As many people (including myself) have noted, the squadron game is probably at its peak right now, and I think that all stems from the advent of Intel. Do t get me wrong, Intel is great and it is necessary to make bomber lists viable. However, i think it had a little bit too much an impact, more than the game designers were anticipating. (Just an opinion, I know none of the designers, don't yell at me lol). I've been thinking of how I would approach "fixing" it (which sounds very arrogant,but I don't want it to be, I LOVE this game and would be content playing it forever even if they didn't release anything else.)

I am considering toying with the idea that Intel only effects squads that are activated WITH the Intel squadron. This will prevent Intel squads from just hanging out and having everything around them move and then they move on in the squad phase. This would also bring back big ships, as being able to move 5+ squadrons at once would suddenly be much more important than moving 2 squads at a time over 3 flotilla activations.

Thoughts?

Disengaging the Intel from a Bubble around the Ship, to granting "limited engagement immunity" to squadrons (effectively), I feel, is a set of different problems to the First.

It indeed, removes the viable tactic of trying to be in more places than Intel would normally be... Now there's no point screening at all. I can't attempt to pin half the force inside intel range, or keep them all hemmed in a bubble to attempt ot strafe them with anti-ship fire... Because now, they can move anywhere in their range with a simple activation... And just adds "Squad Bloat" in further Intel ships.


To me, causes just as many "issues" as the original does.

Rather than tone it down, the better solution from a marketing standpoint is to produce new effects that counter the strategy behind "Intel" (note the introduction of "Snipe"). If you couple that with making older ships/abilities more viable in the new emerging meta, you have a nice recipe for success: the company is introducing new products that people will want, while still maintaining the viability of previous waves.

That appears to be what FFG has been attempting. Rather than change rules, produce new products that teach old ships new tricks.

Disengaging the Intel from a Bubble around the Ship, to granting "limited engagement immunity" to squadrons (effectively), I feel, is a set of different problems to the First.

It indeed, removes the viable tactic of trying to be in more places than Intel would normally be... Now there's no point screening at all. I can't attempt to pin half the force inside intel range, or keep them all hemmed in a bubble to attempt ot strafe them with anti-ship fire... Because now, they can move anywhere in their range with a simple activation... And just adds "Squad Bloat" in further Intel ships.

To me, causes just as many "issues" as the original does.

Sorry I should have clarified, I meant that the AOE bubble would still determine if opponents squadrons are "heavy" or not, but it only gets turned on during a squadron activation. This would allow people to still bring "screens", which I have found to be ineffective at the moment unless investing fairly heavily into AS squads, at which point you may as well just have a bomber wing

Intel is strong. I think it can be overwhelmingly strong if you have a minimal counter. But if you are like me and a Squadon player...well I don't care about facing it and in fact in longer run any Intel ship.

Im bias because I build 8-12 squadron lists and instead of giving my people Intel I'm looking for a fight. Instead I'm taking combinations of Mauler/Ruder/Saber/Jendon+Spike Damage hero/IG88/Defenders or various mixes of escorts and bombers. I max out my fighting ability so that:

• One intel squadon is not effective
• I assassinate key squadrons and they fall to pieces
• I aim to 'table' my opponents squadrons every game. It's up too 134 points to collect after all
• I run Admiral Chiraneau...so small caveat perhaps

As a squadron player I really don't find enemy Intel to be an issue but I can see that Intel is fairly devestating against a squadron screen. The way I play this out is too ultilise point defense with your screen. Don't let your screen engage early or get picked off. Stay at sub medium range to hit them with flank and squadron dice.

Disengaging the Intel from a Bubble around the Ship, to granting "limited engagement immunity" to squadrons (effectively), I feel, is a set of different problems to the First.

It indeed, removes the viable tactic of trying to be in more places than Intel would normally be... Now there's no point screening at all. I can't attempt to pin half the force inside intel range, or keep them all hemmed in a bubble to attempt ot strafe them with anti-ship fire... Because now, they can move anywhere in their range with a simple activation... And just adds "Squad Bloat" in further Intel ships.

To me, causes just as many "issues" as the original does.

Sorry I should have clarified, I meant that the AOE bubble would still determine if opponents squadrons are "heavy" or not, but it only gets turned on during a squadron activation. This would allow people to still bring "screens", which I have found to be ineffective at the moment unless investing fairly heavily into AS squads, at which point you may as well just have a bomber wing

Let me try to understand here:

Only turned "on" during a Squadron Activation...

I have 3 bombers and a HWK...

They are all currently engaged.

Distance 3 away, there's a Star Destroyer.

Your idea is to have me activate the HWK, and effectively, not move it , to turn on the intel, to let me have 3 Bombers break their engagement and fly over to bomb that star Destroyer...

