5 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Why wouldn't you have heard it before. It exhibits exactly the same trend.

And why does it matter if you've heard it before. This is the point of gathering this data. To look at the state of the game. So look!

My man, you literally told me "we've heard it before, save it."

I read that as "I disagree, go f*ck yourself"

If you don't feel like that warrants exactly the response I gave you, I don't really know what to say.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

My man, you literally told me "we've heard it before, save it."

I read that as "I disagree, go f*ck yourself"

If you don't feel like that warrants exactly the response I gave you, I don't really know what to say.

Lol, my apologies, my man.

I'm trying to say the hand-wave blatant dismissal under the excuse of "small sample size" is logically unsound and has been discussed to death.

5 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Lol, my apologies, my man.

I'm trying to say the hand-wave blatant dismissal under the excuse of "small sample size" is logically unsound and has been discussed to death.

Its cool. I know its something you're passionate about.

And for the record, I agree that bomber lists are showing up a disproportionate amount, although I have a feeling we disagree about what the ideal numbers would be. I just think in the long run its going to be a self correcting issue.

4 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Its cool. I know its something you're passionate about.

And for the record, I agree that bomber lists are showing up a disproportionate amount, although I have a feeling we disagree about what the ideal numbers would be. I just think in the long run its going to be a self correcting issue.

I disagree it will correct. I know how to play those lists. Cuz I came to the same conclusions.

Well. I've made a statement about what I think the numbers for too overbearing are. Although I will say it is actually too soon in this sense, due to my knowledge of this list, i feel its capacity for winning hasn't even begun. When it does catch on, I'll guess itll reach 75% of all top4 lists. I would recommend that if you disagree what the ideal numbers are, that you make a statement too, so we can hold you to your word. And WHEN you think it becomes a plain issue, # of tournaments, or duration of dominance, as dependent on severity of dominance.

I've already shown that all through wave 3 4 season 1 and 2, and now going into season 5, we have had around 60% dominance or higher (winners into the 70-75%). Therefore: 2.5 seasons, with over 60% dominance to me shows an extremely strong trend to squadrons being powerful to the point of warping game balance around them, but not a proof that they are data-shown as "overpowered". However, it is also my opinion that a lot of players actually don't understand the pinnacle of squadron play and how it can be made so that nothing can be done against it.

My opinion, from looking at the data, is that BCC's are a powerful upgrade to your bomber wing.

Stacked BCC/Carrier lists may become very prevalent, just as Clonisher clones were very common in wave 2. And they may start dominating. Or, we could be like last years regionals where imperial's dominated the first half of the season, and then people developed counter-strategies, and the representation evened out. One problem with the data is that it can't tell us about things we don't record.

Is the best way to defeat Yavaris/BCC to kill the fighters, the carriers, or the flotillas? How would each of those show up in list building? Anti-fighter strategies can be spotted by looking at the performance of fighter wings with a higher antisquad/antiship ratio. Anti-flotillas can be spotted by looking at accuracy generators, but we don't currently track that, and adding it into the data would be a whole pile of work, especially if we wanted to see it for wave 3/4 lists as well. Anti-carrier tactics are probably indistinguishable from anti-ship tactics in list building.

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

Cough

Just as anecdotally the highest placing Pelta/fleet running a similar archtype in Boston came in seventh and we should probably wait till we see a whole lot more regionals before making any conclusions

uhm...cough.

Merely posting the lists doesn't do much to explain how the lists are run. A good Rebel speed bump that I fight pretty regularly plays very defensively, dropping down to speed 0 and hiding behind their barrier of fighters until prey comes into range, which it destroys. I'd guess that's how Drew played, and he won the tournament pretty well.

I mean, if you can tell us how that Boston regionals list lost that would be nice, considering players like Blail and I are living that "anecdotal fluke" whenever we set up to play against one of the regulars around here. We'd like to see more discussions and strategies of how to beat Rebel fighter-centric lists that are, by our experience, effectively countering all-comers. A key strategy that many other kinds of lists could use would be welcome.

