And Defensive, that's why Motti still sees all kinds of table time at 23 points.

17 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Imp ship costs: 23/28/44/48/54/54/56/59/61/62/72/85/90/93/110/120. Average of 66-ish

Rebels average out to 63-ish.

Rebels have the cheapest ships, yes. They also have similar expensive options to Imperials and Imps have similar cheaper options to Rebels. Overall, it's pretty close between factions. Im nitpicking on wording.

I dont disagree on activation saturation being a concern. I just don't think Imps have it that bad like you say. They pay 5 more per flotilla but have better combat ships to run upgrade-lean. Especially with cheaper offensive oriented commanders.

The average doesn't tell you very much in a min-max environment. The Rebel flotilla being less than 80% the cost of the Imperial transport is what matters as far as activation padding is concerned. Paying 5 more per flotilla means the Rebels get 4 flotillas for the price (+3) of 3 Imperial flotillas. I don't think it's a surprise that the average winning Rebel activation is 1 more than the Imperial's winning point (6 vs 5).

The same goes with the Rebel's ISD equivalent, the Liberty. It's not quite as durable (8 hull vs 11 hull), but that double brace really helps to make up for the hull loss. The stronger front shield is nice as well, but the lack of an extra direct and weaker side shields makes it more vulnerable to blank attacks than the ISD. However, the kicker there is that the cheaper Liberty is a good 24 points cheaper than the ISD-II, which has very similar armament. That's a lot of upgrades you can fit in there to make it nice and killy before it comes close to the ISD's cost. Killier, in fact. Spinals take it to 105 points and then it's got the same front arc as the ISD-II for 15 points less. Throw in Gunnery Teams and XI-7s and you've got a strong ship with an ISD-II's front arc which still costs less than an ISD-II.

1 hour ago, Valca said:

The average doesn't tell you very much in a min-max environment. The Rebel flotilla being less than 80% the cost of the Imperial transport is what matters as far as activation padding is concerned. Paying 5 more per flotilla means the Rebels get 4 flotillas for the price (+3) of 3 Imperial flotillas. I don't think it's a surprise that the average winning Rebel activation is 1 more than the Imperial's winning point (6 vs 5).

The same goes with the Rebel's ISD equivalent, the Liberty. It's not quite as durable (8 hull vs 11 hull), but that double brace really helps to make up for the hull loss. The stronger front shield is nice as well, but the lack of an extra direct and weaker side shields makes it more vulnerable to blank attacks than the ISD. However, the kicker there is that the cheaper Liberty is a good 24 points cheaper than the ISD-II, which has very similar armament. That's a lot of upgrades you can fit in there to make it nice and killy before it comes close to the ISD's cost. Killier, in fact. Spinals take it to 105 points and then it's got the same front arc as the ISD-II for 15 points less. Throw in Gunnery Teams and XI-7s and you've got a strong ship with an ISD-II's front arc which still costs less than an ISD-II.

Yeah, Rebels have the cheapest. Look at sub-70 point designs (what normally goes with high activation fleets. Imps have 5 models and Rebels 6. I wasn't arguing that point. His post sounded like he meant the Rebels fleet had more small options for MSUs. They do, but barely.

The Star Cruiser vs ISD2 comparison isn't really accurate. Sure, you can get similar firepower with a Star Cruiser/Spinal, but the ISD is more durable (23 to 19 health), has a better maneuver chart(though Madine changes that), contain, the capacity for effective squad commands, better side armament, better flak, access to more health (RBD, Motti), access to more ways to mod dice (LS for both, ISD gets Vader/Screed). You get a significantly better ship.

I can play the same game with VSD2 to the Battle Cruiser. With spinal, VSD2 is 9 points cheaper for similar durability and firepower. Sure, it is slower, but that wasn't the comparison you were making.

