2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I thought we were just making arguments about Rieekan Ace Holes being a bit OP, now it's all squadrons everywhere? No, no, no. I'm with @BiggsIRL and @Drasnighta about running heavy squads from the beginning. I'm all for having better anti-squad tech, but I don't think we need a massive squadron nerf.

Under the current rules I'd disagree.... Maybe if aces had limitations and a few keywords like BCC or relay were changed, I'd be more inclined to see through it, but being hit by a wall of named characters then eating the subsequent 12-18 damage they synergize together because defenses can't reduce squadron damage efficiently has left me in a salty way with squads..... If I never saw another b-wing again it'd be too soon.... and that used to be my favorite....

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

It's entirely possible to run 4 Tie/F and win a game against max squads. I know because I've done it multiple times. I honestly think there is too much hive-mind going on in the forums and people start to believe they can't play the game without X, or doing Y is "bad" because how can you counter Z? The hive-mind is what is ruining the game by stirring everyone into a frenzy of Pro-Squad vs Anti-Squad vs Pro-Flotilla vs Anti-Flotilla vs A vs B vs C.

It's a lot more complicated than here's 32 points of ties, that'll fix your fleet. The fleet has synergize with that, were they MSU fleets where the ships were maneuverable enough to get away? I very seriously I doubt 32 points of Ties could save my dual ISDs from a full 134.... What about your opponents during those matches? Skilled players? Well synergized lists? I have a fleet I run often that still gets eaten alive with 6 ties, because ace synergy, and a lack of effective defenses on my ships....

People who don't feel like dicking about with squadrons shouldn't be forced into dumping points into them as a safety.... That's what's so frustrating about it. No other aspect of this game do I have to plan a hard counter in case my opponent brings it.... no other ship functions like that...

I'm over them... honestly... it's why I don't run them. I'd rather give an opponent that wants to waste a third of his time with squads a wide birth to get it done sooner than muddy my hands by dumping points into it...

Maybe if the game didn't so heavily favor them I'd be interested but when 134 can topple 400... I'm good no thanks...

28 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The single biggest insult you can say to someone is "If you don't like the way I play, F**k off and play a whole other game."

I responded to a statement where people are being driven because they feel they need to play a certain way - but that's still a concious decision they have made - to either stick it out or to give up and walk away.

Your question seemed playful and joking to me, so I responded in the same way - in no way did I ACTUALLY mean "Quit Armada n00b" or anything close to that. I had no idea you were quite serious.

My main view of Armada is that it's the strategy, large scale game, and X-Wing is the tactics, small-scale game - much like Games Workshop used to have Warhammer and Epic 40k as two separate games before just saying, "Well, if everyone WANTS to use Epic stuff in 40k games, then we'll sell it to you..."

Squadrons are a big part of that strategy. In my view, admirals maneuver CAP screens to protect ships, or move in bombers to soften the enemy's ships before coming in for a killing blow. It's part of the dance, but it shouldn't be the MAIN part of the dance, if you take my meaning - squadrons should be about, oh, 1/3rd of the game plan?

Regarding X-Wing... hell, if X-Wing gives you flashbacks to Fighter Theory, it can't be THAT far off.

1 minute ago, iamfanboy said:

Your question seemed playful and joking to me, so I responded in the same way - in no way did I ACTUALLY mean "Quit Armada n00b" or anything close to that. I had no idea you were quite serious.

My main view of Armada is that it's the strategy, large scale game, and X-Wing is the tactics, small-scale game - much like Games Workshop used to have Warhammer and Epic 40k as two separate games before just saying, "Well, if everyone WANTS to use Epic stuff in 40k games, then we'll sell it to you..."

Squadrons are a big part of that strategy. In my view, admirals maneuver CAP screens to protect ships, or move in bombers to soften the enemy's ships before coming in for a killing blow. It's part of the dance, but it shouldn't be the MAIN part of the dance, if you take my meaning - squadrons should be about, oh, 1/3rd of the game plan?

Regarding X-Wing... hell, if X-Wing gives you flashbacks to Fighter Theory, it can't be THAT far off.

Here's an easy way to fix this... Ship upgrades that interact with or can interact squadrons or squadron commands come out of the squadron total... that's 8 points per BCC, Yavaris, Talon, RLBs, expanded hangars, all the bullcrap that makes that 134 feel like 300 now comes out of squadron points...

