Just thinking out loud here:

I like Armada as much, if not more, for the thematic reasons/minis as the game itself- it just so happens, that, unlike some other games that shall not be mentioned, the game system is deep enough to allow me to craft pretty much whatever list I should so desire if I play it right. I may not be able to 9-2 at a tournament, but I won't auto-lose every friendly game (which I consider a huuuuuge distinction).

Now, that being said, when I want to roll out my rebs, my thematic fleet might be considered "good"- multiple small units, flotillas, lots of fighters and bombers doing what they do best. Sometimes there might be an MC cruiser of some sort tossed in there, sometimes a neb-b (or even two!). And it doesn't take much work before it looks like the fleet at Scarif or Endor.

But when I roll out my imps, my thematic fleet might be considered "bad" because it's essentially a big pile of star destroyers and tie/ln. Thinking more about this, though, I think I don't have a "large ships suck" problem as much as a "deployment is really, really, really important and unforgiving with fewer ships" problem.

I've been trying to, in Vassal and on my tabletop, view the game more as a 4D problem (or 2D + time if you want to be snarky)- there are only six turns, and six maneuvers any given ship can make, even less once obstacles are factored in. That means a lot of the game happens before turn 1 on deployment of both ships and obstacles. Being "out-activated" is another way of saying my ships cannot react well. There is proportionally more of the game state I give away per turn before my opponent does when I have activation disadvantage. I have lost the initiative (not the literal game initiative- talking about the ability to set the pace of the game). Am I therefore automatically going to lose? Well, no- I have a particular advantage in large ships. The way maneuver works in Armada, outside of some really, really incredible flying (and some obvious telegraphing of intentions), there is no way to match the economy of mass (that is l ocally having "the mostest" in any given part of the battle) of a larger, decked out ship. Two neb-b's have more firepower than one ISD-II out the front at long range, but getting those guns to bear at the same time is a lot harder!

So what can I do with that? I need to make sure that I'm not depending on "fudging around" to adjust my game state to where I want it to be if I am going to come with large ships. I need to focus on preventing disadvantageous future game states via deployment and intentional maneuver. If I'm getting shoot-scooted by CR90's all day long, then I have a deployment problem- yes, it's true that if I'm out-activated, I probably have to move that ISD into range first. But if I know this before hand, why isn't it the case that I force that "safe flank" of my ISD to be covered by another ISD or Arquittens? I need to think about how to remove or minimize those safe spaces, including the fact that every time I activate a ship that perimeter is going to change a bit.

No real firm conclusions here, again, just wanted to hopefully spark a productive, rather than inflammatory, conversation

I don't fundamentally disagree on anything.

I think the key to success when it comes to large ships is when players look at them and think "this is an awful lot of points and 'stuff' going on in one activation/deployment, I need to be very careful and thoughtful about how I use it and make sure to support it." I see a lot of big ship failures because players look at them and think "this is an awful lot of points and 'stuff' going on in one activation/deployment, it's clearly awesome enough to just throw at problems and it'll win through sheer bigness."

Edit: I also want to add that in numerous other minis wargames I've played over the last two decades (...really? wow), big models are usually able to simply roll their way through lesser models because of how the game mechanics and stats work. Usually only other big or hard-hitting models have a prayer against a big heavy model. That is not the case at all in Armada, but I can see how spending time playing minis games where big models are in their own god-tier class subconsciously trains one to believe that big models in any minis game can be used with a certain degree of recklessness and still succeed.

Hey neat, somebody else taking about the principles of war!

Yeah, I agree on pretty much everything here, Dur. Good insight.

Well said, DUR.

I think this is actually one of the key lessons to learn about Armada.

It's funny cause during a match of our CC campaign where I started with only 3 activations, I knew my opponent had likely lost the game the second he placed his first ship . Yeah, it can be that important.

While training up my CC partner who is a veteran war gamer but new to Armada, all I had to say to him was "before you place that ship, where is it going to be on turn 3 and why?" and he was instantly a better player.

The problem happens when you get players that have exquisite deployment and maneuver skills AND they bring a high activation fleet. It then becomes exceedingly difficult to have a level playing field with fewer, heavier ships. Ergo, all other things being equal, high activations are a clear advantage in the game due to sheer mechanics. Personally I wish this wasn't true, and I feel a simple rule that game a lower activation player "passes" equal to the higher players activation count minus his activation count minus two would still keep some of the MSU advantage without devaluing large ship lists in equal-skill competition.