My larger point is that options are different on both sides. Saying Imps get boned not having an 18 point ship is bogus to me. I still want to fix the activation game though

10 minutes ago, Valca said:

The average doesn't tell you very much in a min-max environment. The Rebel flotilla being less than 80% the cost of the Imperial transport is what matters as far as activation padding is concerned. Paying 5 more per flotilla means the Rebels almost get 4 flotillas for the price (+3) of 3 Imperial flotillas. I don't think it's a surprise that the average winning Rebel activation is 1 more than the Imperial's winning point (6 vs 5).

The same goes with the Rebel's ISD equivalent, the Liberty. It's not quite as durable (8 hull vs 11 hull), but that double brace really helps to make up for the hull loss. The stronger front shield is nice as well, but the lack of an extra direct and weaker side shields makes it more vulnerable to blank attacks than the ISD. However, the kicker there is that the cheaper Liberty is a good 24 points cheaper than the ISD-II, which has very similar armament. That's a lot of upgrades you can fit in there to make it nice and killy before it comes close to the ISD's cost. Killier, in fact. Spinals take it to 105 points and then it's got the same front arc as the ISD-II for 15 points less. Throw in Gunnery Teams and XI-7s and you've got a strong ship with an ISD-II's front arc which still costs less than an ISD-II.

I know you more or less acknowledged the bolded type with the parenthesis, but it was bothering me. I have no issues with the substance of what you are saying re: activation balance btwn rebs and imps.

Re: Liberty vs ISD-2;

Nothing wrong with anything you said, but I think you are undervaluing the extra defense token (contain), the better shield spread, the fact that an ISD has at least three more hull (and occasionally has 6), the less wonky manuever chart, and the defensive retrofit slot.

57 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Imp ship costs: 23/28/44/48/54/54/56/59/61/62/72/85/90/93/110/120. Average of 66-ish

Rebels average out to 63-ish.

Rebels have the cheapest ships, yes. They also have similar expensive options to Imperials and Imps have similar cheaper options to Rebels. Overall, it's pretty close between factions. Im nitpicking on wording.

I dont disagree on activation saturation being a concern. I just don't think Imps have it that bad like you say. They pay 5 more per flotilla but have better combat ships to run upgrade-lean. Especially with cheaper offensive oriented commanders.

Imps are fine. They have a host of staple, powerful units. Demolisher, Avenger(and other ISDs) ,AA raider, arquittens, mauler mithel, stele/jendon combo, Howlrunner swarm etc. Backed up by solid commanders like Motti, Screed, Ozzel, JJ just to mention the ones most seen competitively. Do rebels have more options? Maybe, but if there is a difference, it must surely be very small. I think there MAY be a problem with the fact that iconic Imp ships are not really "top tier" (vsd/dictor compared to demolisher/instigator). I actualy think a player that chooses imperials didnt really choose them to go full-throttle mobility and pump missiles with small ships, so the faction may be leaving some players "unsatisfied".

30 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I know you more or less acknowledged the bolded type with the parenthesis, but it was bothering me. I have no issues with the substance of what you are saying re: activation balance btwn rebs and imps.

Re: Liberty vs ISD-2;

Nothing wrong with anything you said, but I think you are undervaluing the extra defense token (contain), the better shield spread, the fact that an ISD has at least three more hull (and occasionally has 6), the less wonky manuever chart, and the defensive retrofit slot.

Defensive retrofit is very nice. My biggest pre-Tua complaint was the lack of defensive retrofit on Imperial ships other than the ISD-II. The double brace does really help with that, however. The contain token is worth 5 points, apparently, and is available to a Liberty should it want one.

"blank attacks" should have been "flank attacks". The Liberty isn't as durable as an ISD. It also costs significantly less, especially if the ISD is spending points on that Defensive upgrade to take advantage of the durability. I'm just kind of annoyed that Rebels get a good, solid, durable (though not quite ISD-II level) firepower platform for so cheap in addition to their other cheap options. Especially when I look at the VSD-II and Interdictor, which are the only Imperial equivalents around that price point.