17 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Merely posting the lists doesn't do much to explain how the lists are run. A good Rebel speed bump that I fight pretty regularly plays very defensively, dropping down to speed 0 and hiding behind their barrier of fighters until prey comes into range, which it destroys. I'd guess that's how Drew played, and he won the tournament pretty well.

I mean, if you can tell us how that Boston regionals list lost that would be nice, considering players like Blail and I are living that "anecdotal fluke" whenever we set up to play against one of the regulars around here. We'd like to see more discussions and strategies of how to beat Rebel fighter-centric lists that are, by our experience, effectively countering all-comers. A key strategy that many other kinds of lists could use would be welcome.

Thanks Norse. I would also prefer to get more help on how Boston does it, but in Boston, the top winner is also a Demo Rhymer, i think 8 squads.
Also, Norse... did you notice the differences in the 1st list vs the other two Pelta bombers? Wow.

16 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I disagree it will correct. I know how to play those lists. Cuz I came to the same conclusions.

Well. I've made a statement about what I think the numbers for too overbearing are. Although I will say it is actually too soon in this sense, due to my knowledge of this list, i feel its capacity for winning hasn't even begun. When it does catch on, I'll guess itll reach 75% of all top4 lists. I would recommend that if you disagree what the ideal numbers are, that you make a statement too, so we can hold you to your word. And WHEN you think it becomes a plain issue, # of tournaments, or duration of dominance, as dependent on severity of dominance.

I've already shown that all through wave 3 4 season 1 and 2, and now going into season 5, we have had around 60% dominance or higher (winners into the 70-75%). Therefore: 2.5 seasons, with over 60% dominance to me shows an extremely strong trend to squadrons being powerful to the point of warping game balance around them, but not a proof that they are data-shown as "overpowered". However, it is also my opinion that a lot of players actually don't understand the pinnacle of squadron play and how it can be made so that nothing can be done against it.

In wave one, squadrons were terrible and underpowered and everyone laughed at the "max" 1/3 fleet limit of squadrons because who would even? And then a squadron list won worlds.

In wave two you had to be running big-time activations. Then at nationals the final table is comprised soley of two ship lists.

In the end, the players who win big are the ones who buck the meta. Its a cliche truism that finds itself proven out repeatedly not just in Armada, but across the competetive gaming world. At least in my experience. Which is one reason this current spike in high squadron play doesn't alarm me.

I do agree with you that many players are unfamiliar with the good squadron play. But my takeaway is different. I fundamentally disagree that "nothing can be done against it." (For example, the Utah winning list would have been succeptible to Slicer Tools if anyone had brought them. He also had a singular source of intel and only one escort. I'm sure he manuevered to cover those weaknesses, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.) I think that lots of people were getting away with ignoring half the game for two waves and the chickens have come home to roost. I have some regular opponents, very solid players who simply didn't go big on squadrons before wave three/four forced their hand. They have come light years in their squadron play since then, but it was a long trek to get to the same level as players who have been making the effort to put squadrons on the table from day one.

As to Boston, I can't say how they were flown. NE meta tends to be more aggro then most. I wills say BCC doesn't show up between lists 2-6. One list does run rogue Lancers. Which I guess also counts as a bomber list, but to say that list 4 at boston is the same archtype as list 1,2 at Utah seems...wrong. Just cuz they botj have bombers? Not the same things. Not saying anyone has tried to define them as the same mind you, just sayin'.

And as for my number of winning bomber lists, like where it should be ideally? 50%. If at the end of the regional season its well over this number, I'll happily cede the point. (Although I'm already on record as saying I'd like to see some more antisquad upgrades and at least two waves of squadronless all ship expansions so I'm not sure what else I can say). This game has ships and squads as your viable methods of bringing antiship damage. I'd be happy to see winners split down the line on it. (Yes, I know and agree that its trending well over that atm)

That said, we agree its too early, and that these numbers, should they continue in this vein, are concerning. We just disagree about whether they will or not. Safe to say neither of us want to see a stale meta where only certain options show up, and so if it does lead that way I'll be happy to admit I was wrong about this and join my voice to yours in calling for balance changes.