For example a 7 activation MSU list versus a dual ISD list (7-2-2) the ISD list would have 3 "Passes". MSU still has significant activation advantage without it being a joke where one player can walk away and have a sandwich after the first 4 activations.

I think large ships are fine and viable in the current meta. The first problem is what Snip said: people think large ships should auto roll everything. The second problem is overcompensation with that large ship.

An ISD with LS, XI7/H9, and ECM is a force to be reckoned with, just as much as the Xmas ISD with every slot filled. Cut some upgrades and get support ships. Raiders and Comms Net Gozantis pair very well with ISDs. You get another deployment, an activation, and another AA platform. Take some squads too. 2 Tie/F are 16 points and grant a deployment, so the ISD can get in position to do stuff for 4 or 5 rounds, instead of 2 or 3.

I sincerely think the reason people don't think large ships work, or squads are OP is because they don't want to take the support needed to run the fleet. I learned this the hard way when I went against Britt's Ackbar80 that won the MI regionals. Everything in the fleet is designed to support the MC80. 3 flotillas with Comms Net and token/dial manipulation through Leia and Ahsoka gives tremendous flexibility. And CR90s for extra deployments and DPS. Enough to be annoying, but probably not the main target. And Shara+Tycho give another deployment and are likely to kill several squads before they die.

Support, support, support. Whether it's from flotillas, squads, or CR90s and Raiders, I think every fleet needs them.

I think FFG is steadily steering Armada in the direction that they want, not what the players want. They want fleets to be cohesive. Support ships, carriers, squads, and the heavy cruisers and battle ships, instead of mass ISDs everywhere.

I like the idea of a cohesive fleet where you need support to do your job.

Well of course proper support is a thing, it would be a horrible, horrible game if a single model was so all powerful it just won singlehandedly.

Is that really what people mean when they say Dual ISD doesnt work? Two ISDs and nothing else?

Every game has a few axes you have to scale into. Armada has always been for me- Ship Durability, Anti-ship Firepower, Squadron Coverage, Anti-squadron firepower, activation tempo and maneuverability.

A pair of ISDs goes a long way for ship Durability and Anti-ship firepower, and for the Empire is pretty good on Maneuverability. But that still leaves atleast three axes that need to be properly covered in the list eh?

The argument is that you would want the game balanced along the activation axis. In other words, the mechanics should not be so skewed that taking an MSU fleet against a low activation fleet is automatically an advantage, with all else being equal.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I sincerely think the reason people don't think large ships work, or squads are OP is because they don't want to take the support needed to run the fleet.

I think you're half right.

I also think that people who don't think squads are OP against big ship builds often miscalculate in their heads about what can be done in terms of support without sacrificing a great deal of synergy for ship to ship or losing all originality in the build.

I'm an ISD player.

I play ISDs.

I'll even say I'm a decent ISD player.

I know when my ISD is at a severe disadvantage and when I can pull off a landslide win. I understand the potency of bomber swarms and the evasiveness of MSU builds, but I don't believe in unwinnable games or auto fails, so I'm truly not as biased as I come off.

All that said, I know building my ISD very well.

When you say take some points off the ISD and invest in support, I think you're over estimating how much support that will grant.

My fully kitted (all but one slot) ISD II is 179 points, and it glows like the north pole in terms of Christmas trees, but broken down...

179 point death machine:
-120 points base
-26 points Screed
-2 points Needa
-7 points Gunnery teams
-7 points ECMs
-5 points Sw7s
-7 points TRCs
-5 points Avenger

so if you account for the base and commander which are required... 33 points of upgrades.

If I cut all the lights off my tree I can take 4 ties...

"But Sanguis, you silly sod, 33 points is a lot of points in upgrades for other ships "

and that's where you're right , it can be depending on what your fleet had to start, but it won't for everyone. For example in order to use those points for fighter defense I'm cutting the synergy out of fleet to either change ships or completely rekit them, and yes, many would say, "but but but 'tis how you play, one must sacrifice in order to gain!"

Wheres the originality, when every ISD fleet has to run 3 small ships as interference or has to sacrifice most of it's power just to screen?