Bamf balanced achieved.

8 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

It's a lot more complicated than here's 32 points of ties, that'll fix your fleet. The fleet has synergize with that, were they MSU fleets where the ships were maneuverable enough to get away? I very seriously I doubt 32 points of Ties could save my dual ISDs from a full 134.... What about your opponents during those matches? Skilled players? Well synergized lists? I have a fleet I run often that still gets eaten alive with 6 ties, because ace synergy, and a lack of effective defenses on my ships....

People who don't feel like dicking about with squadrons shouldn't be forced into dumping points into them as a safety.... That's what's so frustrating about it. No other aspect of this game do I have to plan a hard counter in case my opponent brings it.... no other ship functions like that...

I'm over them... honestly... it's why I don't run them. I'd rather give an opponent that wants to waste a third of his time with squads a wide birth to get it done sooner than muddy my hands by dumping points into it...

Maybe if the game didn't so heavily favor them I'd be interested but when 134 can topple 400... I'm good no thanks...

Really, it's not 134 points. It's Yavaris, the flotillas, multiple Expanded Hangar Bays and other cards stacked on top, maybe a Pelta with AFFM - that's another 150-200 points right there, not including commander. So it makes sense that a huge investment in making squadrons GOOD would be the equal of a list that makes their SHIPS good.

The question is, "Does it make squadrons TOO good? Would I have to take a 600 point force against someone's 400 point squadron-based force in order to win on a 50/50 basis?" For the most part, the answer is no, you can win with minimal fighter coverage if you play well. Rieekan, flotillas, unique squadrons, Yavaris, and AFFM appears to be a perfect storm of upgrades right now that needs to be handled in some way (either a nerf to one or more components or upgrades in future sets), but absent some of those components it's reasonably balanced. (of them I favor Rieekan as a nerf personally, he's too strong, has the Rieekan Ramming list already waiting to take the place of Rieekan Aceholes, and invalidates a lot of other Rebel commanders. Why bother with Mon Mothma?)

Though I still wish Intel weren't as vital as it is, it nerfs small screens TOO effectively. But that's another discussion.

Armada has, as its task, to represent capitol ship battles in the X-Wing universe. A large part of canon capship battles ARE squadrons, we see them in every depiction, and has always been represented as a case of "bombers can wreck capships so you need interceptors to handle them." This is rooted in the WWII ship battle aesthetic of the game, and it's not going to change.

Right now the power balance is tilted too far in the direction of squadrons, 'tis true, but it can be tilted back.

17 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Maybe if the game didn't so heavily favor them I'd be interested but when 134 can topple 400... I'm good no thanks...

This is as far from the truth as possible. If they build their entire list to kill ships, then they should be rewarded for doing so. How can you say 134 points of bombers killed your ISD when it was Yavaris, a sum 60-70 point investment, who double tapped B-Wings? And the 2 BCCs who made sure max damage was dealt, another 52 points put into the combo. That right there is close to 250 points to bring down an ISD.

19 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm over them... honestly... it's why I don't run them. I'd rather give an opponent that wants to waste a third of his time with squads a wide birth to get it done sooner than muddy my hands by dumping points into it...

It's hard for me to want to change the game when you won't put in any effort in your own games to deal with them. Honestly, that's just lazy. Armada is not an easy game and you should not be rewarded with a nerf because you don't want to play squads. That's like saying Ackbar is OP but all you ever do is run into the side arc of every ship in every game and wonder why you are losing.

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

That's like saying Ackbar is OP but all you ever do is run into the side arc of every ship in every game and wonder why you are losing.

SHHH! Don't tell them how to beat Ackbar, I'm playing him for the first store championship I'm going to!

14 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

That's like saying Ackbar is OP but all you ever do is run into the side arc of every ship in every game and wonder why you are losing.

3 minutes ago, geek19 said:

SHHH! Don't tell them how to beat Ackbar, I'm playing him for the first store championship I'm going to!

No, no please continue....

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

It's hard for me to want to change the game when you won't put in any effort in your own games to deal with them. Honestly, that's just lazy. Armada is not an easy game and you should not be rewarded with a nerf because you don't want to play squads. That's like saying Ackbar is OP but all you ever do is run into the side arc of every ship in every game and wonder why you are losing.