9 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

In wave one, squadrons were terrible and underpowered and everyone laughed at the "max" 1/3 fleet limit of squadrons because who would even? And then a squadron list won worlds.

In wave two you had to be running big-time activations. Then at nationals the final table is comprised soley of two ship lists.

In the end, the players who win big are the ones who buck the meta. Its a cliche truism that finds itself proven out repeatedly not just in Armada, but across the competetive gaming world. At least in my experience. Which is one reason this current spike in high squadron play doesn't alarm me.

I do agree with you that many players are unfamiliar with the good squadron play. But my takeaway is different. I fundamentally disagree that "nothing can be done against it." (For example, the Utah winning list would have been succeptible to Slicer Tools if anyone had brought them. He also had a singular source of intel and only one escort. I'm sure he manuevered to cover those weaknesses, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.) I think that lots of people were getting away with ignoring half the game for two waves and the chickens have come home to roost. I have some regular opponents, very solid players who simply didn't go big on squadrons before wave three/four forced their hand. They have come light years in their squadron play since then, but it was a long trek to get to the same level as players who have been making the effort to put squadrons on the table from day one.

As to Boston, I can't say how they were flown. NE meta tends to be more aggro then most. I wills say BCC doesn't show up between lists 2-6. One list does run rogue Lancers. Which I guess also counts as a bomber list, but to say that list 4 at boston is the same archtype as list 1,2 at Utah seems...wrong. Just cuz they botj have bombers? Not the same things. Not saying anyone has tried to define them as the same mind you, just sayin'.

And as for my number of winning bomber lists, like where it should be ideally? 50%. If at the end of the regional season its well over this number, I'll happily cede the point. (Although I'm already on record as saying I'd like to see some more antisquad upgrades and at least two waves of squadronless all ship expansions so I'm not sure what else I can say). This game has ships and squads as your viable methods of bringing antiship damage. I'd be happy to see winners split down the line on it. (Yes, I know and agree that its trending well over that atm)

That said, we agree its too early, and that these numbers, should they continue in this vein, are concerning. We just disagree about whether they will or not. Safe to say neither of us want to see a stale meta where only certain options show up, and so if it does lead that way I'll be happy to admit I was wrong about this and join my voice to yours in calling for balance changes.

Ok. Well, I'll settle for being early alarmist to a growing trend. haha.

Well articulated.

--

Although, you're saying 50% of winning lists should be bombers? Not even like, different wonderful beautiful variations of our 14 or so ships?

of 16 finalists...

8 are bomber-focused, 3 flotilla, 2 small ship lists, and only the remaining 8 can split all of these wonderful things? (s = squadron count)

Dodonna s10 bombers
Dodonna s10 bombers
Rieekan s8-9 bombers
Rieekan s8-9 bombers
Garm 2 ship s8 bombers
Rhymerball no Demo s8
Rhymerball with Demo
Rhymerball with Demo

and we only get 8 of these?? All the gunship builds, all the fighter-nonbomber builds

2 ISDs with Moffy J
Arquitens Vader lists
VSD gun ship lists
Ackbar nonMC80
Ackbar MC80
Mothma rebel MSU
Demo MSU no Rhymer
AF with Madine
AF with Ackbar
AF with Garm
Nebulon gunships
Neb mixed forces with 2 AA.
8 Awings or YTs with large ships
3 ISD
2 Liberty + Home One
Imp AA squadrons s8
4 Gladiators
4 Mc30s
VGGG

Sooooo many ship focused lists that just aren't allowed to make up more than 1/16th of the winner pool.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

Thanks Norse. I would also prefer to get more help on how Boston does it, but in Boston, the top winner is also a Demo Rhymer, i think 8 squads.

