA fire to contribute. A red anti-squad die is not 2x better than a blue one, it's 4x better.

You are really Short sighted. Lets say it is as powerfull as you say and it makes squadron play irrevelant. What Next then? On one hand, People Will bring bigger Guns to one-shot these ships to protect their figthers. Does it help the now struggling big ships? Yes. On the other hand, if it kills the squad game, there Will be no need for tem anymore, People Will bring play them less. With less Anti squad ships, ppl Will bring squads again. There Will be a balance.

Just like with the flotillas. Many of us brings a dedicated flotilla Killer, since Every list has at least one these Days. Did flotillas break the game? Sort of. Is armada Good? Yes. So stop moaning.

I'm pointing out why this specific idea is a bad one for anti-squad options. Look at the other posts I've made in the thread. I've thrown out several ideas for other ways to make ships deal with bombers better, that wouldn't risk breaking the game.

Keep putting out ides of your own. But respect that any offensive option you come up with needs to have ways to overcome it with smart flying. Increasing anti-squad firepower in specific arcs, for example. look at defensive options as well.

I don't think you risk breaking the game by adding a cheaper long range AA option. Most people put it on a cheaper ship because if you put it on something as survivable as a large base you may just break the game. In a practical sense a red AA is really giving your ships another turn of shooting, that's it. People could find new and creative ways to use it but let's say you put it on a non-scatter flotillas, the additional round of shooting won't be the apocalypse to the fighter game and it may just get people comfortable enough to get over the fighters is god perception.

OK, picture 3 of those flotillas, where a conventional fleet would have 3 gozantis & 6 Interceptors for fighter screen + activations. (or GR/X combo) Against a full bomber wing & escorts (10 stands), you are throwing 30 dice base+3CF dice vs 24 dice from the Gozantis, and it would survive better because you are still at red range. Make it expensive enough that you could only afford 2 + a goz (no ties) out of your anti-squad points? 56 points? 20+2 CF vs 24? playtesting with taking 6 of them vs a carrier fleet would be necessary... How much anti-ship should it have? Hull/shields? Could work. Not sure it needs to be a flotilla at that price point though.

other ideas

Something like a "precision turbolaser" unique experimental upgrade, or a title that increased antisquad by 1 range bracket at the cost of a die (so, a blue/black AA would be 1 blue at long, 1 blue or 1 black at medium, and blue/black at close), would give some damage at long range, and I wouldn't freak out about it.

A non-unique officer or weapon team that gave a Demolisher effect for anti-squad attacks might be good, but I'd worry about how it would synergize with last/first flechette raiders.

"Code Alpha" rockets: Reduce your squadron value to 0. When you are destroyed, immediately attack each enemy squadron within close range with an anti-squad battery of 1 black dice. Immediately remove this ship from play. (Rieekan can't zombify chunky salsa) 1 black die chosen to calibrate for wearing down a fighter wing, not erasing. If you have 2-3 of these out there, then the bombers will be choosy about which ships to engage, and may even leave it limping to get to minimum safe distance. The rockets wouldn't kill the wing on their own, but if you add in regular anti-squad fire, then you're definitely making it risky.

OK, picture 3 of those flotillas, where a conventional fleet would have 3 gozantis & 6 Interceptors for fighter screen + activations. (or GR/X combo) Against a full bomber wing & escorts (10 stands), you are throwing 30 dice base+3CF dice vs 24 dice from the Gozantis, and it would survive better because you are still at red range. Make it expensive enough that you could only afford 2 + a goz (no ties) out of your anti-squad points? 56 points? 20+2 CF vs 24? playtesting with taking 6 of them vs a carrier fleet would be necessary... How much anti-ship should it have? Hull/shields? Could work. Not sure it needs to be a flotilla at that price point though.

You are kind of getting into the minutia without context. The big numbers makes it look scarier than it actually is and makes it looks way bigger than things that already exist. Example: Neb B shooting at the 10 stands at medium range gives you 20 dice for probably cheaper than the 3 proposed flotillas. You also discount the additional dice the Gozantis would add at medium range which shifts the AA from 33 vs 24 to 33 vs 54 more reliable blue dice. Additionally, the Gozanti Tie combo has the ability to actually kill fighters in one shot and taking dice probabilities the red dice only outperform the Tie's dice by 4-5 expected damage total (16.5 v 12).

