Hi all!

Did anyone else experience frustration too while building lists? As the game expanded, more and more options became available, so did my 'checklist' for list become longer and longer. There are now quite a lot of criteria for a good list to fulfill, and I almost always end up being unsatisfied with the list, as I can't meet all of them. Also, this started to keep me away from playing... Anyone else with this problem?

11 minutes ago, Coldhands said:

Hi all!

Did anyone else experience frustration too while building lists? As the game expanded, more and more options became available, so did my 'checklist' for list become longer and longer. There are now quite a lot of criteria for a good list to fulfill, and I almost always end up being unsatisfied with the list, as I can't meet all of them. Also, this started to keep me away from playing... Anyone else with this problem?

No.

You have to realize your fleet can't do everything or account for every enemy fleet archetype.

You have to build a fleet that's good at what it does, can go both first and second, and then you have to practice flying it, knowing that bad matchups exist for ALL fleets.

Indeed fleet building becomes more complex with each wave release. However, that shouldn't make it more difficult for you - it should give you more options.

Aramda has always been more about how you fly the fleets, rather than their composition. Look at the variety of fleets that have done well in recent tournaments - two activation ISD, Ackbar pickle, MSU.....all viable.

I would ask you what your criteria are based upon? Local meta considerations? Personal experience? Hypothetical fears? Perhaps you are boxing yourself in with these criteria. Try shedding them - you may find yourself enjoying the game more!

1 minute ago, Maturin said:

Indeed fleet building becomes more complex with each wave release. However, that shouldn't make it more difficult for you - it should give you more options.

Aramda has always been more about how you fly the fleets, rather than their composition. Look at the variety of fleets that have done well in recent tournaments - two activation ISD, Ackbar pickle, MSU.....all viable.

I would ask you what your criteria are based upon? Local meta considerations? Personal experience? Hypothetical fears? Perhaps you are boxing yourself in with these criteria. Try shedding them - you may find yourself enjoying the game more!

In my opinion, a good list is 50% of succes, 40% knowledge, 10% luck (matchup, rolls), obviously you can argue this.
My criterias:

- activations: for me, 4 is the average 5 is bottom msu for me, 3 starts to feel too few, If I can, I try to avoid taking first punch, so a comms net flotilla is present in my fleets 4 out of 5 cases.

- deployment: I consider 8 as the average, couple of times outdeploying my opponent won me games.

- defense against bombers: have to have enough firepower either in form of squads, flak, or a good mix of them

- a ship to deal reliably with flotillas

- flagship: has to be tough AF, or nimble and quick, my personal taste is pickle or Jainas light, or ISD (VSD with tua, if...)

- prepared to deal with the actual 'hotness' aka full squads, Avenger

Thats all what comes to my mind atm.

Ok. Those are rule of thumbs. Nothing more. I hope you understand why these rules of thimbs were created?

But equally important is knowing when they matter and when they dont.

A bomber heavy fleet does not need activation advantage in the same way as a MSU does.

A formation fleet does not get benefit from deployments because it deploys in the same way everygame.

You dont need squad protection if you can table your opponent instead.

You are right. No fleet can do it all. However, if you decide what you want a fleet to achieve first, then you will be able to decide which rules of thumb are applicable and which arent.

Becoming overly attached to assumptions without questioning them is the greatest, and most common, inhibitor to logical thinking.

I Do not play tournaments but when I play with friends we keep our lists secret. No one knows what the other guy is bringing before we stand there with printed sheets of fleets.

And every time the fleet build will be different and may be totally unexpected.

This brings alot of fun into the game as you don’t know what you are going to meet out there in deep space. You just have to deal with it the best you can :-)

You aren't going to be able to meet all your rules and have a good fleet which isn't tedious, as Gink said think about why they are good rules (and they are) and then work out which ones you can break. The Ackbar defiance and friends type fleets break your rule about squadron cover and flak, but do well because they aim to table the opponent's ships before they can die too much to bombers, it's an alternate way of achieving the same goal.

Similarly a strategic tank type build can do very well without loads of activations by changing the game so that you get points for existing and your opponent has to try and smash your tank. These fleets also don't need many deployments as your opponent has to react to you, not the other way around.

The key is to think 'why do I have this rule' not to stick to them because they are rules. If you think about why you have that rule, then you can decide when you don't need to follow it, which is both liberating a fun.

As a thought exercise build lists breaking one of your rules and then over-egging one of the others to compensate.

I really think you are limiting yourself and creating frustration with your list criteria. Part of the draw with Armada for me is the desire to build and try different lists. It would be really boring and frustrating if my list had to be the same and meet certain requirements every time I went to put one together. My buddy and I have in the past while prepping for competitive play run the same lists over and over and we both tire of that pretty quickly because we want to try out new things and experiment with stuff. We went to a fleet swap tournament at out local store and there were some people who brought random things that you never see together in a fleet but that when we flew them were still somewhat viable.