I think that the important thing to note is that that list was set to win a squadron battle fast by kitting Demo into a heavy antisquadron ship (GSD2/RS/Kallus). And in Boston.. I think that there is no meta (and this is especially true in Wave 5. As I stated before all 3 of my matchups were squadronless fleets, even the one on a second table in round 3).

23 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Ok. Well, I'll settle for being early alarmist to a growing trend. haha.

Well articulated.

--

Although, you're saying 50% of winning lists should be bombers? Not even like, different wonderful beautiful variations of our 14 or so ships?

of 16 finalists...

8 are bomber-focused, 3 flotilla, 2 small ship lists, and only the remaining 8 can split all of these wonderful things? (s = squadron count)

Dodonna s10 bombers
Dodonna s10 bombers
Rieekan s8-9 bombers
Rieekan s8-9 bombers
Garm 2 ship s8 bombers
Rhymerball no Demo s8
Rhymerball with Demo
Rhymerball with Demo

and we only get 8 of these?? All the gunship builds, all the fighter-nonbomber builds

2 ISDs with Moffy J
Arquitens Vader lists
VSD gun ship lists
Ackbar nonMC80
Ackbar MC80
Mothma rebel MSU
Demo MSU no Rhymer
AF with Madine
AF with Ackbar
AF with Garm
Nebulon gunships
Neb mixed forces with 2 AA.
8 Awings or YTs with large ships
3 ISD
2 Liberty + Home One
Imp AA squadrons s8
4 Gladiators
4 Mc30s
VGGG

Sooooo many ship focused lists that just aren't allowed to make up more than 1/16th of the winner pool.

The 50% is just fleets that expect to see a large percentage of their ship damage coming out of their squadrons.

Also where does Sato fall? What about Skyshuffler's Cracken lists? Both carry real point investments regarding squadrons, yet in both the ships are doing the heavy lifting. Thats just off the top of my head as I wait for water to boil.

Edit: Also, you are only an early alarmist if you are wrong. If you wind up being right then you just saw the way the wind was blowing before anyone else

1 minute ago, pt106 said:

I think that the important thing to note is that that list was set to win a squadron battle fast by kitting Demo into a heavy antisquadron ship (GSD2/RS/Kallus). And in Boston.. I think that there is no meta (and this is especially true in Wave 5. As I stated before all 3 of my matchups were squadronless fleets, even the one on a second table in round 3).

Which actaully makes me cringe... since it means people don't seem to know or care what's strong. Also, a low bomber count meta tends to show serious health of variance. When you start getting 6/8 lists be bombers and they take top 3, you have a big problem.

Every game in our area has one person with 8+ squadrons, usually 134 bomber wings. And those lists have records reaching 6-1 and 12-1.

Sadly, GSD2 RS and Kallus loses huge ship damage: no Intel Of. no Ordnance Exp even. Seems like you have to seriously gamble that you'd deal enough dmg to ships.
(However, I also agree, this is the current neeed for Demolisher. Never thought I'd ever see this day, demo as GSD2 and NOT with Ord Exp, and that Demolisher is needed in the game for actual balance.... This also shows how much squadrons are skewing considerations, that this is now the strong build, as opposed to the ship killer. Cuz ships don't need killing anymore. )

4 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

The 50% is just fleets that expect to see a large percentage of their ship damage coming out of their squadrons.

Also where does Sato fall? What about Skyshuffler's Cracken lists? Both carry real point investments regarding squadrons, yet in both the ships are doing the heavy lifting. Thats just off the top of my head as I wait for water to boil.

Never heard of the Cracken list.
Imo to me still, the black dice of Sato for one possibly two ships, doesn't overcome the sheer force Yavaris bombers. Just a reminder that Yavaris and 3 bs alone puts out 3x2x2=12 dmg, assuming an average of 2 damage per roll. And this wipes out defense tokens AND defense tokens have minimal effect. Brace twice, removes 2 damage, redirect used two on a small ship redirects 4 dmg, leaving 6 to the hull. One shotting any small ship. and thats THREE squadrons. You have 5 more to go.

