Got another.

ISD2 stands off as flagship and procs Overload so the Avenger can move in and detonate up close. 4x Decimators play midline between the two to respond to probable threat/mop up the ISD1's target.

Dual ISD w/Rogue Fighter Wing

Author: Sygnetix

Faction: Galactic Empire

Points: 400/400

Commander: Admiral Screed

Assault Objective: Most Wanted

Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon

Navigation Objective: Minefields

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)

- Admiral Screed ( 26 points)

- Relentless ( 3 points)

- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)

- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)

- XX-9 Turbolasers ( 5 points)

- Overload Pulse ( 8 points)

= 174 total ship cost

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)

- Avenger ( 5 points)

- Minister Tua ( 2 points)

- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)

- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)

- XX-9 Turbolasers ( 5 points)

- Leading Shots ( 4 points)

= 138 total ship cost

4 VT-49 Decimators ( 88 points)

If I only I wanted to blow money on the new fighter packs lol

Luckily I found a wife that tolerates my eccentricities....that and Amazon was stupid enough to give me a credit card with a 1,500 limit lol.

http://armada.ryankingston.com/fleet-builder/?fleet=1499

if this doesn't post then I will upload the list manually.

Purely as a fun list at my next fun tourny. Running VADER and Devastator although not together...just because I have never run them before.

Used this: http://armadawarlords.hivelabs.solutions/view_list.php?token=70602&key=68c29c7a3a706857dc96e54f49fe13dc (Yellow obj is Capture the VIP)

Two beatstick Impstars with two Gozantis to pass them tokens(almost exclusively Nav at the start then engineering late). Howlrunner+Sniper Saber+2x Interceptors, Flight Controller boosted, punches holes in starfighters. Motti might be better(1pt bid Wooo!) but this list seemed tailor made for Tagges token shenanigans.

[176] Imperial II-class Star Destroyer 120 + Moff Jerjerrod 23 + Gunnery Team 7 + Electronic Countermeasures 7 + Overload Pulse 8 + H9 Turbolasers 8 + Relentless 3

[148] Imperial II-class Star Destroyer 120 + Gunnery Team 7 + Electronic Countermeasures 7 + Leading Shots 4 + XX-9 Turbolasers 5 + Avenger 5

[25] Gozanti-class Cruisers 23 + Comms Net 2

[15] "Mauler" Mithel 15

[15] Zertik Strom 15

[13] Valen Rudor 13

[8] Tie Fighter Squadron 8

Question is, can any of these lists face down top tournament lists and win without resorting to luck or unequal player skill?

Multiple Star Destroyers be like...

However I do like the idea of multiple ISD being viable in the Armada Meta, after all the Imperial Star Destroyer is the mainstay if the Imperial Fleet. As some of you may have noticed the criticism X-wing has for the lack of X-wing in the meta.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

Your argument is invalid.

Your argument proves that you can win by utilising high deployment.

Your argument DOES NOT prove that all aternative options do not work.

Finding the peak of a single mountain, does not mean you have found the peak of the mountain range.

Enjoy sitting down there on your little peak.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

Which could just as easily be opponents faced as much as ability to play. This kind of mentality is how meta's take hold for extended periods of time. It's kind of closed minded thinking. Just because something works doesn't mean nothing else does.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

This is precisely the kind of thinking that I hate tournaments for. It's a shame they are so good for sales, because in my experience they more often than not taint the community for a game with WAAC thinking, over-blown competitiveness, and group-think. Somewhere along the line, the spirit of fun gets slowly leeched out until it's all about winning and stoking ones ego.

I loathe that.

Save that crap for professional sports and shirtless, drunk lunatics in the bleachers.

The point about competitiveness is well taken, but this is a thread to make Dual ISD lists "viable" again.

I think a good metric of how viable a list may be is how well it could be expected to do at a tournament where there are those WAAC lists that you mention.

At the same time though, I have never been to an Armada tournament that wasn't an amazing time with great players and opponents.

I digress, but I do think that how "viable" something may be is typically proportional to how well of a showing it will have at a tourney.