And if there's a TIE Fighter next to the Destroyer, I need two Intel Ships...

One to hang back and cause the current squadrons to be heavy, one to move with the second command, to fly over to make that TIE fighter heavy, to allow me to now only move 2 bombers, to bomb the Star Destroyer right under the nose of the TIE Fighter ?

Right?

I mean, honestly, that's not super different from the situation we have now, only that its active, and not passive... Because I'd be needing 2 Intel ships to do that... But it makes a huge difference come this:

And then once the activation is over, Intel is Gone. Done. Finished. Non-Existant. So if you want to do anything more with any OTHER bombers in the same Situation, I would need two More Intel ships?

A squad that allows other squads to snipe with their anti squad armament would be an effective solution. Though I am of the mind that it needs no solution. For a counter to intel now, it's 3 or 4 interceptors or a-wings, plop them down around the outside of the intel ball and good luck keeping them all intelled.

I feel like intel is getting a bad wrap because people counter it poorly. Not because it is overpowered.

A screen trying to delay bombers should be spread out to both stop as many squads as possible and to make intel only affect some of yours. It seems players are stacking up to try and kill the escorts and the intel. This means bombers sail right past.

Spread out. Play smart. If they bring enough intel and escorts to affect all of your spread out screen, then you have forced them to spend enough points in escorts and intel as to dilute bombing strength. Still a success.

And honestly, I see Chiraneau instead of intel in some local squads. He is less and more powerful.

I like Chirneau as well, especially with Mauler. And Dras, I believe you got it about right, but I was thinking more this way. ISD/home one activates and declares which squadrons he will be activating (including Intel squad), triggering Intel. Bombers are free to move and bomb ships, provided they are able to reach and not become engaged by the screen. Move Intel source last to set up for next turn. As opposed to "I'm leaving this Intel squad here in the cloud of fighters, and activating two bombers at a time per goz/gr75 to leave the Intel bubble and go bomb, then the Intel ship can come move back into the scrum during the squadron phase. I know it's kinda hard to write it out rules wise for that way, but it feels much cooler to me, as the whole flight of squadrons are moving in a coordinated attack together rather than just saying "thanks for the buff, cya in the squadron phase!"

And Trizzo, that's exactly what I've been saying, you basically need around 100 pts of dedicated AS to "farm" all the bombers on the table. Trouble is those then become useless when all enemy squads are dead. Although I haven't played with the defender yet, seems like it might fill the dual threat role the empire so desperately needed.

Jukey, that does indeed work when the other player has only one Intel squad, but when people bring multiple (at 12 points why wouldn't you) those 4 interceptors aren't gonna do a thing

Easier fix

Intel doesnt make opposing squadrons heavy for the intel squad itself, just other friendlies

Could just run zero squads.

Intel is useless against you then.

Could just run zero squads.

Intel is useless against you then.

instigator!

Could just run zero squads.

Intel is useless against you then.

cloak and snipe tend to work against intel especially if they have escorts.

I like Chirneau as well, especially with Mauler. And Dras, I believe you got it about right, but I was thinking more this way. ISD/home one activates and declares which squadrons he will be activating (including Intel squad),

It Goes against the rules of selecting, activating, and resolving squadrons one at a time.

I mean, if I manage to kill the engager with a lucking 4-from-4 dice shot, now I'm locked into activating something useless......

Intel makes small, unfocused fighter screens insufficient in stopping bomber balls. Bombers like B-Wings still do their jobs even if they're right next to a bunch of TIE Fighters, and can tank the damage. They can move away too. Intel ups the fighter committment game such that, in my judgement, if your opponent has a more focused fighter ball than you do, you'll lose the game to fighter attacks.

It would be different if bombers still had to chew through enemy fighters in order to do their jobs. Then TIE interceptors still have more of a use by engaging those Bombers and forcing the bombers to shoot them (and thereby suffer Counter). Now that wounded 3-health B-Wing is no longer forced to shoot a TIE Interceptor with an intel source next to them... the weaker Bombers can attack capital ships without reprisal since there's nothing to fear from capital ships. Healthier ships can engage those fighters and kill them, clearing the way for more bomber strikes.

I keep thinking more capital ship AA options are necessary, especially for the empire. Since "our" space superiority fighters are weaker than the Rebellion's, and since our multi-role fighters don't have bomber universally like the Rebel ships do, and are expensive, capital ships need to do more to help them. And I'm not talking about the hull 4 no redirect easily-cracked walnuts called Raiders. I need something that can survive a Yavaris B-Wing assault with stacked BCCs and Toryrn, and then turn around and threaten all of that when I've also activated TIE Fighters to finish the attack and clear those bombers.

