Now I know a lot of people play and build lists that are fun and quirky, but are honestly suboptimal. Is this fun for you? I end up just thinking post battle that if I had used a more optimal version or a "power" build it would have been a more interesting game.

I've already got plenty of super efficient builds. That min-maxing part of the game has become entirely boring to me.

The thread about Arquitens made me think, beyond personal challenges to do crazy things with under-strength tools what other options are there for list building?

Combo-wombos are about HOW you win, not that you win.

You want to do aomething suboptimal, fun? Put your combo together, and play that one and only specific way, which it can do something good for you. Done? Good. Move on to the next

3 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

Combo-wombos are about HOW you win, not that you win.

You want to do aomething suboptimal, fun? Put your combo together, and play that one and only specific way, which it can do something good for you. Done? Good. Move on to the next

Yeah. What if I don't find any satisfaction in winning a certain way anymore?

I just build lists that seem fun. I don't optimize them, but I do make sure they make sense and have a chance at winning. I also never fly the same list twice unless it's for a tournament. I just like the process of experimenting with random lists that have fun or interesting components.

Sigh yeah. I just don't seem to find that fun anymore. Just seems like it always ends up as: This other build I know is just much better.

I find what you call 'optimal' is subjective.

The lists out there that have won tournaments are of all variety and types and can be seen as 'optimal' or 'suboptimal' based on your experience and perspective.

I pick a concept for a fleet and throw some stuff together. Over the months, I refine in until it is highly efficient. I'm not sure how else I'd want to play. Refinement and optimization is my favorite part.

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Sigh yeah. I just don't seem to find that fun anymore. Just seems like it always ends up as: This other build I know is just much better.

Take your most optimal build to a higher profile tournament. You'll either win or get canned enough to realize that your fleet has room to grow. lol

To build new lists you have to be prepared to fail. Sometimes I purposefully build "flaws" into my lists just to see if the are actually flaws, half the time they arent but assumptions I have clung to.

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

This other build I know is just much better.

I think some of it might be refining and re-evaluating things through more testing. Like, I've always thought Han was over costed and never worth it, then I played a few games with him where his Han Shoots First ability both ended one Raider and put a coffin nail into another one. Not saying your list is "bad" but just more testing maybe? More willingness to try some stuff that we all "know" is bad?

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Sigh yeah. I just don't seem to find that fun anymore. Just seems like it always ends up as: This other build I know is just much better.

It's only a problem if wining is the only way to have fun. I've been doing a lot of introducing new people to Armada. And I'll admit that I play very sub-optimally when I do.

Via this process I've found that I can have a blast putting together a list with a story (Dodonna was inspecting the Z-95 squadron in his old CR90-B when an emergency came up) that is designed to flex the rules but give an inexperienced player a great chance at victory.

I especially like making a mustache-twirling Imperial list that will probably lose to the inexperienced Rebel player - giving them a great story to tell their friends later.

Maybe it's the DM in me. I like creating a story for everyone else at the table. Old habits die hard.

I have some personal quirks lets say that at least for me keeps me from building the power builds, but I win more than I lose and at least for me winning is not what makes it fun. For me it is having a good game if I am so over/under powered that it is just a walk in the park that is no fun, but a game that it tricky to win, or even close/could have easily gone the other way with just a couple dice rolls that is what makes a game fun.

As for how I build the fleets I generally build with a theme like a carrier fleet, so I will only use carriers and maybe some small escorts, but the ships will not be the power of the fleet, I also with this do not use ships that to me would not be supporting that ship in "real life" for example I can not come up with any reason that a Gozanti would ever be in the same fleet with an ISD there mission is way to different.

Not just with Armada but other games as well I try and think about what lists I will likely face and instead of just building a similar list I like to try and build a counter list that nobody is thinking of. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You can throw your opponent for a loop with a wacky list sometimes and just that uncertainty on their part forces them into mistakes. Admittedly it works better with less seasoned opponents but I still find it fun. Granted I need to make winning more of a priority though.

A list building paradigm might be "What is a mechanic or build that I want to explore?" Or "What has not been done before or recently?" That is, to ask questions that lead towards discovery. A brutally efficient, mechanical, list has little joy; search for the feeling of wonderment.

Alternatively, go for the GW route of flying "your dudes", and RP unique ships and squads.

I usually evaluate what I'm looking to do with my fleet. Yes, I can build the most optimal fleet with the same 3 objectives, but what about trying a fleet that wins by objective tokens? With only small ships? Using a certain Admiral?

Once I get obsessed with that part, I start testing. Most of the time, when someone says, "I know that this other fleet is better." It just means that the player is too stubborn to try new things. Magic: the Gathering is a good example of that. I regularly see players who see new expansions and complain that all the cards are terrible. Then a few weeks go by and someone builds a deck that blows the current meta out of the water. Those same players are talking about how great this new card is that they just poo-pooed not that long ago.

The same goes for Armada and even X-Wing. It's rarely the guy who brought the "optimal" list everyone knew was the best list that ends up winning. It's the guy who evaluated the meta, built something to fight what he was going to see.

If the only way to enjoy yourself is to play the optimal fleet and win, then you've probably squeezed most of the juice out of Armada. Hit a few regional and national events, call it quits and move on to a new game.

5 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Sometimes I purposefully build "flaws" into my lists just to see if the are actually flaws, half the time they arent but assumptions I have clung to.

2 hours ago, Norboats said:

"What is a mechanic or build that I want to explore?" Or "What has not been done before or recently?"

