5 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

*shrug* What you want and what is are not the same thing. Apply the basic tenets of observation to the canonical depictions of the Star Wars universe and you'll derive several key facts:

My biggest issue about everything you say is this.

In the movies , the bad guys as are usual shown to be inefficient bumbling idiots, who can't shoot anything, fail to do anything that matters correctly and generally look menacing without really doing much.

That is because it is a movie, and the good guys are supposed to win, and usually in the most ridiculous fashion possible, and that is totally and utterly fine in a movie, I accept it, and I enjoy it, because that is pretty much how movies are, the underdog wins, in situations that would in reality end in death and failure.

This is not a movie, the bad guys aren't supposed to be a kicking post for the good guys, BOTH sides are designed to be played by people, the context here is using asinine justification for the game, based on "movie logic" is deeply flawed.

You mention the SSD, it was what 11KM long?, do you conceptually have any idea how big that is? and that it has a single point outside of the main hull no less, with glass windows that controls the entire ship, an area 10-20mtrs square. The reality is that ship could not have been made to function, it would have needed many main hubs routing controls, and several C&C decks spread throughout its gargantuan length, no single fighter crashing into it could have done what was done in a movie, but it looks dramatic, and makes the bad guys look bad, so it is in the movie, basing this as factual rule material for a game where 2 people play one side each is poor, the game is not a movie.

And for the record, I don't post here there and everywhere claiming squadrons are bad in Armada.

6 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

WANTING the game to be about the big ships is a valid desire, and there do exist other space battle games which have that. HOWEVER, if it was just about the capships with squadrons being an afterthought, Star Wars Armada would be a deeply flawed representation of the intellectual property. You and @Blail Blerg are wrong. Just plain incorrect. If your viewpoint prevailed, then it wouldn't be Star Wars as we've seen it in every canon source - it'd be another game using Star Wars shaped ships. I'm not sure how to state it clearer than that.

Right now it IS a bit tilted too far towards squadrons (and I think the key mistake there is the Intel keyword, as well as flotillas), but that's a matter for tinkering with the game balance, not removing a vital part of the game which parallels the IP exactly.

At least the issue I have with the game is this: If we push to create the most efficient lists for tournament play, there is almost no reason to rely on the bigger ships. Presently there is too much of an advantage to buying large amounts of activations and deployments, granting each of them a single very powerful upgrade card to deal damage out of proportion with their size. This can be Demolisher, or TRCs, or APTs. TRCs make all the difference for a CR-90 swarm that buys activation and gurantees 1-2 shots on a single target which guarantees 2 damage. Since most larger ships do not have evade tokens to deal with these kinds of shots, they're left to take it. On the response, those CR-90s can evade unwanted dice easily.

If big ships can find a way to close the distance and destroy their attackers before those smaller ships have a chance to overcome the hull/shields, the big ships can still work. This is why we still see monster ISDs out there, and in my area, Liberties configured with H9s and QTLs. They run with super-maneuverable advantages, or higher hull in Motti's case, so they can catch their targets and destroy them. It's why we see them occasionally topping on larger tournaments as well. However, we never see mediums there, at least I haven't.

But big ships can't take out their targets fast enough, the big ships can go down too easily for the points invested, especially if those big ships cannot respond to those threats. Consider a rebel fighter ball with Rieekan and many enhancements (Farr, BCCs, Talon) placed on ships already granting their list activation advantages. When you get more results out of hard-to-destroy units that last longer under fire, than a smaller collection of massive ships with large batteries, the meta is going to favor the smaller ships buying more activations. Your units are harder to hit, you lose less when one goes down, and it's more targets than the enemy can concentrate on. There are more advantages to taking more small ships than taking fewer big ships, unless you buy carriers to pass those activations off to fighters.

It leaves those of us with the desire to fly upgraded large ships in formation without viable lists to take into a tournament environment, because there are too many counters on paper to even consider taking such lists. I feel that denying that bigger ships are in need of help is encouraging their redundancy by implying the activation game, unhittable fighters and small ships, is perfectly fine. In other words, it should be "proper" that capital ships are useless because swarms are supposed to be so good.