I am of the opinion that Armada is doing pretty well balance wise and that, within reason, 400 pts of ships can be competitive no matter the makeup. That gives the game so much variety and a sense of newness every time I play. How terrible it would be if the game were dominated by list builds and without the perfect list there was no hope of winning. I’ve seen games like that and no thank you.

Don’t limit yourself with so many self-imposed rules in your fleet building because I think you’re taking the fun out of the game. In the end this can all be summed up with this:

You can’t tell me how to build my fleet! I do what I want!

And the fact that this attitude results in viable fleets is just awesome.

3 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

You can’t tell me how to build my fleet! I do what I want!

Thats such a stupid phrase. I can tell you to do whatever I want. You can choose not to listen if you want.

4 hours ago, Coldhands said:

Hi all!

Did anyone else experience frustration too while building lists? As the game expanded, more and more options became available, so did my 'checklist' for list become longer and longer. There are now quite a lot of criteria for a good list to fulfill, and I almost always end up being unsatisfied with the list, as I can't meet all of them. Also, this started to keep me away from playing... Anyone else with this problem?

I hate to hear that list building is discouraging you from playing. I've gotta agree with @Maturin and @Ginkapo on this one. As more options become available a wider variety of lists become viable. I regularly play against a guy who's going through exactly what you are. He has a long list of prerequisite for his fleet builds and ultimately they really do hamstring more than help him in fleet building. I get why he has those rules but think that during the building of each list they should be re-evaluated in the way Gink laid out. I personally build my fleets based around what I want to fly and what I think will be fun. Once or twice this has led to negative play experiences at tournaments when my "fun" list has gotten crushed badly all day but usually leads to games that are enjoyable even if I lose. I wish I had better advice for you but really anything else I've got to say was covered by @Dr alex and @durandal343 while I was typing this.

12 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Thats such a stupid phrase. I can tell you to do whatever I want. You can choose not to listen if you want.

Oh for crying out loud.. fine.. you can tell me.

But I think the implication of the phrase is “I don’t have to listen to anything you say.”

Sooo.... you can’t tell me what you can’t tell me means!

27 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

Oh for crying out loud.. fine.. you can tell me.

But I think the implication of the phrase is “I don’t have to listen to anything you say.”

Sooo.... you can’t tell me what you can’t tell me means!

Wasnt a complaint against you but the entire culture which decided it was a logical phrase.

Pick a ship or group of squads that you are good at playing and design a list around them. If you're good at flying ISDs, make a list with the ISD as the focal point. If you're good at flying Tie/F and Tie/I, make a list with Sloane.

Sounds like you have too many tools to work with so your list ends up going in every direction. You need to focus your list on one thing. If you're worried about countering the meta, leave about 80 points to do that. Raiders are good against squads, are cheap, and great against ships. They also increase deployment and activations. TRC90s are great at getting behind your opponent and plinking damage from afar. Again, increase in deployment and activation. If MSU is beating you, grab some Rogues to chase down your opponent. Decimators and YT-2400 are quite good at this.

You should pick your objectives to complement your list. Nearly everything in your fleet should get a benefit in some way. If you play MW but only have 2 ships that can deal damage and a bunch of squads, that's a poor choice because only 2 ships are getting the benefit. Where as MSU enjoys MW because all those ships with double arcs can add up to a lot of dice. If your fleet has high deployments, taking a deployment advantage objective like HSA, SC, or SP is likely not a good choice.

At the same time, your objectives should be picked to counter a specific list archetype. If your local meta has a lot of GT ISDS, taking an Ackbar80 with AG is a great counter-meta option. Your opponent will be forced at picking the other 2 objectives, so you can build your list with that in mind. FL and SN with Strategic is a good way to go because it allows you to run away from the ISD and get shots. If you run JJ MSU with light/no squads, NH is a great objective. You can maneuver better than your opponent, and NH force large ship lists towards the other 2 objectives, such as MW and HSA. NH also counters squads because you can cause obstruction with the obstacles. You can also make a list designed to abuse your opponents objectives. If squads are heavy and running PS, running some APT ships can net you some points and you still have first player.

What I do when I make lists is to pick the strongest ships. Which ships let you win with the highest MOV? Which ships let you kill a ship in a round? Demo, Admo, Yavaris, BT AVenger. You don't really need to build a list around them, because they are strong activations on their own. Your list should support them though. Start swapping out under performing ships with high quality ones. Did you know Glad I+Demo is 66 points, and a TRC Arq is 61 points? They have the same threat range, similar point cost, but Demo is far superior to the Arq. If you have an Arq and not Demo, you might want to drop the Arq.

One of my favorite things to add in my Rebel lists is Leia on Comms Net. 3 points for instant dial change and a token on top of that. Changing dials is the best way to react to your opponent, especially when you have 3 command ships. It's these small tweaks to a list that can let is perform much better.

Post a list you have been working on @Coldhands . Let us give you some ideas so you can practice and make your own changes as you gain experience.

38 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Wasnt a complaint against you but the entire culture which decided it was a logical phrase.

I could care less...

Thought I should add.. this is funny and @Ginkapo should get it. If you forum goers out there don’t know why then think of it as a puzzle.