Of course , this isn't all to say that it can't be done. I run an ISD PT fleet with 4 activations, a fighter screen, and completely retained synergy between ships. I've kicked many asses with it, but it took a narrow margin and honestly didn't work great until wave 5...

TLDR:

People don't think large ships work because it's very hard to maintain original ideas, fleet synergy, and support. You're basically balancing an entire fleets functionality on 20-50 points.

3 hours ago, DUR said:

"deployment is really, really, really important and unforgiving with fewer ships"

This is a huge part of Armada indeed, I wish I could count the amount of games I have lost on bad deployment. Just last night a friend and I were theory crafting on deployment and objectives. Intel sweep and Fire Lanes were important ones. Both fleets had double strategic and FCT. The goal was 'can I steal intel sweep from player 2. The answer was yes (you can just make it), BUT it is extremely dangerous. If your opponent pays very close attention to deployment it can be near suicidal (particularly if you also wanted to relay with that ship), and can force you to rush a bit as well, which is very risky. You don't want to outpace your fighters (more a rebel problem than an imperial one). Much was learned, and it was 99% about deployment.

So yeah, lots of points in one place generally means less deployments, and that is something you need to learn to play to. Some fleets are much less sensitive to opponents deployment than others. Ask some important questions: Do my ships need to fly in a formation for any reason/are they much weaker if they don't. A common example would be 2 Victories, they do a whole lot better side by side than individually. Every fleet has unique deployment quirks, and learning them is as important as the in game execution.

2 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I think you're half right.

I also think that people who don't think squads are OP against big ship builds often miscalculate in their heads about what can be done in terms of support without sacrificing a great deal of synergy for ship to ship or losing all originality in the build.

I'm an ISD player.

I play ISDs.

I'll even say I'm a decent ISD player.

I know when my ISD is at a severe disadvantage and when I can pull off a landslide win. I understand the potency of bomber swarms and the evasiveness of MSU builds, but I don't believe in unwinnable games or auto fails, so I'm truly not as biased as I come off.

All that said, I know building my ISD very well.

When you say take some points off the ISD and invest in support, I think you're over estimating how much support that will grant.

My fully kitted (all but one slot) ISD II is 179 points, and it glows like the north pole in terms of Christmas trees, but broken down...

179 point death machine:
-120 points base
-26 points Screed
-2 points Needa
-7 points Gunnery teams
-7 points ECMs
-5 points Sw7s
-7 points TRCs
-5 points Avenger

so if you account for the base and commander which are required... 33 points of upgrades.

If I cut all the lights off my tree I can take 4 ties...

"But Sanguis, you silly sod, 33 points is a lot of points in upgrades for other ships "

and that's where you're right , it can be depending on what your fleet had to start, but it won't for everyone. For example in order to use those points for fighter defense I'm cutting the synergy out of fleet to either change ships or completely rekit them, and yes, many would say, "but but but 'tis how you play, one must sacrifice in order to gain!"

Wheres the originality, when every ISD fleet has to run 3 small ships as interference or has to sacrifice most of it's power just to screen?

Of course , this isn't all to say that it can't be done. I run an ISD PT fleet with 4 activations, a fighter screen, and completely retained synergy between ships. I've kicked many asses with it, but it took a narrow margin and honestly didn't work great until wave 5...

TLDR:

People don't think large ships work because it's very hard to maintain original ideas, fleet synergy, and support. You're basically balancing an entire fleets functionality on 20-50 points.

You're right. I was going to include a section about how skill and familiarity plays a role into doing well in each game you play but I felt I was rambling on

So here it is.

If you're going to get a new player into the game and helping them design fleets, giving them your list that you spent dozens of games perfecting is not a great approach. Tell them to grab the ISD, take a Comms Net and pass tokens to the ISD every round. Take an Arq and it will serve as your flank. Grab Demo for another threat and toss in some fighters. I prefer the "positive" approach to teaching. Show them what works and how effective it is. Comms Net passing Nav tokens to Demo which has ET on it. Great. Demo can CF now instead of Nav to trigger ET. Or pass a repair token to an ISD and repair 2 cards. Rather than having them watch their ISD burn down and not being able to repair it. You learn what works so you understand the game. Then you learn what doesn't work.