What I desire are lists that are allowed to spend more fleet points on upgrade cards for a few vessels, than buying multiple fighters or small ships. You can make the case that an Armada list needs fighters to be viable, but I think there must be a way for smaller groups of fighters to hold their own against the large rieekan fighter swarms that are in every way superior.

1 hour ago, Norsehound said:

What I desire are lists that are allowed to spend more fleet points on upgrade cards for a few vessels, than buying multiple fighters or small ships. You can make the case that an Armada list needs fighters to be viable, but I think there must be a way for smaller groups of fighters to hold their own against the large rieekan fighter swarms that are in every way superior.

That's why the Intel keyword is flawed IMHO. It's TOO strong against the small delaying packs of TIE Fighters and/or Interceptors, especially in concert with a minimal investment of Jan Ors and Escort, and requires esoteric tactics involving sniping out the Intel unit in a (usually) difficult to accomplish way (IG-88, Saber Squadron, E-Wings, Mauler Mithel) that require a fair bit of investment on their own.

That one keyword invalidates an ENTIRE playstyle.

If it were less strong (if it requires base-to-base contact with one of your own fighters, if it instead added 1 die for attack rolls against enemy squadrons within distance 1, if it was just allowed DELAYING) then... but that's not the case.

I also don't feel like they're making squadrons any weaker in Wave 6 - just making the Imperial squadron ball have a bit more parity with the Rebel squadron ball.

I've already rambled about activation advantage elsewhere in the thread, so I don't feel like suggesting it again.

Oh gee. Now the argument is "I'm wrong". Okay. Well, I guess that settles things.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

Oh gee. Now the argument is "I'm wrong". Okay. Well, I guess that settles things.

Wow, you really don't want to get it, do you?

I laid out the points as to why you're wrong very carefully. Your attempt at a redirect ("Golly, that guy called me wrong, I guess that I can just dismiss everything he says!") is depressingly transparent - probably because you know that I said nothing but truth and you've got no real answers to rebut me but "I want it my way!"

It's not that I don't get it. The capitol ships are awesome, and there's ALREADY an FFG game that focuses on the small ships - X-Wing - so why NOT have this game focus on the ISDs and MC80s?

But Star Wars Armada isn't a game made from whole cloth. For good or ill, it has to reflect the intellectual property and the internal reality of the Star Wars universe. Part of that is a WWII-esque ability of small fighters to pose a serious threat to large ships. The designer chose to reflect that reality and we have to respect his choices.

2 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

That's why the Intel keyword is flawed IMHO. It's TOO strong against the small delaying packs of TIE Fighters and/or Interceptors, especially in concert with a minimal investment of Jan Ors and Escort, and requires esoteric tactics involving sniping out the Intel unit in a (usually) difficult to accomplish way (IG-88, Saber Squadron, E-Wings, Mauler Mithel) that require a fair bit of investment on their own.

That one keyword invalidates an ENTIRE playstyle.

If it were less strong (if it requires base-to-base contact with one of your own fighters, if it instead added 1 die for attack rolls against enemy squadrons within distance 1, if it was just allowed DELAYING) then... but that's not the case.

I also don't feel like they're making squadrons any weaker in Wave 6 - just making the Imperial squadron ball have a bit more parity with the Rebel squadron ball.

I've already rambled about activation advantage elsewhere in the thread, so I don't feel like suggesting it again.

I discussed this with Mythics a while ago... he can recall the "horrors" of wave 1 better than I can. Back then, fighters would get into range to engage targets and simply... stop. It was enough to take your A-Wings or TIE Interceptors, race them into range, and pin down targets and never attack to prevent counter from slowly wiping you out. This was long before things like Toryrn Farr were around.

The fix I think back then should have been to compel fighters to attack targets that are engaged with them at the end of the fighter phase. This opens up a can of other problems I'm sure... like now being forced to attack Shara Bey when you'd rather wait for intel to save you. But it would have cleared the issue Intel was designed to solve without invalidating squadron screens... which is what Intel does now.

All we can do is think of ways to move forward. I don't think there will be an errata to Intel, it's too integral to the game now and seriously changing it will have a lot of ramifications. It's there to allow bomber balls to do their job, kill ships, and advance the end-state of the game. The problem we can acknowledge at least is that we all recognize it did its job too well.