50 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Yeah, Rebels have the cheapest. Look at sub-70 point designs (what normally goes with high activation fleets. Imps have 5 models and Rebels 6. I wasn't arguing that point. His post sounded like he meant the Rebels fleet had more small options for MSUs. They do, but barely.

The Star Cruiser vs ISD2 comparison isn't really accurate. Sure, you can get similar firepower with a Star Cruiser/Spinal, but the ISD is more durable (23 to 19 health), has a better maneuver chart(though Madine changes that), contain, the capacity for effective squad commands, better side armament, better flak, access to more health (RBD, Motti), access to more ways to mod dice (LS for both, ISD gets Vader/Screed). You get a significantly better ship.

I can play the same game with VSD2 to the Battle Cruiser. With spinal, VSD2 is 9 points cheaper for similar durability and firepower. Sure, it is slower, but that wasn't the comparison you were making.

Mommy larger point is that options are different on both sides. Saying Imps get boned not having an 18 point ship is bogus to me. I still want to fix the activation game though

The VSD doesn't have similar durability to the Battle Cruiser. Single brace, worse shields (3-3 vs 5-2). I really think you're underestimating the power of the double brace on a ship with 13 damage to chew through on the front. I also didn't compare maneuverability because their pretty similar, but in this case it is a limiting factor for the VSD.

Imperials aren't boned because they don't have an 18 point ship. It's the creeping power of activation advantage that's hurting, and having the cheapest activation plus a very solid firepower ship for less than what I consider the Imperial equivalent exacerbates it.

Imps aren't obsolete or forced out of the game. They won Euros, after all. But they do feel like they're starting with a disadvantage that needs to be overcome. I know it's been a lot easier lately for me to build solid Rebel lists than Imperial lists, and I've been almost exclusively an Imperial player since the beginning.

Edit: Quasar and Sloane are coming out, which could shake things up. Getting a cheap carrier helps the Imperial activation problem, at least for the squadron focused fleets, and Sloane makes taking what should be the mainstays of Imperial squadrons (TIEs) to an anything-can-show up tournament much more viable.

Edit the deux: And I'm fully willing to accept that the problem could just be me.

6 minutes ago, Valca said:

The VSD doesn't have similar durability to the Battle Cruiser. Single brace, worse shields (3-3 vs 5-2). I really think you're underestimating the power of the double brace on a ship with 13 damage to chew through on the front. I also didn't compare maneuverability because their pretty similar, but in this case it is a limiting factor for the VSD.

Imperials aren't boned because they don't have an 18 point ship. It's the creeping power of activation advantage that's hurting, and having the cheapest activation plus a very solid firepower ship for less than what I consider the Imperial equivalent exacerbates it.

Imps aren't obsolete or forced out of the game. They won Euros, after all. But they do feel like they're starting with a disadvantage that needs to be overcome. I know it's been a lot easier lately for me to build solid Rebel lists than Imperial lists, and I've been almost exclusively an Imperial player since the beginning.

Edit: Quasar and Sloane are coming out, which could shake things up. Getting a cheap carrier helps the Imperial activation problem, at least for the squadron focused fleets, and Sloane makes taking what should be the mainstays of Imperial squadrons (TIEs) to an anything-can-show up tournament much more viable.

Funny enough, I agree with you on the topic-relevant portion of this conversation. Now we are just arguing the merits of different large ship designs.

41 minutes ago, Valca said:

Defensive retrofit is very nice. My biggest pre-Tua complaint was the lack of defensive retrofit on Imperial ships other than the ISD-II. The double brace does really help with that, however. The contain token is worth 5 points, apparently, and is available to a Liberty should it want one.