I'm not asking anyone to change what they're doing. I've made notes of what I'd like, the changes I feel would make squadrons better, but I've never imposed a demand on anyone. If you want to dump all your points into squads, I have no objection, I don't. I don't want to waste 250 points of my fleet to specifically counter 250 points of yours... I don't want to play rock paper scissors. There are ways to deal with Akbar fleets that don't require building to do so.... objectives, deployment, specifically how you navigate and use activation advantages in your favor, these are all inherent in a fleet, while some do it better every fleet can manage it, anti squadron defenses is an investment, either into upgrades, or ships, or the squadrons themselves. And again, I would not be so heavily against them if they were better managed. I actually enjoy playing generic fighters, especially when the opponent is too... 60 points of generics is fun... I full 134 of aces and a fleet used to stack effects.... again... nah, I'm good... it ain't fun, and that's why I'm here...

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

It's hard for me to want to change the game when you won't put in any effort in your own games to deal with them. Honestly, that's just lazy. Armada is not an easy game and you should not be rewarded with a nerf because you don't want to play squads.

I don't think it's a fair statement if it is applied as a general statement. I believe that every fleet should have a strategy to deal with squadrons or it deserves to lose. However the strategy doesn't necessarily have to revolve around killing enemy squadrons with squadrons. Previously other strategies such as disrupting carrier operations (not necessarily by killing the carriers, just forcing them to be out of range was sometimes enough) and heavy investment in ship-based AS as well as a small squadron force worked. Not anymore. Again Armada is not an easy game and it shouldn't be, however, I want it to be rich in possibilities for creative strategies and fleet building and refusing to go full-squadron route while still attacking squadron problem and doing creative/unorthodox solutions is not equal for being too lazy to use squads.

9 minutes ago, pt106 said:

I don't think it's a fair statement if it is applied as a general statement. I believe that every fleet should have a strategy to deal with squadrons or it deserves to lose. However the strategy doesn't necessarily have to revolve around killing enemy squadrons with squadrons. Previously other strategies such as disrupting carrier operations (not necessarily by killing the carriers, just forcing them to be out of range was sometimes enough) and heavy investment in ship-based AS as well as a small squadron force worked. Not anymore. Again Armada is not an easy game and it shouldn't be, however, I want it to be rich in possibilities for creative strategies and fleet building and refusing to go full-squadron route while still attacking squadron problem and doing creative/unorthodox solutions is not equal for being too lazy to use squads.

I mean, I don't want to be an ******* here (when, really, I am one already, I just don't want to be), but is part and parcel of these threads then an expression of frustration and/or perhaps a lack of percieved patience? I mean, I think that's where a lot of my responses are coming from - from that point of view... Which, of course, is denigrating somewhat, but at least I'm seeing it - right?

Because, I mean, like I said - there was a time when MSUs were all the rage and Squadron-Lovers were laughed at... And I don't disagree, it was certainly swung back in the other direction...

... Inherently, I'm biased because I'm having my time in the sun, somewhat, so to speak - but what's the issue with waiting to see the next swing?

Why do we need to advocate a position for a potential massive overcorrection?

Of course, that raises the next question of "How long do we wait for the next swing?"... I mean, I feel I waited 3 Waves and a Campaign Expansion to get to a point where I'm comfortable enjoying the squadron side of things...

But then in the same breath, I'm being made to feel like a right prick for playing the game the way I've always played it... That's not fair either...

I've stated my opinion on this matter many times but I think that a player should be able to take a light fighter complement and still be able to perform against heavy Squadron lists. I think better Flack/AA upgrades would help a lot, and upgrades that help fighter screens as we have upgrades that help bomber wings. Another thing that I think might help is to change Intel so that it gives friendly squadrons grit and not enemy squadrons heavy, thought I doubt this will happened but I think that, that would be an elegant and simple change.

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Because, I mean, like I said - there was a time when MSUs were all the rage and Squadron-Lovers were laughed at... And I don't disagree, it was certainly swung back in the other direction...

... Inherently, I'm biased because I'm having my time in the sun, somewhat, so to speak - but what's the issue with waiting to see the next swing?