The question I suppose now is what can we do about it? This one thing continues to escalate the fighter game until we are where we are now: Whichever side has the strongest fighter ball has a better chance of winning the game than without it. Even pulling shots away from capital ships and dealing passive shield damage is enough to tilt a game.

52 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Wow, you really don't want to get it, do you?

I laid out the points as to why you're wrong very carefully. Your attempt at a redirect ("Golly, that guy called me wrong, I guess that I can just dismiss everything he says!") is depressingly transparent - probably because you know that I said nothing but truth and you've got no real answers to rebut me but "I want it my way!"

It's not that I don't get it. The capitol ships are awesome, and there's ALREADY an FFG game that focuses on the small ships - X-Wing - so why NOT have this game focus on the ISDs and MC80s?

But Star Wars Armada isn't a game made from whole cloth. For good or ill, it has to reflect the intellectual property and the internal reality of the Star Wars universe. Part of that is a WWII-esque ability of small fighters to pose a serious threat to large ships. The designer chose to reflect that reality and we have to respect his choices.

I want it thaaaat way. Tell me why it aint nothing but a----

This is a continuing reminder that ISDs and VSDs and Home Ones do not have guns. None. None at all.

in my opinion "Intel" work just fine... you just need to learn NOT to lump all your fighters/bombers into one area and rather spread them out and engage at the edge of your engagement range. You also need to use MORE generic squadrons so you have more of them to tie down the opponent with.

I also think that the tournament point limit of 400p is what makes for small ship spamming a thing. At, say 600p or more, you can take a few medium or large ships AND support them with smaller ships. This makes it possible to support ships in a way they become very difficult to focus down. You can easily afford 15-20 squadrons to put in the way of enemy squadrons and no single ball of enemy squadrons will become very scary while your four or five generic bombers can reign free if that is how your opponent plays it.

Swarms of small ships are not that potent in larger games since they are not numerous enough the focus their fire effectively without getting in each others way and there will be too many opposing escort blocking as well as enemy squadrons that can attack them.

More points and ships completely change up the balance of the game since now large and medium ships can mutually support each other together with escorts AND squadrons.

400p are just screaming small ships are the only viable option because you can't get the support the big ships needs to be effective.

In "reality" a big ship fighting against several smaller ship would be very difficult. The smaller ships can just swoop in fire and move their shields to one place and then swoop back out of range, recharge the shield and get back in. They do this from multiple directions and the big ship can never keep up and chasing after one or two will be futile. It is realistic and why ships needed a fighter and escort screen.

7 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

My biggest issue about everything you say is this.

In the movies , the bad guys as are usual shown to be inefficient bumbling idiots, who can't shoot anything, fail to do anything that matters correctly and generally look menacing without really doing much.

That is because it is a movie, and the good guys are supposed to win, and usually in the most ridiculous fashion possible, and that is totally and utterly fine in a movie, I accept it, and I enjoy it, because that is pretty much how movies are, the underdog wins, in situations that would in reality end in death and failure.

This is not a movie, the bad guys aren't supposed to be a kicking post for the good guys, BOTH sides are designed to be played by people, the context here is using asinine justification for the game, based on "movie logic" is deeply flawed.

You mention the SSD, it was what 11KM long?, do you conceptually have any idea how big that is? and that it has a single point outside of the main hull no less, with glass windows that controls the entire ship, an area 10-20mtrs square. The reality is that ship could not have been made to function, it would have needed many main hubs routing controls, and several C&C decks spread throughout its gargantuan length, no single fighter crashing into it could have done what was done in a movie, but it looks dramatic, and makes the bad guys look bad, so it is in the movie, basing this as factual rule material for a game where 2 people play one side each is poor, the game is not a movie.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that the ships are designed poorly in-universe, but you have to acknowledge that the game can't just ignore the canon sources. If the movie depicts the vessels in a certain way, then that is the only way they are allowed to be depicted in-game. Changing the balance, giving them a different 'feel' from the movies, changes the character of the ships, essentially having the same body and name, but different role, purpose, flavor - it's no longer Star Wars, just Star Wars-esque.