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I pick a concept for a fleet and throw some stuff together. Over the months, I refine in until it is highly efficient.

Agree with all of these. My most successful list-building has always started from trying to identify and question popular assumptions (including those that I myself hold, like Hera is crap), building lists unconstrained by those assumptions, and then refining into something useful.

Often, learning how to use these fleets is a big part of it. The more off-meta or uncommon the components of your fleet are, the more you're constrained to come up with your own tactics rather than relying on others' ideas or your own past experiences. It can be challenging, but is also proportionately more rewarding when you do figure it out. That's why it can be hard to find new ideas--it's nontrivial to identify when the problem is you and when it's the fleet.

4 hours ago, Norboats said:

A list building paradigm might be "What is a mechanic or build that I want to explore?" Or "What has not been done before or recently?" That is, to ask questions that lead towards discovery. A brutally efficient, mechanical, list has little joy; search for the feeling of wonderment.

Alternatively, go for the GW route of flying "your dudes", and RP unique ships and squads.

Actually I've been really thinking about doing some sort of RP for Armada. Something that really throws you into unfamiliar positions, not because you choose to.

Honestly, I find the refinement part boring after a while. I did this for other fleets, eventually you find a place where there are two options with two strengths and two playstyles, but its a coin toss.

Hera is surprisingly effective in the right circumstances. Playing her definitely challenged my assumptions of the squad phase.

I dont think I will use her too often, but there are lessons I can use in other fleets.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Actually I've been really thinking about doing some sort of RP for Armada. Something that really throws you into unfamiliar positions, not because you choose to.

Honestly, I find the refinement part boring after a while. I did this for other fleets, eventually you find a place where there are two options with two strengths and two playstyles, but its a coin toss.

Which part of list building do you enjoy? I personally dont think I will win a major tourney as I like to build an unconventional list, prove it works and then move on. I never make it optimal because I just dont care.

Yeah. Making strong lists showcasing certain ships specifically.

Like for example: I tried some 2 Arquitens builds, but largely came to the same conclusion that the 3 page Arq thread came to: Gladiators were much better. Again, please try not to argue with this - I did not say Arq were bad. I ddi not say Arqs were useless. What I did say was in a general purpose sense, Gladiators were much more useful in a larger number of situations.

I really like trying to do multi-ship builds. 2 arquitens, 3 AFs, 3 Gladiators. But then, its kind of discouraging to really find of course, that's not how list building becomes min maxed. You want a more effective fleet? Remove 1 glad and take 2 gozantis.

Yes I've got a screwy 3 Gladiator Tarkin max squadrons Rogue list with those 1-distance squadron moving teams and a 25 pt bid for first, but yknow. Its pretty jank.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

To build new lists you have to be prepared to fail. Sometimes I purposefully build "flaws" into my lists just to see if the are actually flaws, half the time they arent but assumptions I have clung to.

This and seriously this. The best players are all rigorouslly self-critical and constantly evaluating. That's because the accepted wisdom about specific cards, commanders, ships, and so forth is usually only right about half the time. Besides, part of creativity is being able to carve out a niche for yourself that no one else has done before. This attitude is also reflected here:

4 hours ago, Norboats said:

A list building paradigm might be "What is a mechanic or build that I want to explore?" Or "What has not been done before or recently?" That is, to ask questions that lead towards discovery. A brutally efficient, mechanical, list has little joy; search for the feeling of wonderment.

Alternatively, go for the GW route of flying "your dudes", and RP unique ships and squads.

@Blail Blerg i am picking up that you have a clear categorisation of what you deem as 'jank' and what you define as 'optimally competitive'. And because of this, you only see a limited pool of fleet archetypes to build and find it boring to stay within those achetypes.

Past evidence has shown you can build anything and win so long as you have a specific plan for it. Examples include:

Store Champs (mine) - AvengerBT, 2 raiders, 4 gozantis / 0 squadrons (in a squadron full meta mind you)

Australian National Champion 2017 - 2 MC80, 2 GR75 / 2 Squadrons (who also demolished my 8 activation AvengerBT list and in a squadron full meta)

GenCon 2017 Champion - ISD, Quasar, Goz / 8 squadrons

Nova 2017 Champion - Riekkan ace list (post riekkan faq)

German National Champion 2016 - 8 Gozanti / 12 squadrons

World Champion 2016 - Afkm2b, mc30, 3x gr75 / 12 squadrons

And countless other examples out there im sure where even probably a pelta or interdictor was the flag ship in the winning list.

So i guess my point is there is no such thing as an 'optimal' fleet, there is however preferred play style. So no need to get bored, try what you think is 'jank' and you might discover something!

10 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

To build new lists you have to be prepared to fail. Sometimes I purposefully build "flaws" into my lists just to see if the are actually flaws, half the time they arent but assumptions I have clung to.

This. A hundred times this. The game has a better balance to it than anyone seems to want to give it credit anymore. We as a community just get comfortable with what we have and are unwilling to try different techniques.

3 hours ago, Irokenics said:

And countless other examples out there im sure where even probably a pelta or interdictor was the flag ship in the winning list.

So i guess my point is there is no such thing as an 'optimal' fleet, there is however preferred play style. So no need to get bored, try what you think is 'jank' and you might discover something!

Very true - current UK national champ won with a Pelta list. I hate that ship, and he made it work!

In games in general, I tend to go for "just for fun" builds rather than powerful builds. Usually, I'll see a certain combo or effect that I find really intriguing, and make a build focused on getting that effect to trigger. I lose more often than I win, but if I got to see something cool happen, it's a win in my book.