8 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Wasnt a complaint against you but the entire culture which decided it was a logical phrase.

Also.. I take all of the internet words personally. That’s why I’m so well adjusted.

If you could tell me to get off your lawn it would really round this thing out...

5 hours ago, Coldhands said:

Hi all!

Did anyone else experience frustration too while building lists? As the game expanded, more and more options became available, so did my 'checklist' for list become longer and longer. There are now quite a lot of criteria for a good list to fulfill, and I almost always end up being unsatisfied with the list, as I can't meet all of them. Also, this started to keep me away from playing... Anyone else with this problem?

And you find this bad? Really?

It is good that the game evolves. That there are more possibilities than just fleet A who beat everything.

As more Different combinations are there, and as more combinations are possible, as better is it.

11 minutes ago, Tokra said:

As more Different combinations are there, and as more combinations are possible, as better is it.

That line right there is so poetic.

I'm with Ginkapo. I love these lostbuidling guidelines masquerading as "rules"

- The Motti rule (if Motti wouldn't add 6 hull, you don't have enough ship)

- Always have at least X activations

- Always have at least Y deployments

- Always have at least Z squadrons

- Always have an even number of squadrons for deployments

- Always use Yavaris in Rebel bomber fleets

- Always intel for Mauler

- Always have enough squadron command for all your squads

- Etc. etc.

I run what I want and then tweak it do do its purpose as hard as it can. I have no problem with 2 activations. One of my most effective fleets is 4 deployments and 3 activations.

I love that - barring a few cards - Armada is well enough designed and balanced that I can make what I want and usually make it work.

I find that I have to make a lot of hard choices as I build my lists. And though not being able to get all that I want can be frustrating, I think a game that rewaquires you to make hard choices is a good thing.

6 hours ago, Coldhands said:

Hi all!

Did anyone else experience frustration too while building lists? As the game expanded, more and more options became available, so did my 'checklist' for list become longer and longer. There are now quite a lot of criteria for a good list to fulfill, and I almost always end up being unsatisfied with the list, as I can't meet all of them. Also, this started to keep me away from playing... Anyone else with this problem?

I'm new to the game myself so I know what you mean. I've come to understand that the points cap is designed to force you to compromise so you quite simply can't do everything with your fleet.

It kinda blows but that's what you have to work with. Don't sweat it, the game is still awesome.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Becoming overly attached to assumptions without questioning them is the greatest, and most common, inhibitor to logical thinking.

I don't have enough likes for this.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Ok. Those are rule of thumbs. Nothing more. I hope you understand why these rules of thimbs were created?

But equally important is knowing when they matter and when they dont.

A bomber heavy fleet does not need activation advantage in the same way as a MSU does.

A formation fleet does not get benefit from deployments because it deploys in the same way everygame.

You dont need squad protection if you can table your opponent instead.

You are right. No fleet can do it all. However, if you decide what you want a fleet to achieve first, then you will be able to decide which rules of thumb are applicable and which arent.

Becoming overly attached to assumptions without questioning them is the greatest, and most common, inhibitor to logical thinking.

Question: where do interdictors lists fit in this? XD

1 minute ago, Sybreed said:

Question: where do interdictors lists fit in this? XD

They outdeploy there opponent regardless of how many deployments their opponents has by fortressing.

Thanks for all the answers and the helping attitude. I don't consider myself new player, Im in this game for 1,5 years now, usually finishing in top 3 at local tourneys with 10-20 players, played at regionals and at euros. Yeah, from now on it might sound just whining, but I hope you understand me. Im not against the new stuff coming out or anything like that, just it became a bit frustrating me to end up with a fleet im satisfied with. Sometimes I post some of my lists here, but the usual answer is this and that would kill you totally. Well, thanks, but as you guys pointed out, there is no fleed without weaknesses...

Just now, Coldhands said:

Sometimes I post some of my lists here, but the usual answer is this and that would kill you totally. Well, thanks, but as you guys pointed out, there is no fleed without weaknesses...

I suspect there's imprecise language at play here. When you see "this and that would kill you totally," interpret it as "what is your plan for dealing with this and that?", which is a question that you do need to ask yourself if you expect to ever run up against this or that.

I tend to define my rules not in terms of what I've brought, but in terms of things I need to have a plan to address. I don't need to bring at least 70 points of fighters, I need to have a plan to deal with a 134-point squadron wing. I don't need to bring 8 activations, I just need to know how I'm going to address a high-bid high-activation fleet with a heavy hitter. If I can do that with 2 ISDs, what do I need a swarm of flotillas for?

If you think in those terms and apply those questions after you've decided what you want your fleet to do , you can really loosen up those kinds of "requirements" to enable you to come up with novel ways of dealing with the stimuli that drove the "you must have X, Y, and Z in your list" rules in the first place. This is how people stumble across new, unintuitive solutions to problem fleets.

As a specific example:

I think this is the approach others are talking about when they mention having more options as we get more waves: you still have many of the same problems to try and solve with your fleet, but you also have lots of new ways to try and solve them in novel , unexpected ways .