So thus it's pointless to say that the game shouldn't follow the depictions in the movie 'cause the movie is rigged, and the designs are poor/stupid from a strategic view-point, because that is what the game MUST follow, if it's to be a Star Wars game. They can try to re-balance it somewhat, but they can't ignore the realities of the movies' depictions.

That is the crux of the issue. You may argue of the technicalities of the different fighting-styles and sciences, you may be correct that the ship design in-universe is silly and rigged in order to let the good guys win, you may be correct that fighters shouldn't be so powerful. The issue is that in-universe they are, and so in-game they MUST be, with the only concession being a slight re-balance to make the game evenly winnable by both sides. It can't ignore the above points, so it can only do its best within the context you are attacking. In that regard, I think it has done a good job.

7 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I get what you're saying, and I agree that the ships are designed poorly in-universe, but you have to acknowledge that the game can't just ignore the canon sources. If the movie depicts the vessels in a certain way, then that is the only way they are allowed to be depicted in-game. Changing the balance, giving them a different 'feel' from the movies, changes the character of the ships, essentially having the same body and name, but different role, purpose, flavor - it's no longer Star Wars, just Star Wars-esque.

So thus it's pointless to say that the game shouldn't follow the depictions in the movie 'cause the movie is rigged, and the designs are poor/stupid from a strategic view-point, because that is what the game MUST follow, if it's to be a Star Wars game. They can try to re-balance it somewhat, but they can't ignore the realities of the movies' depictions.

That is the crux of the issue. You may argue of the technicalities of the different fighting-styles and sciences, you may be correct that the ship design in-universe is silly and rigged in order to let the good guys win, you may be correct that fighters shouldn't be so powerful. The issue is that in-universe they are, and so in-game they MUST be, with the only concession being a slight re-balance to make the game evenly winnable by both sides. It can't ignore the above points, so it can only do its best within the context you are attacking. In that regard, I think it has done a good job.

I agree with what you are saying, completely.

I just like to discuss things sometimes, sadly for you all, usually here.

Could I stand to see a slight change to squadrons? sure, am I going to campaign about it? not really. I understand Blail and sympathize with his frustrations, but I haven't reached the stage yet where I am so angry/frustrated over squadrons. I quite enjoy using them myself and see them as a combined arms deal, they are powerful, and you either use them, or suffer for not using them.

55 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

I agree with what you are saying, completely.

I just like to discuss things sometimes, sadly for you all, usually here.

Could I stand to see a slight change to squadrons? sure, am I going to campaign about it? not really. I understand Blail and sympathize with his frustrations, but I haven't reached the stage yet where I am so angry/frustrated over squadrons. I quite enjoy using them myself and see them as a combined arms deal, they are powerful, and you either use them, or suffer for not using them.

The point that both you and @GhostofNobodyInParticular are missing is that the game wasn't designed for huge squadron battles. And the current balance makes huge squadron-on-squadron battle the most likely scenario. Should squadrons be powerful? Yes, they should. Should they be overpowered? In my opinion, no they shouldn't, and this issue affect players that enjoy squadron game as well, as losing player base is not healthy for the game in general.

20 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

What's that ship in the bottom right corner?

Lucrehulk. Droid Command or battleship ship. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lucrehulk-class_battleship

Guys guys I hate to interrupt but I have a serious problem and wonder if anyone here can help me with it:

My plastic toys don't make as many pretend PEW PEWS as I want, and someone else's plastic toys make more pretend PEW PEWS than I think they should, can you help me figure out how to take some of their pretend PEW PEWS and add them to mine?

5 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Guys guys I hate to interrupt but I have a serious problem and wonder if anyone here can help me with it:

My plastic toys don't make as many pretend PEW PEWS as I want, and someone else's plastic toys make more pretend PEW PEWS than I think they should, can you help me figure out how to take some of their pretend PEW PEWS and add them to mine?

Install a speaker and some lights in the ship. Then when you roll dice, trigger the lights n sounds for maximum pew pew.

22 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Install a speaker and some lights in the ship. Then when you roll dice, trigger the lights n sounds for maximum pew pew.

Do you have any tips for my pew pew lasers not being as strong and as fresh as they used to be?

28 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Install a speaker and some lights in the ship. Then when you roll dice, trigger the lights n sounds for maximum pew pew.