"blank attacks" should have been "flank attacks". The Liberty isn't as durable as an ISD. It also costs significantly less, especially if the ISD is spending points on that Defensive upgrade to take advantage of the durability. I'm just kind of annoyed that Rebels get a good, solid, durable (though not quite ISD-II level) firepower platform for so cheap in addition to their other cheap options. Especially when I look at the VSD-II and Interdictor, which are the only Imperial equivalents around that price point.

It doesn't matter. You can get a fleet with an ISD, Demolisher, and activation padding through flotillas, and LOTS of squads. You don't "need" the vsd and interdictor (which, i agree, need some love even though they have some VERY good uses). Remember the golden rule of wargaming: if your faction has some units that you think are not top tier, just dont use these units. Keep spamming the good options . (What you consider good is up to you).

There are too much Faith thrown around on lists in this thread.

It is 90% the player behind the fleet and different players make different types of lists better than others.

Player skill will decided way more than anything and skew how effective they are.

15 minutes ago, jorgen_cab said:

There are too much Faith thrown around on lists in this thread.

It is 90% the player behind the fleet and different players make different types of lists better than others.

Player skill will decided way more than anything and skew how effective they are.

This, million percent second this.

I think the Rebels do have an advantage because their "style" of fleet is geared toward leveraging activation advantage. However, let's not pretend that this advantage can't be tilted back with a few astutely-crafted upgrades in upcoming waves. Consider how that balance might change if there were an Imperial admiral whose power was something like the following:

At the beginning of the Command Phase, choose one enemy ship. Your opponent's first activation in the Ship Phase must be that ship.

I think it's important for fleet diversity that activation advantage should be useful. The problem now is that activation advantage might be TOO advantageous. That's fixable if it's found to be a problem. I don't think you need to completely revamp the rules to do it.

43 minutes ago, RobertK said:

I think the Rebels do have an advantage because their "style" of fleet is geared toward leveraging activation advantage. However, let's not pretend that this advantage can't be tilted back with a few astutely-crafted upgrades in upcoming waves. Consider how that balance might change if there were an Imperial admiral whose power was something like the following:

At the beginning of the Command Phase, choose one enemy ship. Your opponent's first activation in the Ship Phase must be that ship.

I think it's important for fleet diversity that activation advantage should be useful. The problem now is that activation advantage might be TOO advantageous. That's fixable if it's found to be a problem. I don't think you need to completely revamp the rules to do it.

Kinda the reason I backed off from Armada. I think the 18 point GR75 is just too cheap/powerful for what it can do.

1 hour ago, jorgen_cab said:

There are too much Faith thrown around on lists in this thread.

It is 90% the player behind the fleet and different players make different types of lists better than others.

Player skill will decided way more than anything and skew how effective they are.

Player skill is obviously the controlling factor. That being said, there are a TON of high level Armada players. When the skill levels are close, then the list makes a massive difference. So writing off "the lists" using player skill as an argument doesn't work. If I'm playing a new or otherwise unskilled player, I can definitely beat them with a sub-optimal list. If I'm facing my tournament nemesis, then those list differences, however minor, matter in a BIG way.

In short, you're not wrong, but it's not that simple.

50 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

Player skill is obviously the controlling factor. That being said, there are a TON of high level Armada players. When the skill levels are close, then the list makes a massive difference. So writing off "the lists" using player skill as an argument doesn't work. If I'm playing a new or otherwise unskilled player, I can definitely beat them with a sub-optimal list. If I'm facing my tournament nemesis, then those list differences, however minor, matter in a BIG way.

In short, you're not wrong, but it's not that simple.

The major point is that players skew lists in different ways on preference and skill is also a major factor. Some players favour a certain style and have difficulties making other styles viable despite a "hard" list and good skill.

Some lists are just better in some players hands than others as well as overall skill.

In my experience luck can often be as deciding a factor when two equally skilled players get at it which in turn can skew their likes of a certain list. Or lack of skill to think a certain list being bad when it was their skill using it that was the problem, people often blame anything but themselves for loosing a game, even highly skilled players.