Liberty with spinal costs way more. Youll get 9 dice, 3 black. Yavaris squadrons will output 6black and 6 blue. And then Yavaris itself attacks for 3 red out the front. Yavaris 3Bs = 15 attack dice. To the 9 of the Liberty with Sato plus having to use your squadrons for double duty AA and bombing.

Honestly, everytime I tried sato, i rolled blanks or hits, and then rerolled into blanks. Utter garbage dmg. But that's dice. I do hear hes good, but so far all he's done is trolled me with blank OE rerolled into blanks.

You can split them: One mixed force goes into your 8 bombers, 1 goes to fill yet another precious space for ship gunship lists. Ow.

10 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Which actaully makes me cringe... since it means people don't seem to know or care what's strong. Also, a low bomber count meta tends to show serious health of variance. When you start getting 6/8 lists be bombers and they take top 3, you have a big problem.

Well... It's early wave 5 still, so your perception of whats strong may or may not be correct. For example, I believe that bomber-heavy fleets are not really strong right now, instead the strong fleets should contain a good antisquadron component that is not too specialized. Just bringing 134pts of bombers doesn't cut it.

2 minutes ago, pt106 said:

Well... It's early wave 5 still, so your perception of whats strong may or may not be correct. For example, I believe that bomber-heavy fleets are not really strong right now, instead the strong fleets should contain a good antisquadron component that is not too specialized. Just bringing 134pts of bombers doesn't cut it.

Let us see in the coming months. how about 4 more regionals?
My impression comes from also the last 2 whole seasons.

54 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I do agree with you that many players are unfamiliar with the good squadron play. But my takeaway is different. I fundamentally disagree that "nothing can be done against it." (For example, the Utah winning list would have been succeptible to Slicer Tools if anyone had brought them. He also had a singular source of intel and only one escort. I'm sure he manuevered to cover those weaknesses, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.) I think that lots of people were getting away with ignoring half the game for two waves and the chickens have come home to roost. I have some regular opponents, very solid players who simply didn't go big on squadrons before wave three/four forced their hand. They have come light years in their squadron play since then, but it was a long trek to get to the same level as players who have been making the effort to put squadrons on the table from day one.

As to Boston, I can't say how they were flown. NE meta tends to be more aggro then most. I wills say BCC doesn't show up between lists 2-6. One list does run rogue Lancers. Which I guess also counts as a bomber list, but to say that list 4 at boston is the same archtype as list 1,2 at Utah seems...wrong. Just cuz they botj have bombers? Not the same things. Not saying anyone has tried to define them as the same mind you, just sayin'.

And as for my number of winning bomber lists, like where it should be ideally? 50%. If at the end of the regional season its well over this number, I'll happily cede the point. (Although I'm already on record as saying I'd like to see some more antisquad upgrades and at least two waves of squadronless all ship expansions so I'm not sure what else I can say). This game has ships and squads as your viable methods of bringing antiship damage. I'd be happy to see winners split down the line on it. (Yes, I know and agree that its trending well over that atm)

That said, we agree its too early, and that these numbers, should they continue in this vein, are concerning. We just disagree about whether they will or not. Safe to say neither of us want to see a stale meta where only certain options show up, and so if it does lead that way I'll be happy to admit I was wrong about this and join my voice to yours in calling for balance changes.

Well, yes things can be tried against it, but how many of the lists that succeed will be too specialized in being a counter to be considered an all-comers list? For instance, a list that loads up on 134 points of Interceptors might rip apart Drew's squadron ball. But how good would that list be against a list that fields all capital ships? Or a list that holds two die AA on every capital ship fielded? The best Imperial fighter options are notoriously fragile when faced against even 1 Die AA, as I discovered in a regional tournament long ago when I maxed out on TIE Fighters and saw my opponent rack up points when I tried to use them to exhaust defense tokens.