The point about competitiveness is well taken, but this is a thread to make Dual ISD lists "viable" again.

I think a good metric of how viable a list may be is how well it could be expected to do at a tournament where there are those WAAC lists that you mention.

At the same time though, I have never been to an Armada tournament that wasn't an amazing time with great players and opponents.

I digress, but I do think that how "viable" something may be is typically proportional to how well of a showing it will have at a tourney.

All fair points, but given human nature (especially of the male variety), I've had between 20-30 years of watching otherwise fun, "Hey, let's play with our toys", environments get undermined by ruthless competition. I lament the loss of innocent fun that often comes with egocentric competition.

Purely a personal (and subjective) observation from someone some people (of precisely the kind I don't favor) would call a filthy casual.

I digress, but I do think that how "viable" something may be is typically proportional to how well of a showing it will have at a tourney.

Agreed. After all, at one point squadrons were largely dismissed as meaningless, then we saw the march of the A-wings and that changed forever. This was a good growth and not necessarily limited to the idea of meta. Squadrons were included in the game for a reason and their viability was eventually defined.

Although I think that FFG has spent a little too much time on squadrons, I see their reasoning. A wide variety of squadrons leads to a wide variety of options to compliment lists.

That said, I feel as though trying to keyhole what works into 3 or 4 "viable" lists in an example of unhealthy growth and the development of a meta.

Let's compare the concept of meta between games and platforms.

Looking at the League of Legends meta, for example, we find tiered lists of "viable" champions. Because these exist, new players, unimaginative players, and lazy players just play the tier list in ranked and cannot understand why they do not advance in standing.

The same limiting concept can be applied here. Let's say a new player decided to play Armada. He gets a Core, decides on a faction, then comes to the forums and asks "Whats best?"

Rather than tell him Armada truly comes down to playing your preference, playing it enough, and playing it well, there are plenty of folks here willing to say "if you do not do xyz, it's not going to be a viable list."

While that can be true, it can also be not-true. There was no such thing as a CR90 zombie ramming list until there was one. Prior to that, I'm sure people were happy to say "that's not viable."

There is no longer a such thing as a GenCon special because, prior to it having the pants beat off of it, it was "the most viable" because people weren't willing to think beyond it.

Between the mindset of gamers today and the internet, there will always be meta's. Rather than view them as end all, be alls, it behooves the imaginative player to think of them as a good template rather than set in stone.

I've heard a saying that I think goes back to Ultima Online in the late 90s. Meta's are made to be broken. No game I've played embraces thaat mindset more than Armada. Consistently, faction upsets happen, fleet composition upsets happen, new and random nuances occur, and every so often a new card combo reveals itself at the hands of someone not willing to be enslaved to the idea of what is meta and therefore "best."

As someone who has a bit of experience with dual ISD lists I think that the thread has a lot good information and some incorrect assumptions (namely, that dual ISDs were/are not viable )

Also it is worth pointing out that there are two distinct subcategories:

- low activation 2ISD fleet (3 or less activations, 2 Christmas trees, potentially a flotilla and a medium to high number of squadrons)

- high-activation 2ISD fleet (4-5 activations, a small to modest number of upgrades on ISDs and a small to medium fighter cover (or squadronless)).

These builds are significantly different in the build goals and strategy and the way they work on the battlefield. I believe that in wave 5 both strategies are viable given the extra defensive upgrades that were made available.

I love Duel ISD builds, there just fun to play. I used Duel VSD carriers in Wave 1 to a few SC wins and a Duel ISD list wave 2-3 to 2 SC wins. sadly they have fallen out of style recently. I feel that building to your objectives is key. I liked to run mine as duel carriers and take the main squad objectives. BUT for this build I have split my ISDs into 2 diff styles. My ISD 2 is my support/ carrier where my ISD one is my beat stick. This ISD 1 I have been using for a while now and really like it. Addind Tua helps the with surviving but I think ill miss the Flexibility of SFO just because that's when I have been using for a while now and have gotten very used to how it plays. the Squad compliment can be to your preference. I had 5 Defenders in there first but then just added a Aces set up in stead for some high damage alpha strike/counters with some token back up.
The objectives are all new ones. Im going to try to get some games in with them to see how they actually work in practice but feel they all help this fleet.