The game has already given a plethora of speed boosts and additional buffs to squadrons that mean many can just sit outside of range, jump in when they are ready without the constraint of shooting and than moving, while ships still have to hope a fighter stand sits in range. In a practical sense I see a red dice giving the opportunity for maybe 1 or 2 more AA shots over what most people already take. You are correct that playtesting is absolutely necessary. I just caution against the calamatous thinking and "sky is falling threads" that seems to pop up every time FFG changes something or adds somethings. We just happen to talk about a dedicated AA ship in this thread rather than an upgrade card since that was the OP's choice.

other ideas

Something like a "precision turbolaser" unique experimental upgrade, or a title that increased antisquad by 1 range bracket at the cost of a die (so, a blue/black AA would be 1 blue at long, 1 blue or 1 black at medium, and blue/black at close), would give some damage at long range, and I wouldn't freak out about it.

So what you're saying is that long range AA isn't a problem as long as it's extremly limited in what can deploy it?

other ideas

Something like a "precision turbolaser" unique experimental upgrade, or a title that increased antisquad by 1 range bracket at the cost of a die (so, a blue/black AA would be 1 blue at long, 1 blue or 1 black at medium, and blue/black at close), would give some damage at long range, and I wouldn't freak out about it.

So what you're saying is that long range AA isn't a problem as long as it's extremly limited in what can deploy it?

I'm saying that if red-range AA is non-unique, and can appear on cheap ships, then the multiple bubbles of AA reinforce each other to a way that is not obvious, and is very scary to a squadron player. Unique, or expensive enough to be effectively unique, red range AA does not.

Since AA fire is equally effective in all arcs, there is limited ability to fly better to get the bombers in. Should that change? Maybe. But this discussion probably isn't the place for that.

Any increase in AA firepower needs to be looked at from the point of view of how does it change the effectiveness of a fleet, as opposed to how does it change the effectiveness of a single ship.

So, if you are advocating increased AA ability on ships, please demonstrate that you are considering it at that level.

How does it work if you have first player, last player, first/last? which should you bid for, and how screwed are you if you don't get it? How hurt is the other fleet if they don't get it?

What happens when all of your ships devote themselves to shooting fighters, not carriers, and your entire fleet is built around improved AA escorts and good AA main ships?

What happens when you support flak with fighters? Do flak & fighter screens synergize in a way that increases the need for escorts a little? (that's probably good) Do the bombers need enough escorts/fighters that fighter wings are 2/3 anti-squad? (that's probably too much) Sure, X-wings have a red bomber die, but is anyone out there being tabled by the dreaded Norra WeX-wings?

If you buy nothing but your proposed anti-squad picket ship, are you weak enough ship-to-ship that you would lose to the carrier's onboard armament?

(Caveat: equal skilled opponent, if you are testing it on the table. Or swap sides & see if they can beat you with your list when you fly theirs.)

More brainstorming:

What about a Fleet Support upgrade along the lines of:

"When a friendly ship is attacking a squadron at distance 1-5, each of its [critical] icons add 1 to the damage total."

or

"When a friendly ship is attacking a squadron at distance 1-5, each of its [critical] icons add 2 to the damage total."

or

"When a friendly ship is attacking a squadron at distance 1-5, it may reroll 1 die."

You could reduce the distance/area of the effect in order to keep the cost manageable (especially on the second one).

The thing came to my mind was inspired by a scene in New Hope: The falcon was caought by a tractor beam. Well, we already have one, so it needs a sort of different name. Also, its upgrade category is given. The ability i would give it is: After revealing your command dial, Pick a squadron at close-medium range, toggle its activation slider to activated and move it with speed 2 towards the closest hull zones center(that yellow dot). 4-5ish Points. For a bit more Points, it could add extra effect as the squasron is sort of paralised: The text box treated as empty, and gains heavy(no countering, escorting due tó being paralised), cannot use defense tokens, until the end of turn all crit rolled against that squasron counts as 1 damage. These would be too powerfull, but its Just ~simulating being paralised. For this version, 8 Points. I could imagine key squads pulled out of a ball, exposing them to your squads. So, youd have to be extremely carefull with your Intel squad for example. Or no hiding for norra...