Meanwhile, the question I wonder is if Drew's list is so good he can handle anything coming his way, contesting massive fighter builds and blowing away everything else. I know from practicing against a similar permutation that ISDs do not last long against it unopposed, so I can count out relying on the most capable ship in the game to stop it.

Regarding Slicer tools... with that many GR75s likely banking squadron commands, moving up a slicer tools GR75 to hit one of them won't stop the others from being able to reach out and erase that GR-75 you just pushed forward. Sure, you stopped a Yavaris doubletap, but Slicer tools does nothing to stop the Wexley/BCCs/B-Wings/Farr/Intel combination that makes up why this list is so deadly, combined with Rieekan and key aces.

I'm happy for the results of this tournament because this pushes the "Rebel speedbump" list further into the spotlight to be talked about, and hopefully discovered more counters for than a direct "Kill this specific list".

Some of the difficulties in saying what lists will work or not depends upon the player's skill in flying it. It took me a while to run 4 anti-squads well enough and then fly the rest of the list well enough to keep the damage count down.

Been planning on working in some additional Squadron usage analysis for the data.

Blail and Norse you both seem to be in the squadrons are too prevalent/strong camp. What would be your breakdown of how many points would be light/medium/heavy for squadron spending? Same for number of squadrons?

16 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Been planning on working in some additional Squadron usage analysis for the data.

Blail and Norse you both seem to be in the squadrons are too prevalent/strong camp. What would be your breakdown of how many points would be light/medium/heavy for squadron spending? Same for number of squadrons?

We are from the same meta. =)

I'd love for 4 ace squads to be enough, around 60-70 points, however, currently it seems 6squads, 75-85 is more wise. And.. honestly I'm ok with that.
However, against this list, 6 is not enough by a HUGE margin. To beat that list, my AA invests have gone up to 110 PLUS AA upgrades to multiple ships, even so far as to gimp Demolisher AND another ship to compensate. Maybe invest near 150 points JUST to beat this list. (Though of course, their list is a min-maxing of squadrons completely, making it strongly about 250 points of sq and related upgrades, and 120 points of Neb and Pelta as ship dmg + 30 as commander, but this also includes forcing 5 ship MSU with 3 transports, meaning our lists have to go up to 5 activations usually) Making our lists much worse vs everything else.

So: I'd want 6 squadrons and around 70-90 points be enough to make competiting against mass bomber an equal affair, 50-50%. Currently, with 6 sq, its 0% winrate. and thats already spending 90, nearly 1/4 of my whole list, just to avoid dying to one type of list.

This is for lists that are gunship centric.
--

Since I now consider 6sq and 70-90 points the LIGHT point spending, there is very little such thing as medium anymore.

Less than 6 or 70 I consider impossible to not die vs 134 bombers. Though, apparently there are winners who disagree with me.
I'd love to know how those lists did it, if it was a huge mistake from the bomber player or if there is a strat we don't know about.
Heaven knows, we've put a lot of time into trying different strats.
Light 6sq 70-90
(Medium: 90-110)
Heavy: 8sq 110+

2 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Well, yes things can be tried against it, but how many of the lists that succeed will be too specialized in being a counter to be considered an all-comers list? For instance, a list that loads up on 134 points of Interceptors might rip apart Drew's squadron ball. But how good would that list be against a list that fields all capital ships? Or a list that holds two die AA on every capital ship fielded? The best Imperial fighter options are notoriously fragile when faced against even 1 Die AA, as I discovered in a regional tournament long ago when I maxed out on TIE Fighters and saw my opponent rack up points when I tried to use them to exhaust defense tokens.

Meanwhile, the question I wonder is if Drew's list is so good he can handle anything coming his way, contesting massive fighter builds and blowing away everything else. I know from practicing against a similar permutation that ISDs do not last long against it unopposed, so I can count out relying on the most capable ship in the game to stop it.