Because right now, oddly, out of all the capital ship responses to fighters Cluster Bombs is the best option, even though it's a oneshot (It carves away hull on a semi-decent roll). QLTs fail just as much as single blue dice out of a VSD does, and PDR works pretty much only in the round after you've engaged the bombers (in which case what is that arc shooting, the Bombers sitting in your front arc or the carrier behind them).

QLT had such potential but they doomed them with the range restriction... I am totally with you though Norsehound, if capital ships had a better way of attacking OR defending against squads we'd be in a much better place. Again though, that's just like, my opinion, man...

In my view, range isn't the problem on QLTs. The problem is relying on the blue die for counter, and no way to control it. Fighters get around this problem with more dice and something like swarm. Normal counter at 2 dice gives a good chance of doing damage. I can tell you from the number of times I've fired AA on approach out of my VSD that I don't trust single blue dice to hit anything to a satisfactory degree. I can't tell you the number of times I've taken QLTs on ships, engaging non-Rhymer bombers at range 1, and did no damage. I can't tell you the number of times I've fired my VSD's AA at the majority of a bomber ball and only amassed, out of 8 shots, 2 points of damage to those massed rebel fighters. It's not efficient.

The game is asking Imperials to rely on fighters for our AA advantages. Perhaps if they had more reliable ways of removing the hull 4-5 fighters in one shot, it could work. Now with things like bomber escorts and Biggs passing around damage, it makes it harder to do so. We're supposed to use our big ships for killing capital ships, but if our fighters can't protect us as well as the Rebels do for their ships, it's a losing proposition.

And again, I know Empire just got handed Raider-Is with Flichette Torps. I've lost too many Raiders in close range to bomber balls to feel comfortable that this is the "big ship answer" to massed fighters. I think Raiders are the worst protected ships in the game, actually, even beating out the VSDs. They have six hit points between themselves and destruction, and only trading away the officer slot do they have some assurances for Brace. The Rebels can beat this with Stacked BCCs and Toryn Farr to help get the accuracy needed to punch through to deal those six points, regardless of what else is packed on the Raider. So unless someone has some good examples of it working, I remain skeptical about it's performance.

I'm much more certain of how dangerous Norra Wexley is, because I've seen it firsthand.

Intel makes small, unfocused fighter screens insufficient in stopping bomber balls. Bombers like B-Wings still do their jobs even if they're right next to a bunch of TIE Fighters, and can tank the damage. They can move away too. Intel ups the fighter committment game such that, in my judgement, if your opponent has a more focused fighter ball than you do, you'll lose the game to fighter attacks.

It would be different if bombers still had to chew through enemy fighters in order to do their jobs. Then TIE interceptors still have more of a use by engaging those Bombers and forcing the bombers to shoot them (and thereby suffer Counter). Now that wounded 3-health B-Wing is no longer forced to shoot a TIE Interceptor with an intel source next to them... the weaker Bombers can attack capital ships without reprisal since there's nothing to fear from capital ships. Healthier ships can engage those fighters and kill them, clearing the way for more bomber strikes.

I keep thinking more capital ship AA options are necessary, especially for the empire. Since "our" space superiority fighters are weaker than the Rebellion's, and since our multi-role fighters don't have bomber universally like the Rebel ships do, and are expensive, capital ships need to do more to help them. And I'm not talking about the hull 4 no redirect easily-cracked walnuts called Raiders. I need something that can survive a Yavaris B-Wing assault with stacked BCCs and Toryrn, and then turn around and threaten all of that when I've also activated TIE Fighters to finish the attack and clear those bombers.

Because right now, oddly, out of all the capital ship responses to fighters Cluster Bombs is the best option, even though it's a oneshot (It carves away hull on a semi-decent roll). QLTs fail just as much as single blue dice out of a VSD does, and PDR works pretty much only in the round after you've engaged the bombers (in which case what is that arc shooting, the Bombers sitting in your front arc or the carrier behind them).

I've watched this debate go on for a long time, and I've decided to share my 2 pence. Intel isn't unstoppable.

I've shut down a double-Intel full-points Rhymerball with 6 A-Wings and flak fire from a Liberty. By the end of it (1 round of shooting on the approach, followed by 1 round of activations before the Rhymerball could) both sources of Intel were dead and the Rhymerball was dead in the water.

In a turn of events that you particularly might appreciate, my Liberty - after having survived 1 round of Intel'ed BCC bomber fire with its hull intact - died to the guns of 2 Vic-IIs with Spinal Armaments.

If Intel and Bombers were completely unstoppable, then we wouldn't have Wave IV Regionals being won by fleets with 4 A-Wings. That says something. I don't know if you're up on the most recent competition news, but one of the most recent Wave V Regionals was won by a fleet that had an MC80 Assault Cruiser lit up like a Christmas tree (191 pts!)