Why do we need to advocate a position for a potential massive overcorrection?

Your position makes total sense and get me right, I'm not advocating for over correction, however I believe that the correction is in order and the right amount of correction should achieve the result when both high squadron plays and low squadron plays are equally viable. The problem with just waiting for a next swing is that there is a significant risk that Armada will start to lose a player base as doing 134 vs 134 squadron battles is not everyone's cup of tea and it does involve a different and complex mechanics.

I for one, despite generally speaking in favor for more anti-squadron tech in the game, do really enjoy squadrons. It feels wrong to make a list without at least some small escort of fighters purely for thematic reasons. Also, I really want bombers to be a viable way to build a list.

That said, I also really want to have ships blowing up other ships to be a thing, and I want it to be a thing that doesn't automatically lose to squadrons. I want ships to be able to attack squadrons in a way that makes the squadrons think "you know...maybe I don't want to dive headfirst into that ship."

And really, the game doesn't require that much change to allow this to happen. A simple rebalancing of the damage output from ship to squadron to balance out the squadron to ship damage ratio. Or perhaps rebalancing the squadron to ship damage.

3 minutes ago, pt106 said:

The problem with just waiting for a next swing is that there is a significant risk that Armada will start to lose a player base as doing 134 vs 134 squadron battles is not everyone's cup of tea and it does involve a different and complex mechanics.

Is it so hard to ask the people you play with to not run max squads? I honestly feel like the guys I play with in NC are the only ones in the entire freaking Armada community willing to play a non-competitive list because I want to try something new. We've run through the gambit of prepping and vetting lists before tournaments and now we just want to have some fun.

If players are unwilling to do that, there are bigger problems than the current meta.

I really think people just need to talk and be on the same page when they show up to play.

10 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Is it so hard to ask the people you play with to not run max squads? I honestly feel like the guys I play with in NC are the only ones in the entire freaking Armada community willing to play a non-competitive list because I want to try something new. We've run through the gambit of prepping and vetting lists before tournaments and now we just want to have some fun.

If players are unwilling to do that, there are bigger problems than the current meta.

I really think people just need to talk and be on the same page when they show up to play.

Yes, it is. Artificial limitations aren't really a solution, but an indication that the problem exists. For example, most of my Armada games are in some kind of tournament environment (which doesn't prevent me to try some experimental lists there ), however for obvious reasons its impossible to ask people not to bring what they like to a tourney.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm perfectly fine with people bringing max squads against me as long as I have a fighting chance (this is not equal to autowin) against their builds without forcing myself into bringing 8-12 squadrons (at least until there is a fast and reliable way to move squadrons with the 'undo' option )

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

Is it so hard to ask the people you play with to not run max squads? I honestly feel like the guys I play with in NC are the only ones in the entire freaking Armada community willing to play a non-competitive list because I want to try something new. We've run through the gambit of prepping and vetting lists before tournaments and now we just want to have some fun.

If players are unwilling to do that, there are bigger problems than the current meta.

I really think people just need to talk and be on the same page when they show up to play.

This is one of the reasons I'm so inclined not to bail on Armada, honestly the non-competitive community is killer (not to imply the competitive suck, I just have very little insight on them as I don't compete). The people I've met that like to play fighters will at least give me heads up so I can build a defense, or from time to time they'll invite me to a 600 point no squad battle.... and on the same note, I try to indulge them when I know they want to screw with squads I'll play along and make a squad fleet.

It's a good community, and 95% of the time, as long as I'm not blindsided with a full 134+upgrades+ships of aces and squads, it a good time.

3 hours ago, BiggsIRL said:

How quickly we forget Cluster Bombs exist.

I didn't forget about them, they just cost 5pts and are 1 time use only with limited range. To be a true deterrent, they should be active all the time.

2 of the best bits of anti-squadron tech in the game have come out in the past two waves: Flechette Torpedoes and Toryn Farr. Both do tremendous work making anti-squad firepower from ships significantly more effective. With the help of these upgrades I have had success managing 134 points of squadrons with just 60 of my own. Toryn parked near a Neb-B Escort turns it into a reliable anti-squad solution. Flechette Raiders are so much fun that I rarely play Imps without one right now.

Hopefully the next upgrade will be something that works well for both sides.

