7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

What it takes to 1-shot 3 TIE Fighters will do a number on Maarek, too.

(3 Damage, 3 Times... = 3 Dead TIE fighters... It also equals a Dead Maarek - 3 Damage, braced to 2, x3 = 6 Damage, Dead Maarek.)

All it takes is one dead tie fighter and then you're throwing equal blue dice (2).

So to say Maarek is the worst choice on a Sloan squad is laughable.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

All it takes is one dead tie fighter and then you're throwing equal blue dice (2).

So to say Maarek is the worst choice on a Sloan squad is laughable.

Define your Definition then.

"One Shot."

To destroy in a Single Shot or Opportunity.

Thusly, a single opportunity is either a single activation - Which won't count, as we're dealing with 3 Targets, and its not plausable at this time unless we get really Janky like a Quasar II with Ruthless Strategists rolling Doubles against all of them and having a Friendly engaging all 3 to take 3 points of Damage.

So I expanded that thought to a single "Opportunity", in this case, a Turn.

Ergo... Doing 3 lots of 3 Damage (say, from 3 X-Wings) will "One Sho"t both 3 TIE Fighters, or Maarek Steele.

On the choice between the two, however, I firmly believe the best way to use Sloane (ie, again, to define - "To Generate Non-Rogue ACC Results" ) is to trigger multiple opportunities... I'm not saying Maarek is the worst , but the fact that he only throws 2 Bombing Dice vs 3 Battery Dice of TIE fighters ( when what you care about is the ACC to spend an enemy token) , 3 chances is better than 2.

And against Squadrons? Its 2 Blue Dice with ACC results versus, what, 9?

It depends what you want from it.

Define your Variables and Definitions, and we won't get caught up in ludicrous statements of best, worst or laughable .

27 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

All it takes is one dead tie fighter and then you're throwing equal blue dice (2).

So to say Maarek is the worst choice on a Sloan squad is laughable.

I agree. Not taking Maarek with Sloane is silly. Maarek is just good in general, but Sloane makes his bomber dice always useful.

7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree. Not taking Maarek with Sloane is silly. Maarek is just good in general, but Sloane makes his bomber dice always useful.

His bomber dice were always going to be useful though, unless i suppose if you rolled double acc on the first roll.

4 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

His bomber dice were always going to be useful though, unless i suppose if you rolled double acc on the first roll.

But why would you not take Maarek with Sloane?

Maarek is only ever a good choice unless Jendon alongside.

That hasnt changed.

Being able to send 6 squads at once is a different equation to sending only 2.

Determine your parameters before having this rather petty discussion

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

But why would you not take Maarek with Sloane?

He's saying its not a case of "Why not Take Maarek with Sloane."

He's basically saying, "Sloane or Not.. If you want Consistency - Why aren't you taking Maarek, since he's always useful always ."

But the consistency is lower total than potential.

13 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

He's saying its not a case of "Why not Take Maarek with Sloane."

He's basically saying, "Sloane or Not.. If you want Consistency - Why aren't you taking Maarek, since he's always useful always ."

But the consistency is lower total than potential.

Kinda. I'm saying she doesn't really add much, since he's already giving you two useful bomber dice pretty much always. I dont look at sloane/mareek as having great synergy. I think Mareek is very good in a squadron list so you can bring him with sloane cuz you are probably running a fighter list and he'll do good things for you because he does good things.

But none of that has anything to do with sloane.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Kinda. I'm saying she doesn't really add much, since he's already giving you two useful bomber dice pretty much always. I dont look at sloane/mareek as having great synergy. I think Mareek is very good in a squadron list so you can bring him with sloane cuz you are probably running a fighter list and he'll do good things for you because he does good things.

But none of that has anything to do with sloane.

I think that's what I was trying to see, too... "He's about as good as he is, sloane or not."

And if you're after consistiency - he's consistent. Sloane or not.

Which is why I said it's silly not to take Maarek. Cuz it's Maarek. Sloane simply makes him better because your rolls will always be good.

7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Which is why I said it's silly not to take Maarek. Cuz it's Maarek. Sloane simply makes him better because your rolls will always be good.

But its a Low Consistency versus a potentially high Spike, for the points.

Thats why you consider 2 Z95s over an X-Wing, anyway.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But its a Low Consistency versus a potentially high Spike, for the points.

Thats why you consider 2 Z95s over an X-Wing, anyway.

Well this disagreement comes down to how we play the game. I go for consistency over spikes in value.

So taking Maarek will be a better option for me than taking 2-3 Tie/F, just like taking 6 swarm aces is more consistent for me than taking 12 Tie/F or Tie/I.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Well this disagreement comes down to how we play the game. I go for consistency over spikes in value.

So taking Maarek will be a better option for me than taking 2-3 Tie/F, just like taking 6 swarm aces is more consistent for me than taking 12 Tie/F or Tie/I.

Indeed.

Hence why my initial statement to others was to define variables, essentially, so we could understand said differences

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Well this disagreement comes down to how we play the game. I go for consistency over spikes in value.

So taking Maarek will be a better option for me than taking 2-3 Tie/F, just like taking 6 swarm aces is more consistent for me than taking 12 Tie/F or Tie/I.

Did you account for the consistency of deploying your threat ship after 10 other deployments rather than 7?

Well clearly not as this is still pie in the sky arguing.

8 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Did you account for the consistency of deploying your threat ship after 10 other deployments rather than 7?

Well clearly not as this is still pie in the sky arguing.

10 deployments is too much. 7 is good IMO. Running 5 ships and 6 swarm aces gives 8 deployments. 2 Glads, Quasar, 2 flots.

There are other advantages with the difference of quality versus quantity. One big advantage with quantity in squadrons are positioning and how you can manipulate and set up traps and engagements in favorable ways. Aces might be more predictable and consistent but it will come at a price at actually being predictable and less dynamic.

This is the same argument as if you have one Tie-fighter and a Tie-bomber or a Tie-defender. They have similar capabilities but the first two are way more dynamic and tactically flexible where the defender are more consistent in whatever task it does.

Deployment advantage can often win games of Armada so should never be underestimated as a very strong argument as to the strength of more squadrons.

I'm pretty light on aces but feel they are important, but I like the tactical flexibility of basic squadrons, deployment advantage is a very important reason too.