The most current data coming out of the Regionals shows that Large ships are competitive, even against Intel-backed, Flight Commander and Fighter Coordination Team-supported Yavaris B-Wing swarms. Times are changing.

place your fighters out of range of the intel fighter but still in range of the bombers most players only bring one and even if they have 2 just kill them 3 fighters can kill another in one turn.

Don't forget about Ketsu Onyo...she isn't allowing ANYONE to run away, Intel or not!

I'm really curious to see how the Wave 5 material plays out. We've got a lot of new tools in the squadron game, and at least some of them have the potential to affect Intel. Snipe is going to be very tough on non-Ace Intel ships and presents some possibility for focusing down an Ace Intel ship, specifically one that has to move to free up some bombers, but then leaves an opening for another non-Snipe squadron to strike outside the range of escort.

I've watched this debate go on for a long time, and I've decided to share my 2 pence. Intel isn't unstoppable.

I've shut down a double-Intel full-points Rhymerball with 6 A-Wings and flak fire from a Liberty. By the end of it (1 round of shooting on the approach, followed by 1 round of activations before the Rhymerball could) both sources of Intel were dead and the Rhymerball was dead in the water.

In a turn of events that you particularly might appreciate, my Liberty - after having survived 1 round of Intel'ed BCC bomber fire with its hull intact - died to the guns of 2 Vic-IIs with Spinal Armaments.

If Intel and Bombers were completely unstoppable, then we wouldn't have Wave IV Regionals being won by fleets with 4 A-Wings. That says something. I don't know if you're up on the most recent competition news, but one of the most recent Wave V Regionals was won by a fleet that had an MC80 Assault Cruiser lit up like a Christmas tree (191 pts!)

The most current data coming out of the Regionals shows that Large ships are competitive, even against Intel-backed, Flight Commander and Fighter Coordination Team-supported Yavaris B-Wing swarms. Times are changing.

You're comparing Rebel fighters with highly specialized TIE Bombers, and Hull 4 Jumpmaster generics without counter. Your A-Wings have four hull points and counter 2. Those TIE Bombers are rolling one black. Of course that many A wings are going to make short work of the intel and lock down that bomber ball for a while, regardless if Rhymer is there or not.

Now try approaching it from the Imperial perspective, where Imperial "A-Wings" are hull 3, and they're supposed to fly into reinforced bomber balls with more than 4 hull, and against sources of Intel with counter 2. Rebels also have access to Toryn Farr and great Escorts that can also participate in the bombing fun along with the Bs and Ys they are likely guarding. The Rebels will make short work of the Imperial attempts, then go on to bomb the capital ships. It's even easier if Yavaris is present with some activation-stalling GR-75s with Bomber Command center and/or Boosted Comms.

I've watched this debate go on for a long time, and I've decided to share my 2 pence. Intel isn't unstoppable.

I've shut down a double-Intel full-points Rhymerball with 6 A-Wings and flak fire from a Liberty. By the end of it (1 round of shooting on the approach, followed by 1 round of activations before the Rhymerball could) both sources of Intel were dead and the Rhymerball was dead in the water.

In a turn of events that you particularly might appreciate, my Liberty - after having survived 1 round of Intel'ed BCC bomber fire with its hull intact - died to the guns of 2 Vic-IIs with Spinal Armaments.

If Intel and Bombers were completely unstoppable, then we wouldn't have Wave IV Regionals being won by fleets with 4 A-Wings. That says something. I don't know if you're up on the most recent competition news, but one of the most recent Wave V Regionals was won by a fleet that had an MC80 Assault Cruiser lit up like a Christmas tree (191 pts!)

The most current data coming out of the Regionals shows that Large ships are competitive, even against Intel-backed, Flight Commander and Fighter Coordination Team-supported Yavaris B-Wing swarms. Times are changing.

You're comparing Rebel fighters with highly specialized TIE Bombers, and Hull 4 Jumpmaster generics without counter. Your A-Wings have four hull points and counter 2. Those TIE Bombers are rolling one black. Of course that many A wings are going to make short work of the intel and lock down that bomber ball for a while, regardless if Rhymer is there or not.

Now try approaching it from the Imperial perspective, where Imperial "A-Wings" are hull 3, and they're supposed to fly into reinforced bomber balls with more than 4 hull, and against sources of Intel with counter 2. Rebels also have access to Toryn Farr and great Escorts that can also participate in the bombing fun along with the Bs and Ys they are likely guarding. The Rebels will make short work of the Imperial attempts, then go on to bomb the capital ships. It's even easier if Yavaris is present with some activation-stalling GR-75s with Bomber Command center and/or Boosted Comms.

on the flip side, empire has the soft intel counter in soontir still doing damage even while heavy

stack with mauler and it gets real ugly real fast