Regarding Slicer tools... with that many GR75s likely banking squadron commands, moving up a slicer tools GR75 to hit one of them won't stop the others from being able to reach out and erase that GR-75 you just pushed forward. Sure, you stopped a Yavaris doubletap, but Slicer tools does nothing to stop the Wexley/BCCs/B-Wings/Farr/Intel combination that makes up why this list is so deadly, combined with Rieekan and key aces.

I'm happy for the results of this tournament because this pushes the "Rebel speedbump" list further into the spotlight to be talked about, and hopefully discovered more counters for than a direct "Kill this specific list".

In order to respond to this, I sort of have to attack Drew's fleet. So I want to preface this by saying that I haven't played him, and its entirely possible that in his hands this fleet is the unstoppable murder machine you make it out to be here. Clearly he's a very skilled armada player to win a regionals.

With regards to slicer tools cutting off Yavaris, lets not undersell the value there, especially in regards to Drew's fleet here. Killing its ability to run a squadron command is vicious. He's ostensibly dropping 4-6 B-Wings onto your face with that thing, probably six by using the Pelta's Adar squadron and a passed token. In fairness though, he is running Ashoka and Comms Net, so even should you kill his command, he probably gets a token to Yavaris and is able to double tap at least one squadron.

Now, lets look at his list. Certainly, it has some real strengths. 5 activations means he's probably not taking a last/first,A 396 bid means he has a shot at choosing initiative, but anyone who was really invested in going first will. He has 9 deployments, but the nature of the fleet means he needs to commit relatively early in deployment. He's not really looking to fool you. He's gonna put his B-Wings up on you, and use his several (three) rerolls to maximize damage. But his obvious strengths lie in his fighter wing. Its a well thought out wing that can bring the pain vs ships. It can pivot and dogfight very effectively, especially since he's almost by definition going to be doing so next to his own ships and benefiting from not only Toryn but also their flak fire. His Yavaris activation is downright brutal, ideally bringing two bwings (or three with an Adar Squadron) up onto your ship with FCC and then double tapping them, or ripping your fighters with a double tapped wedge.

So weaknesses? One, its a slow, defensive fleet. If you go second and refuse engagement, you win. Not a very satisfying win, but a win. Its going to have trouble chasing down anything that doesn't want to be chased down. I had to put that out there, but I don't really encourage this. In a tournament, its probably just torpedoing both of your chances. In a casual game...this is a pretty **** move.

So let's move on. You could try playing games with his FCC's by engaging his squads before they get that benefit, but its going to be very difficult to maximize that disruption before his fighters obliterate whatever you sacrificed to do that. And Rieekan just makes it more difficult to time. It's possible to do, but only a select few lists have both the anti ship firepower, maneuverability and squadron makeup to really use such a tactic effectively.

One major weakness is that he really has almost nothing in the way of ship to ship firepower. he has 5 unmodified reds if both ships train their front arcs on you, and maybe another two blues at medium. Not assuming a double arc. If he also double arcs you then add like another two reds. Whatever. He wants to kill you with fighters and if he fails to do that his ships shouldn't pose a huge threat.

So what are the weakness' in this squadron build? They all have one. Here, we have a singular source of intel (Jan) and a singular source of Escort (Wedge). With Rieekan, these flaws can be covered against many lists pretty easily.

But at this point, I am operating under the assumption that going forward, the Utah meta is awoken with regards to this list. Hungry for a way to push its face in, even if it means making some concessions in fleet building. Norse mentions 134 points of interceptor...I would never ever run that. Aside from being terrible anti-ship, its bringing a bludgeon when all you need is a scalpel. If you place IG88, Saber Squadron and Mithel in your squadron ball, you should have no issues taking Jan out first. Just watch for Shara and don't let her catch them before you bring them in. Hiding them in asteroids or covering them with intel of your own mitigates the risk. IG88/Saber is a wonder assassin combo for the Imps, and if you are really getting dominated by bomber lists...maybe start bringing them to take out the intel. If this list loses its intel and has to go ship to ship...it loses. Or at least, it really, really should. On the Rebel side, E-Wings can give you the same effect. This is why these squadrons were put in the game. Especially IG88. This is the droid you're looking for. And when you kill your main target, he's still a 5 speed rogue black die for anti ship if you want to use him that way. Timing is important, as you will likely lose something to Wedge (adar/double tap from Yav) but its a good trade if you can kill his intel.