For me personally the more specialization of Imperial ships and squadrons fit my playstyle and I do better with that faction. That is just how it is for me... I don't blame game balance because I know people who feel the opposite of me.

My experience with Imperial medium-heavy play lacking against Rebel MSUs is about three-four months of throwing various lists at Mythics' fighter apocalypse list. Even putting two AA dice on everyone, it was humiliating/disappointing to see how ineffective it is in play. The solution against that list, with what I have, is to bid deeper, play to the objective... basically not play and rules-lawyer your way to a win by getting more victory points. Sound fun?

The rest is just extrapolating on paper based on what you see every game. I'm moving my ISD into firing range of that Liberty. I'm sacrificing my shot, enabling theirs, so when the next turn begins I have damage and he doesn't. Even if I go first, my first action is to try equalizing our ships' status and hopefully doing more damage. He's following up with his first shot and could destroy my ship. That's why activation is so important.

It doesn't have to be a gun liberty, it can be two MC30s. All the Rebel flotillas activate to force an ISD into position where two title-carrying MC-30s double arc it to deal four face-up damage cards out of APTs with whatever other damage they are dealing. With intel officers, the ISD is not looking to blow that token readily so it's absorbing full damage. What is a medium-heavy list supposed to when the activation advantage is so much against them? And if you're wondering how the Rebels can do all of this in a single list, remember, Rebel ships are cheaper. You can buy your 18 point activation sinks and one or two space sledgehammers. In the Empire, you're forced to buy heavy or contend with what small ships you have to make effective lists.

I mean if I'm wrong, tell me what kind of Imperial list can be put together with nothing but medium-heavies... and still take all comers, without always playing to the objective? Something without fighters, to forestall what I imagine would be a barrage of "Well take Quasars/ISD-Is/VSD-Is and a Rhymerball/Ace ball". I know that will work. Again, my pain point is why you can't make viable lists with nothing but upgraded medium and heavy ships. For the game to be balanced, I feel this list type needs to have a fighting chance. It doesn't, and it hasn't since Ackbar sucker-punched it out of the ring in Wave 2, before he got killed by Demo and fighter swarms.

8 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

My experience with Imperial medium-heavy play lacking against Rebel MSUs is about three-four months of throwing various lists at Mythics' fighter apocalypse list. Even putting two AA dice on everyone, it was humiliating/disappointing to see how ineffective it is in play. The solution against that list, with what I have, is to bid deeper, play to the objective... basically not play and rules-lawyer your way to a win by getting more victory points. Sound fun?

The rest is just extrapolating on paper based on what you see every game. I'm moving my ISD into firing range of that Liberty. I'm sacrificing my shot, enabling theirs, so when the next turn begins I have damage and he doesn't. Even if I go first, my first action is to try equalizing our ships' status and hopefully doing more damage. He's following up with his first shot and could destroy my ship. That's why activation is so important.

It doesn't have to be a gun liberty, it can be two MC30s. All the Rebel flotillas activate to force an ISD into position where two title-carrying MC-30s double arc it to deal four face-up damage cards out of APTs with whatever other damage they are dealing. With intel officers, the ISD is not looking to blow that token readily so it's absorbing full damage. What is a medium-heavy list supposed to when the activation advantage is so much against them? And if you're wondering how the Rebels can do all of this in a single list, remember, Rebel ships are cheaper. You can buy your 18 point activation sinks and one or two space sledgehammers. In the Empire, you're forced to buy heavy or contend with what small ships you have to make effective lists.

I mean if I'm wrong, tell me what kind of Imperial list can be put together with nothing but medium-heavies... and still take all comers, without always playing to the objective? Something without fighters, to forestall what I imagine would be a barrage of "Well take Quasars/ISD-Is/VSD-Is and a Rhymerball/Ace ball". I know that will work. Again, my pain point is why you can't make viable lists with nothing but upgraded medium and heavy ships. For the game to be balanced, I feel this list type needs to have a fighting chance. It doesn't, and it hasn't since Ackbar sucker-punched it out of the ring in Wave 2, before he got killed by Demo and fighter swarms.