I also have really gotten to like using my small ships kitted out for AS work to protect the big ships. I get lots of mileage out of the black dice on the basic flotilla as an anti-squad platform.

8 minutes ago, pt106 said:

Yes, it is. Artificial limitations aren't really a solution, but an indication that the problem exists. For example, most of my Armada games are in some kind of tournament environment (which doesn't prevent me to try some experimental lists there ), however for obvious reasons its impossible to ask people not to bring what they like to a tourney.

I would disagree. By all accounts, you're an excellent ISD player. If I got tired of being crushed by your ISDs, I would ask to play against something else. That is not indicative of the meta, but rather you being so skilled with a single fleet or ship that I feel I can't have fun with my own ideas since I won't have a chance.

14 minutes ago, shmitty said:

2 of the best bits of anti-squadron tech in the game have come out in the past two waves: Flechette Torpedoes and Toryn Farr. Both do tremendous work making anti-squad firepower from ships significantly more effective. With the help of these upgrades I have had success managing 134 points of squadrons with just 60 of my own. Toryn parked near a Neb-B Escort turns it into a reliable anti-squad solution. Flechette Raiders are so much fun that I rarely play Imps without one right now.

This is true, however I feel that due to Relay buff, even with this tech (and don't forget RBD as it is a solid antisquadron tech) the game was still tilted towards squadron play and it was seen in a regional statistic as well.

So...as a mental exercise, let's see an "average" squadron (A-Wings) attacking an "average" small ship (CR90). This gives us a direct equivalent number of points of squadrons vs ship. (44 each)

There are four squadrons, which each deal 0.75 damage for a total of 3 damage to the ship. This is equivalent to 3/11ths of the CR90s total durability

The ship, assuming all squadrons are in the same firing arc, it can deal 0.5 damage to each squadron, for a total of 2. This is equivalent to 1/8th of the squadron.

So for the same points, and not even optimizing, you are seeing a decided difference in the damage output from ships into squadrons for equivalent points. Then we take into account bomber, and squads that throw multiple dice in a more cost effective manner...

5 TIE Bombers (45pts): average 0.83 damage each. For the 5 of them that is 4.15 damage. 4/11ths of the CR90s total durability.

The same CR90 deals still...0.5 damage back, so 2.5 total damage, but this time into 25 hull worth of squadrons, so 1/10th.

4/11ths to 1/10th...the squadrons are doing FOUR TIMES the amount of damage to the ship than the ship is doing to those same squadrons. For the same number of points.

In IDEAL situations for the ship (a Raider II with OEs, that lived through the squadron alpha) you get...0.94 damage per squad, so 9.8 damage total to the 30 hull (now using Y-Wings, as it's a closer points comparison)) Which gets you into the 1/3 range, so not too shabby.

Unfortunately, not all lists have access to this, and really, it's a pretty solid best-case scenario to get 5 squadrons in one arc and still be alive.

Having more ships be able to do more damage to squadrons would really be what tilts the game back into a more balanced point, this was super rambly but I hope I got the point across, even if i'm no longer sure what my point was.

More I read on the subject, more I think that allowing hit on Crits should be the answer we all need. FFg should take this avenue seriously.

Think about it, capital ship whit black dices have maybe limited range but could be something really good against squadron. Blue dice will stay good for the distance and the stability of result.

Blue dice should represent medium range AA ordinance (less fire-power) and black dice close range AA ordinance (strong fire-power). It was the same on WWII ship, at medium range, 40 mm. cannon was the only option and at close range, everything was shooting at the target like de 40mm., 0.50 caliber, small arms, anything that could shoot

No change on the amount of squadron allowed, no change on card (ok, some upgrade card will loose theyr benifice but they are not used anyway), everyone should be happy!

Capital ship will be better against squadron but squadron won't be that penalized in my point of view.

5 minutes ago, pt106 said:

This is true, however I feel that due to Relay buff, even with this tech (and don't forget RBD as it is a solid antisqaudron tech) the game was still tilted towards squadron play and it was seen it regional statistic as well.

Absolutely. Just noticing that FFG has been giving ships better anti-squad tech lately. I would expect that trend to continue.

GLORIOUS RED DICE QUASAR FIRE IN WAVE 6.