The other thing his squadron ball does not have is strategic. Norse, you mentioned lists like sitting at speed 0 and playing come at me bro? Well, start bringing strategic and take token objectives. And then just beat him on token points, or at least force him to come on the offensive. This fleet can be used offensively, sure. But not easily. It's major sources of damage are still slow.

It doesn't have relay either. If you really have just had enough of these guys, Imperials with relay 2 lambdas, strategic, and strong antifighter should be a nightmare for this list. You really wanna pound it into the ground cuz you just hate it SO, SO much? Kit Demo antisquad. GSD-2 Blue die.

I'm sure there are other ways. Mon Mothma MC30 swarms shouldn't have tremendous issues with this fleet either, as close range essentially renders his re-roll sources ineffective, and his ships wont be able to stand up to their firepower. There were none at the Utah regional. Ard's fleet would eat this thing alive. I mean, like, 400-0. Boom. Shenanigans. No fighters necessary.

Again though, that's just on paper. I haven't seen Drew fly this thing. It may be that he is just so **** good that it doesn't matter what you do this fleet is unbeatable in his hands. I have flown very similar Pelta/Yav stuff myself, because I don't think there's a lot of us who didn't look at this and go "hey, I bet this could work" as soon as they saw the Pelta. And, if I do say so myself, I'm no slouch.

TL;DR- Love the list, its great. But far from unbeatable. See above for suggestions.

Edit; Thanks for waiting! Also for some reason when I first posted I was analyzing like he had some kind of mega Yavaris that could play with both Adar and Flight Commander. Fixed.

17points plus is a heavy investment in squadrons

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

17points plus is a heavy investment in squadrons

hahaha. is this a typo or a snark? =) or are you joining usss.
JOIN USSS.

O.O ⁄ ⁄

Basically he's saying if you put more than just Tycho in you're doing it wrong.

17 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Been planning on working in some additional Squadron usage analysis for the data.

Blail and Norse you both seem to be in the squadrons are too prevalent/strong camp. What would be your breakdown of how many points would be light/medium/heavy for squadron spending? Same for number of squadrons?

I also play in Norse's meta and can say that at least around here, the meta is very tilted towards squadrons. You have some players still playing very competently with primarily ships, and players playing very competently with squadrons, Drew included. But the difference in results is immense.

So take it from us: squadrons are utterly dominating the game right now. It doesn't mean they always were, or that they always will, or that a ship list can't be played very competently. But right now, not running maxed or nearly maxed squadrons is, frankly, an unrealistic option in competitive play. Or, in the case of Correllian Conflict, even non-competitive play. Ships simply don't have the combined durability, flexibility, or damage output that equivalent points in squadrons have, especially large ships.

If we had to go with squadron saturation, I think we can safely break it into the following three groups: more than 80% (110 points) of your available points invested would be heavy, between half and 80% is medium, and anything less than half (67 points) is exceptionally light. Heavy squadron builds will almost always annihilate both other setups if the right activation methods are available. It's a stark difference. There is no combination, at least in this meta, that can destroy enemy squadrons of a higher investment without trading negatively overall in terms of either points or strategic options.

As far as squadron numbers go, they don't matter nearly as much. If you have at least 8 squadrons you're at average or greater numbers. Less than 8 squadrons is basically non-playable in this meta. The sheer number of bodies is necessary to even act as a minor irritant, otherwise they are swept off the board in a turn or less of engagement. Unless you have significant defensive synergy. Offensive synergy in the squadron game has been largely relegated to attacking Imperials only, as attacking Rebels you straight into Rieekan.

I built my list to try to respond to the Pelta / Yavaris list. I never ended up facing them.

My failure to run my Ark right cost me a lot.