Agreed.


Though I will say, the new rules for flotillas and BCC are gunna make my squadronless dual ISD fleet even more lethal... lol

I think Pure ISD lists will still be around because: You have the highest hull, the strongest ships. Even if those two MC-30s try to alpha strike you, they have to spend their entire effort doing so to maybe kill one of your ships. Then they have to contend with the other two, and they probably won't escape being rammed. The ISD list works by trying to pour on enough fire to kill ships and carriers before they themselves (and Motti) are destroyed. Will it work?

I've had Yavaris's six fighter attacks claw down enough of my ISDs to make me skeptical that it will. Even with two dice AA, those fighters still rack up so much attrition that yes, it can wipe out an ISD in one turn, between the fighter attacks and Yavaris. Now that the ultra-efficient BCC stacking is off the table, perhaps it won't anymore. But I want to highlighting how ineffective big ship attacks are against fighters- especially rebel fighters- requiring any list to take fighters just to compete against a list bringing maximum fighters. How does that define a balanced meta, where the list with the best/most fighters will end up the winner?

1 minute ago, Norsehound said:

I think Pure ISD lists will still be around because: You have the highest hull, the strongest ships. Even if those two MC-30s try to alpha strike you, they have to spend their entire effort doing so to maybe kill one of your ships. Then they have to contend with the other two, and they probably won't escape being rammed. The ISD list works by trying to pour on enough fire to kill ships and carriers before they themselves (and Motti) are destroyed. Will it work?

I've had Yavaris's six fighter attacks claw down enough of my ISDs to make me skeptical that it will. Even with two dice AA, those fighters still rack up so much attrition that yes, it can wipe out an ISD in one turn, between the fighter attacks and Yavaris. Now that the ultra-efficient BCC stacking is off the table, perhaps it won't anymore. But I want to highlighting how ineffective big ship attacks are against fighters- especially rebel fighters- requiring any list to take fighters just to compete against a list bringing maximum fighters. How does that define a balanced meta, where the list with the best/most fighters will end up the winner?

No argument here lol

Why should every combination of ships and squadron rate be viable for all commers that is just never going to happen, you need a balanced force to win at a constant rate.

But on top of my head, two ISD II with 10-12 squadrons would make a good all commers list. You would perhaps not win tournaments with it but you might very well go from said tournament unbeaten which is a moral victory in my opinion.

I have no problem playing ONLY to win, that is what I do in campaign play all the time...

35 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

My experience with Imperial medium-heavy play lacking against Rebel MSUs is about three-four months of throwing various lists at Mythics' fighter apocalypse list. Even putting two AA dice on everyone, it was humiliating/disappointing to see how ineffective it is in play. The solution against that list, with what I have, is to bid deeper, play to the objective... basically not play and rules-lawyer your way to a win by getting more victory points. Sound fun?

The rest is just extrapolating on paper based on what you see every game. I'm moving my ISD into firing range of that Liberty. I'm sacrificing my shot, enabling theirs, so when the next turn begins I have damage and he doesn't. Even if I go first, my first action is to try equalizing our ships' status and hopefully doing more damage. He's following up with his first shot and could destroy my ship. That's why activation is so important.

It doesn't have to be a gun liberty, it can be two MC30s. All the Rebel flotillas activate to force an ISD into position where two title-carrying MC-30s double arc it to deal four face-up damage cards out of APTs with whatever other damage they are dealing. With intel officers, the ISD is not looking to blow that token readily so it's absorbing full damage. What is a medium-heavy list supposed to when the activation advantage is so much against them? And if you're wondering how the Rebels can do all of this in a single list, remember, Rebel ships are cheaper. You can buy your 18 point activation sinks and one or two space sledgehammers. In the Empire, you're forced to buy heavy or contend with what small ships you have to make effective lists.