Here is the fleet!!

Duel ISD Challenge

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 399/400

Commander: Admiral Ozzel

Assault Objective: Targeting Beacons
Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Admiral Ozzel ( 20 points)
- Avenger ( 5 points)
- Wulff Yularen ( 7 points)
- Flight Controllers ( 6 points)
- Boosted Comms ( 4 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 173 total ship cost

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Relentless ( 3 points)
- Minister Tua ( 2 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- H9 Turbolasers ( 8 points)
- High-Capacity Ion Turbines ( 8 points)
= 142 total ship cost

1 "Howlrunner" ( 16 points)
1 Soontir Fel ( 18 points)
1 Ciena Ree ( 17 points)
1 Valen Rudor ( 13 points)
1 Dengar ( 20 points)

This is my 'high' activation list. It is designed to soak damage whilst concentrating fire on a ship at a time. The fighters are there just to waylay my enemies squads.

Strangely, the Gozanti's use CF to throw 2 reds at a target of opportunity.

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Admiral Motti

Assault Objective: Advanced Gunnery
Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation Objective: Minefields

Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Damage Control Officer ( 5 points)
- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
= 136 total ship cost

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Admiral Motti ( 24 points)
- Damage Control Officer ( 5 points)
- Reinforced Blast Doors ( 5 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
= 160 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Assault Carriers (28 points)
= 28 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Assault Carriers (28 points)
= 28 total ship cost

6 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 48 points)

I don't think Howlrunner works with Defenders. She only works on swarm squadrons.

thought about that after so i would adjust for more defenders

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

Your argument is invalid.

Your argument proves that you can win by utilising high deployment.

Your argument DOES NOT prove that all aternative options do not work.

Finding the peak of a single mountain, does not mean you have found the peak of the mountain range.

Enjoy sitting down there on your little peak.

How is it invalid? I don't see you adding anything.

I made a statement saying that high-activation double ISD lists have worked multiple times in a competitive setting post-flotilla.

What alternative have you provided? What a joke.

I have a friend that's been running double ISDs exclusively to combat some of the new challenges in the area.

I'll give you guys a hint: With 2 activations, you need a lot of deployment drops.

No you dont. This is the wisdom of wave 2. There are alternatives plays to be made.

How many tournaments have you won post flotillas with double ISD? I think he's on 2 or 3 now for champs and placed high in last regionals.

This is precisely the kind of thinking that I hate tournaments for. It's a shame they are so good for sales, because in my experience they more often than not taint the community for a game with WAAC thinking, over-blown competitiveness, and group-think. Somewhere along the line, the spirit of fun gets slowly leeched out until it's all about winning and stoking ones ego.

I loathe that.

Save that crap for professional sports and shirtless, drunk lunatics in the bleachers.

Doesn't matter. The thread is about the viability of ISDs and viability in a competitive setting is the best representation of whether or not certain builds work. If you can't deal with that emotionally, then I don't know what to tell you.

I built this list for the local CC campaign...

3x ISD2 all with Reinforced Blast Doors. Motti. 399 points. 17 hull each. I can't decide if its brilliant or terrible.

2 ISD's have 8 squadron commands between them

12 when upgraded!

How viable is it to go for a REAL Tie fighter swarm?

You have less ship activations but your mass of squadrons can shore some things up.

I always remember this old batrep:

@Hawktel.

I think it could do very well. You'll need to purchase some squad cover in the ensuing rounds, but in the initial round or two, you could probably get away with the anti-squadron fire of the ISD's. Gunnery Teams may be another good idea to allow you to shoot ships and squadrons from the same arc.

How is it invalid? I don't see you adding anything.

Logic

How is it invalid? I don't see you adding anything.

Logic

Great, again with the rock solid add to the thread. I'll grab you your fedora on the way out netbeard.

O mah Gerd! He won't respect my e-authoritar! Must insult! Must be confrontational!