That's why support ships are an excellent addition to any fleet if you're unsure of what to do. A Comms Net can literally go in any fleet. Why? Because literally everyone is using a flotilla, and free tokens, an extra deployment and activation helps any fleet. There is no downside. They attack squads and can push squads.

Once people start to go to the extremes, like taking no squads, they already know the capabilities of the ships. Chances are a new player will not use no squads for long because of a negative learning experience. They go in with nothing and get wrecked against bombers. Next time they will likely take some squads. It's kind of like the bumpers for bowling. Stray to far to one side and you get knocked back to the middle.

Experienced players already know, or should know, the intricacies of deployment and activation. That's why this topic isn't a huge issue for a lot of people. That's why the Avenger Xmas ISD works so well, Sanguis. You already understand these concepts. You know how to mitigate your short falls, and leverage your skill and beat stick to win games. But people who are winning with triple flotillas are also using the same skill and knowledge to make those support ships even better. The upgrades aren't changing, but rather the purpose of each ship is. Where it moves, what command it has, how it is deployed and when it activates. They also buy time so their beat stick can get in range.

There is not one way to play Armada. That's what makes it good. But there are generalities that can be made about it, like taking at least 50 points of squads, or taking support ships, simply because it can improve a players game play. More importantly, there will always be someone who can make things work where no one else can, and that is where experience and skill is involved.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

You're right. I was going to include a section about how skill and familiarity plays a role into doing well in each game you play but I felt I was rambling on

So here it is.

If you're going to get a new player into the game and helping them design fleets, giving them your list that you spent dozens of games perfecting is not a great approach. Tell them to grab the ISD, take a Comms Net and pass tokens to the ISD every round. Take an Arq and it will serve as your flank. Grab Demo for another threat and toss in some fighters. I prefer the "positive" approach to teaching. Show them what works and how effective it is. Comms Net passing Nav tokens to Demo which has ET on it. Great. Demo can CF now instead of Nav to trigger ET. Or pass a repair token to an ISD and repair 2 cards. Rather than having them watch their ISD burn down and not being able to repair it. You learn what works so you understand the game. Then you learn what doesn't work.

That's why support ships are an excellent addition to any fleet if you're unsure of what to do. A Comms Net can literally go in any fleet. Why? Because literally everyone is using a flotilla, and free tokens, an extra deployment and activation helps any fleet. There is no downside. They attack squads and can push squads.

Once people start to go to the extremes, like taking no squads, they already know the capabilities of the ships. Chances are a new player will not use no squads for long because of a negative learning experience. They go in with nothing and get wrecked against bombers. Next time they will likely take some squads. It's kind of like the bumpers for bowling. Stray to far to one side and you get knocked back to the middle.

Experienced players already know, or should know, the intricacies of deployment and activation. That's why this topic isn't a huge issue for a lot of people. That's why the Avenger Xmas ISD works so well, Sanguis. You already understand these concepts. You know how to mitigate your short falls, and leverage your skill and beat stick to win games. But people who are winning with triple flotillas are also using the same skill and knowledge to make those support ships even better. The upgrades aren't changing, but rather the purpose of each ship is. Where it moves, what command it has, how it is deployed and when it activates. They also buy time so their beat stick can get in range.

There is not one way to play Armada. That's what makes it good. But there are generalities that can be made about it, like taking at least 50 points of squads, or taking support ships, simply because it can improve a players game play. More importantly, there will always be someone who can make things work where no one else can, and that is where experience and skill is involved.

Yup... yup yup yup

I've actually been writing up a big piece on engagement area development for the past couple of days and all the thought that goes into a well developed battlefield. Being able to see the battle play out before you deploy is huge to deploying correctly.

I'm talking about different ways to arrange the battlefield (funneling, screening, shielding...) and incorporate it into your objective selection, fleet composition, and deployment. So far, it's about half as long as this current thread, so I'm editing it down to soze.

Coming soon to a forum near you.

Great reading, all! I'm very interested in how to build lower-activation fleets that are still competitive.

btw...What's an ISD PT fleet?

11 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Great reading, all! I'm very interested in how to build lower-activation fleets that are still competitive.

btw...What's an ISD PT fleet?

Something that uses Overload Pulse to tap enemy defense tokens... in combo with the ISD avenger title it's devastating. Can even pop large ships in a single shot.