I mean if I'm wrong, tell me what kind of Imperial list can be put together with nothing but medium-heavies... and still take all comers, without always playing to the objective? Something without fighters, to forestall what I imagine would be a barrage of "Well take Quasars/ISD-Is/VSD-Is and a Rhymerball/Ace ball". I know that will work. Again, my pain point is why you can't make viable lists with nothing but upgraded medium and heavy ships. For the game to be balanced, I feel this list type needs to have a fighting chance. It doesn't, and it hasn't since Ackbar sucker-punched it out of the ring in Wave 2, before he got killed by Demo and fighter swarms.

1. "a fleet with nothing but upgraded medium and heavy ships":

in "the hypothetical perfectly balanced game", this fleet should be viable. i agree.

in a realistic setup, where the game balance is not perfect, why should such an EXTREME list be prioritized to be "buffed" and viable?

- it is not thematic to the star wars intellectual property (Star Destroyers are NOT ww2 battleships, they are mobile command centers with tons of guns and fighters and landing forces. in my area nobody uses bomber lists yet we all use some fighters because it is heresy to have star wars space battles without brave pilots)

- theme aside, it is not how a navy operates either. in real navies, each large ship has a s**t ton of escorts . "big clunky slowmoving stronk with NO fast support" has never and will never work in any combat scenario between skilled opponents, be it ships. boxing matches, sword duels, medieval battles, space battles, etc. if the game makes it work, in many ways it will "feel" wrong. it will feel like 40k lorewise or something, where armed conflicts make no sense due to rule of cool. for example, introduce a pass rule and then you will immediately see NO tournament list with more than 3 activations. zero. most lists would have just 2 large ships and squads, NOT EVEN MEDIUM SHIPS. sounds good?... what about wave 1, where the perceived meta was that squadrons were bad and you almost NEVER saw squadrons?

this is why errata must push towards building BALANCED forces, not extreme forces.

now, i dont claim armada balance is at its highest , esp right now. but the errata do help. and when we talk about balance, let us help the game take steps forward into making balanced lists viable, rather than "extremes". (2 ships +3 flotillas is equally extreme to 3 large ships). what we should be pushing is for a basic, SIMPLE NON-EXTREME "1 big flagship + 1 flotilla + some small base gunships + squadrons" fleet to be viable. right now, while it "feels" viable, it is really sub-optimal (just like you can do well in a tourney with a 3-medium sized konstantine list but it doesnt mean it is optimal)

5 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

- it is not thematic to the star wars intellectual property

someone hasn't watched empire strikes back in a while....

Literally 3 ISDs and a single squadron of ties to chase down a single YT model freighter....

Or how about in a new hope when they flee Tatooine? 2 ISDs no squads....

Or in Rogue One even? The ISDs didn't deploy mass squadrons the station did....

No offense man... but thematically two ISDs hanging around with no fighter support at the ready is pretty freaking standard... lol

7 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Or in Rogue One even? The ISDs didn't deploy mass squadrons the station did....

Just on this point - The Ships must have.

According to the X-Wing Pilot as quoted, the Station deployed more fighters.

Right?

I mean, yes, my response is somewhat of a Shitpost technicality

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Just on this point - The Ships must have.

According to the X-Wing Pilot as quoted, the Station deployed more fighters.

True enough, but the bulk of the AA forces came from that station.

And that's the point.... "The whole it's not thematic" for there to be just a heap of ISDs is just silly.... the OT pretty much made it seem like that's ALL the empire did.

First of there were Tie-fighters engaging the fleet before you saw the Tie for the shieldgate in Rouge One...you only see what you want to see.

There are just too much cannon material to disregard the importance of fighters in the Star Wars universe. Gunship only battle simply are not Star Wars theme.