Can I make the speaker play daft punk?

11 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Do you have any tips for my pew pew lasers not being as strong and as fresh as they used to be?

That sounds like a personal problem... Maybe see a doctor?

4 minutes ago, Rettere said:

Can I make the speaker play daft punk?

Or the Imperial March when you win.

2 hours ago, PT106 said:

The point that both you and @GhostofNobodyInParticular are missing is that the game wasn't designed for huge squadron battles. And the current balance makes huge squadron-on-squadron battle the most likely scenario. Should squadrons be powerful? Yes, they should. Should they be overpowered? In my opinion, no they shouldn't, and this issue affect players that enjoy squadron game as well, as losing player base is not healthy for the game in general.

The balance towards squadrons does go a bit too far, I agree. Nothing should be overpowered, the very word describes an unbalanced situation. Still, it's not greatly unbalanced, since squadrons were already a large part of the universe.

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

The balance towards squadrons does go a bit too far, I agree. Nothing should be overpowered, the very word describes an unbalanced situation. Still, it's not greatly unbalanced, since squadrons were already a large part of the universe.

Reducing the part that can be dedicated to squadron from 1/3 to 25% might be sensible, the 1/3 rule get even worse at higher point games if you try to get the max squadrons on the table.

3 hours ago, PT106 said:

The point that both you and @GhostofNobodyInParticular are missing is that the game wasn't designed for huge squadron battles. And the current balance makes huge squadron-on-squadron battle the most likely scenario. Should squadrons be powerful? Yes, they should. Should they be overpowered? In my opinion, no they shouldn't, and this issue affect players that enjoy squadron game as well, as losing player base is not healthy for the game in general.

The compliment and array of squadrons we have refute this point entirely. It is more correct to say you didnt want to game squadrons to have such a role.

21 minutes ago, Darthain said:

The compliment and array of squadrons we have refute this point entirely. It is more correct to say you didnt want to game squadrons to have such a role.

I think it's more the necessity of large numbers (100+ points) of squadrons that he means by 'wasn't designed for'. Not the impact of squadrons per se. So, if say Intel didn't exist, then large squadron balls wouldn't be so common, and thus consistently large squadron battles wouldn't have been created, and thus low squadron investments would still be viable, and squadrons wouldn't be AS threatening to ships, which meant that their Anti-squadron die(dice) would be appropriate.

So while the game supports and encourages squadron usage, it may not have been balanced for squadron spam (not cheap fighter spam, but bomber+BCC spam). . .

Anyways, I think the squadron complexity is awesome, and since I don't know quite how to use them yet, and neither does my opponent, we're still at the stage were low squadron investment (Dengar, 5 Interceptors and a Lambda) can hold up a Rhymer ball, so my comments on the above aren't from the best sources.

I've had plenty of good times with a 70-80 point screen ball. 4 imp scatter aces tends to hit the spot. Intel is the hiccup mostly, but we have another thread on that.

The way I see it is that if the max squadron is 134p (in a 400p game) you need to bring at least half that in anti-fighter squadron capacity to meet any possible threat you might face. The rest of the point can go into either mixed bomber, utility or anti-fighter if you choose a heavier investment into squadrons.

But as the game is designed I think you need about 70p of anti-fighter squadron investment to face whatever is thrown your way. Those points are never wasted since they can always attack ships if necessary and serve a strategic roll for your fleet.

The rebels probably have the best interceptor squadrons in their A-wings... they are fairly cheap and act pretty well in attacking ships too. The imperial side are more specialized and are worst of if an enemy don't bring any squadrons and you bring around 70p in regular Tie-fighters.

All in all squadrons are hardly overpowered but if an opponent bring 100p (or more) of only bombers and you have no fighter cover you might certainly think they are.

Intel can relatively easy be circumvented by bringing enough squadrons so don't rely too much on Aces if you bring a light fighter screen. I would only bring one ace that have some nice synergy effects with generic fighters in a light screen. Tying down a group of bombers with Intel will require quantity rather than quality from your fighter screen. Z-95, A-Wings, Tie-fighters/interceptors are all good generic squadrons for fleet screening, Throw in the odd Escort might do you some good, but otherwise they work better in larger squadron investments.