Though I personally call any of my fleets designed to tap DF tokens (with or without overload pulse) a PT fleet.

**Edit: PT is short for Pulse Tap, in case that wasn't clear**

similar to:

Sanguine night
Author: Darth Sanguis

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 384/400

Commander: Admiral Screed

Assault Objective: Station Assault
Defense Objective: Contested Outpost
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Admiral Screed ( 26 points)
- Avenger ( 5 points)
- Captain Needa ( 2 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- Turbolaser Reroute Circuits ( 7 points)
- SW 7 Ion Batteries ( 5 points)
= 179 total ship cost

Victory II-Class Star Destroyer (85 points)
- Minister Tua ( 2 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- X17 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
- Overload Pulse ( 8 points)
= 115 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)
- Jamming Field ( 2 points)
= 25 total ship cost

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)
- Comms Net ( 2 points)
= 25 total ship cost

5 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 40 points)

15 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Great reading, all! I'm very interested in how to build lower-activation fleets that are still competitive.

btw...What's an ISD PT fleet?

Be really careful on low activations, very easy to get out-deployed (I like to run a Dual-ISD bomber list, no gozantis, no arquitens, ONLY 2 ISDs and 4 bombers + fighter screen to protect bombers)

I personally am not a huge fan of Overload Pulse, it's just too much to get going to get it to work. In fact, @Snipafist wrote a whole post about why not to use it in your list for your ISD....

How much luck have you had using it?

1 hour ago, Hastatior said:

The argument is that you would want the game balanced along the activation axis. In other words, the mechanics should not be so skewed that taking an MSU fleet against a low activation fleet is automatically an advantage, with all else being equal.

But all else is not equal, which is why the MSU has that automatic advantage. Because the large ships bring greater Mass to bear; their effectiveness is not mitigated as quickly by incoming damage; they utilize upgrades more efficiently.

Now, we can have a conversation over whether the advantage granted by activations is too large and needs to be tuned down in one way or another, but just saying that activation advantage should not be a thing is just asking for all ISDs all the time.

5 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

But all else is not equal, which is why the MSU has that automatic advantage. Because the large ships bring greater Mass to bear; their effectiveness is not mitigated as quickly by incoming damage; they utilize upgrades more efficiently.

Now, we can have a conversation over whether the advantage granted by activations is too large and needs to be tuned down in one way or another, but just saying that activation advantage should not be a thing is just asking for all ISDs all the time.

I think you aren't understand what I mean by "ALL ELSE" being equal. I mean skill level, experience etc.

It is ABUNDANTLY and mathematically clear that you

A) have a finite number of movements to affect the game state

B) have a finite number of deployments, which is a metagame on its own

C) have a finite number of attacks to make

All of these things automatically are way better with MSU. Add to this the simple mathematical truth that the very way the mechanics of defense tokens work is less effective/impactful v.s. more small attacks than less/bigger attacks means that if you clone a top level player who is equally skilled at both fleet types the very mechanics of the game clearly stack up for MSU. Argue the point all you like, but the proof is in the pudding. If you want to be competitive at a high level and show up with 4 or less activations you better be really really good or really really lucky because you start at a disadvantage.

One thing that many overlook is objectives to help big ships counter MSU list. Many of these can deal damage for you or force the small ships in a place to minimize their effect on your ships while maximizing yours. I have had great success with contested outpost and minefields.

46 minutes ago, Hastatior said:

I think you aren't understand what I mean by "ALL ELSE" being equal. I mean skill level, experience etc.

It is ABUNDANTLY and mathematically clear that you

A) have a finite number of movements to affect the game state

B) have a finite number of deployments, which is a metagame on its own

C) have a finite number of attacks to make

All of these things automatically are way better with MSU. Add to this the simple mathematical truth that the very way the mechanics of defense tokens work is less effective/impactful v.s. more small attacks than less/bigger attacks means that if you clone a top level player who is equally skilled at both fleet types the very mechanics of the game clearly stack up for MSU. Argue the point all you like, but the proof is in the pudding. If you want to be competitive at a high level and show up with 4 or less activations you better be really really good or really really lucky because you start at a disadvantage.

Of course you're at a disadvantage. With activations costing 18-23 points and providing such an obvious advantage, you're running a skew list if you show up with 2 or 3 ships. In the same way that if you show up with 9 or more activations you better be really really good or really really lucky because most of those ships can't shoot for crap. But then, you brought that list knowing those limitations, sooo... build a better list? Or, learn how to win with the one you brought.

The advantages of large ships that I laid out above have nothing to do with skill level or experience, and you didn't address any of them--you just laid out examples of the advantages of MSU lists, which are, as you said, abundantly clear. But, I'm going to address them anyway.

A) have a finite number of movements to affect the game state

Each movement of an ISD affects the game state much more than that of a CR90 does. Furthermore, incoming damage incrementally decreases the effectiveness of those CR90's faster than it does the ISD. Eight points of damage is a flesh wound for an ISD; it kills a CR90, leaving you with diminished firepower, decreased activations, and an overall weaker fleet.

B) have a finite number of deployments, which is a metagame on its own

Most MSUs bring fewer squadrons than larger ship builds. This is balanced along an entirely different axis of squadron alpha strikes vs activation efficiency, as well as the point below. Therefore, while MSUs have more ship deployments, large ship builds tend to make up the difference with squadron deployments. Furthermore, see my article on the subtleties of the deployment curve--it's not all about how many you have. If you're deploying an ISD2 Christmas tree while the other guy has two CR90's left, odds are that you still came out ahead on deployments in terms of percentage of your fleet deployed before committing to a strategy. Again, assuming you didn't build your fleet poorly.

C) have a finite number of attacks to make

This goes back to the point I made that you ignored about upgrades being more efficient on large ships. Are an ISD's two shots, each of which one-shotting an MC30, really less valuable than the MC30s' four shots that probably still fail to tackle the ISD in one round? And consider the impact that one Flight Controllers/EHB ISD activation makes on that alternate axis of the squadron game that I just mentioned. I'd always prefer to have an EHB ISD activating my squadrons even if it's dramatically more expensive than the 2-3 Gozantis it's replacing, because alpha strikes are a really big deal.

the mechanics of defense tokens work is less effective/impactful v.s. more small attacks than less/bigger attacks

Again addressed by more efficient upgrades. Those 8 redirects in your MC30 swarm suddenly look a lot less useful when they're staring down one ISD2 rocking the Gunnery Teams and XI7's that I paid a grand total of 10 points for.


Yes. More activations is an advantage. Mass is, too--ship and squadron. Survivability is, too. Throughput efficiency is, too.

Just like every other advantage in this game, it has to be balanced at all points of the game from fleet-building through conclusion against aaaalll the other axes. There's a reason you don't see 7 and 8 ship builds dominating all the top tables: it's very hard to get that many activations while keeping any kind of relevance in those activations.

They are begging for a deployment curve article....

3 hours ago, Hastatior said:

The argument is that you would want the game balanced along the activation axis. In other words, the mechanics should not be so skewed that taking an MSU fleet against a low activation fleet is automatically an advantage, with all else being equal.

Why not?

Seems like it aught to be an advantage- spreading points out to increase durability by preventing some roll over damage and balancing out less powerful individual activations in return for more controll of whats activating when.

8 hours ago, geek19 said:

I personally am not a huge fan of Overload Pulse, it's just too much to get going to get it to work. In fact, @Snipafist wrote a whole post about why not to use it in your list for your ISD....

How much luck have you had using it?

I've found it works best with OLP on the Avenger itself with Screed, activation control, and initiative. Double arc your target, proc OLP with the side are, unleash hell with your front arc (needa/trc helps here). It can claim fully healthy medium ships

14 hours ago, geek19 said:

I personally am not a huge fan of Overload Pulse, it's just too much to get going to get it to work. In fact, @Snipafist wrote a whole post about why not to use it in your list for your ISD....

How much luck have you had using it?

Since wave 2 I've been mopping up my local game group with it.... so much so after wave 4 when gozantis were introduced (even more so with wave 5 tua and jendon stele) that I often don't use it anymore because I know the people at my game store hate playing it so much.... It's all about skill and practice. I think my core PT fleet has only really been beaten 5 or 6 times out of 35-40 games.

All that said, with the release of damage control officers and the ever growing relevance of activation counts, I've also switched out OP for several "damage tap" builds which use small ships or mass fighters to generate just enough damage that tokens must be spent. They're less effective than the showy one shots but add both activation count and fighters to hold up well in the current meta.