30 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Gar Saxon with two slicers is no real addition to a fleet. 7 pts on top of the flotillas you were taking anyway, and the opportunity for comms net. Lets be honest here you all have a dirty attachment to comms net, just git gud..... Gar is an absolute animal against intel and relay which are annoying sons of b at the best of times, so not really a big cost to take.

Now the tractors, Ion Cannon Batteries and Konstantine... yeah those are heavy costs.

We have a difference in philosophy...

I see no point in Tractors and Konstantine.

... If I let the enemy get to Speed 1... Then I've made too many mistakes.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

We have a difference in philosophy...

I see no point in Tractors and Konstantine.

... If I let the enemy get to Speed 1... Then I've made too many mistakes.

Grav wells arent cost free either....

They're only a small tax on top of the 11-hull 5 Engineering ICB-Platform TankBoats I'm running

On 1/18/2018 at 10:01 AM, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So.... Yavaris can or can not simply burn a Squadron token in order to allow it to resolve a Squadron command?

If you can just pitch a squadron token to ignore Raid then a 2 point investment in comms net on an activation pad flotilla and raid is functionally useless.

I think you and perhaps a few others are looking a little too narrowly at the potential power of Raid. The examples being provided keep assuming a single raid token delivered to a single ship each turn. What about a fleet utilizing 4+ Mandalorians, all working different ships? Of course they may be killed (I've read someone say "easily"... let's keep in mind this is a *7* HP squadron, and having rogue allows them to operate effectively without activation), but assuming they are reasonably successful, how "easy" is it to deal with having to waste so many tokens each round to be able to resolve commands? I agree it is hardly a game-breaking mechanic, but I can also easily see builds that can make life very hard for their opponent unless their list was made to SPECIFICALLY counter raid-heavy fleets. Is everyone going to forego OTHER great upgrades, just so they can perfectly counter a raid-heavy list when they may not even know who their next opponent is, or if their fleet even contains any raid-tech?

Summary: Yes, of course you can counter raid fairly easily, assuming you know exactly what your opponent is going to bring beforehand, and then build your fleet to specifically counter it. That can be said for just about any game mechanic/tactic. In a "take all comers" environment, deciding to build a fleet to specifically counter raid-heavy fleets potentially leaves you more vulnerable to the NUMEROUS other schools of thought on what makes a good fleet.

I do not think comms net can be considered "building to counter,
a specific build.

15 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I do not think comms net can be considered "building to counter,
a specific build.

That's true. Comms Net is pretty common. One of them at least. Now how to deal with the other 3 raid tokens on your other ships, plus those darn Mandalorians delivering a few more next turn....?

My point is, a single token dropped here and there isn't a big deal, but several every turn on multiple ships can certainly disrupt a game plan. Is it the deciding factor? For the modest point investment, I hope not! I predict however this will become a mildly common tactic once it see's more table time and potential combo's and synergies.

12 hours ago, LeatherPants said:

That's true. Comms Net is pretty common. One of them at least. Now how to deal with the other 3 raid tokens on your other ships, plus those darn Mandalorians delivering a few more next turn....?

My point is, a single token dropped here and there isn't a big deal, but several every turn on multiple ships can certainly disrupt a game plan. Is it the deciding factor? For the modest point investment, I hope not! I predict however this will become a mildly common tactic once it see's more table time and potential combo's and synergies.

The way you deal with those other 3 raid tokens is by having a modest investment in fighters and denying them the ability to attack your other ships. That's 80 points your opponent invested in just raid fighters. You can easily tie up those things for quite a few rounds using 80 points of your own. Realistically, you can do it for less than 80 points, especially if you're willing to let one through because you know your Comms Net is in range.

@Valca

Thank you for saying it so I don't always have to look like the nay sayer... 80 points of generic rogues that have lack luster armament defiantly not worth the investment. 80 points of basically anything else in the squadron department is better.

2 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Valca

Thank you for saying it so I don't always have to look like the nay sayer... 80 points of generic rogues that have lack luster armament defiantly not worth the investment. 80 points of basically anything else in the squadron department is better.

As if people don’t still play squad less on occasion ?

they do, enough for me, that 100% Gauntlets would be viable more often than not ?

3 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Valca

Thank you for saying it so I don't always have to look like the nay sayer... 80 points of generic rogues that have lack luster armament defiantly not worth the investment. 80 points of basically anything else in the squadron department is better.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's good or that you should try it. I'm quite confident Raid tactics can be shut down. A well balanced fleet, or one prepared for Raid shenanigans, will probably deal just fine. But a fleet that invests heavily in Raid tech will probably be prepared to deliver those tokens despite adversity, with a few dedicated fighters and intel of their own (think how bombers are generally delivered). Again, time will tell, but I imagine some creative Raid tactics will show up on some of the top tables.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

As if people don’t still play squad less on occasion ?

they do, enough for me, that 100% Gauntlets would be viable more often than not ?

You love to counter my statements with edge case counter examples that regional and SC data will show is in a minority of lists. The % of very low/no squad lists is MUCH lower than the % of medium (enough to lock up and kill 4 generic rogues) to heavy squad lists. You know this very well, but seem to think that your counter point is in fact valid and counters my general assertion... Why?

By your own post, people play squadless "on occasion," which I take to mean, "infrequently,"

Who wants to kit to win the "infrequent," match ups?

4 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

You love to counter my statements with edge case counter examples that regional and SC data will show is in a minority of lists. The % of very low/no squad lists is MUCH lower than the % of medium (enough to lock up and kill 4 generic rogues) to heavy squad lists. You know this very well, but seem to think that your counter point is in fact valid and counters my general assertion... Why?

By your own post, people play squadless "on occasion," which I take to mean, "infrequently,"

Who wants to kit to win the "infrequent," match ups?

Me.

You clearly don’t know me Well ?

My whole list design philosophy is about edge cases and breaking up assumptions and standards.

Thats the very core and heart of Nose Punch after all.

Besides, if nothing else, I am contrarian enough to dispute the validity of the SC/Regional Meta as the only valid comparison point... especially when some of those edge cases are making it to the top ?

”Fact” is something that WE ALL have to be careful about throwing around, since definitive proof rarely exists for our assertions.

?

I just do not appreciate that when I make a statement that is generally true, you instead of countering with a well reasoned reply of equal logical merit, you discount my assertions with very specialized counter examples.

Basically any statement can be shown false if we are accepting single counter examples as entire arguments.

I could say the sky is blue and then you would likely counter with, "no, at sunset it is reddish," I think you get off on trying to be cute and come up with this stuff. Frank conversations have no place for this.

9 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I just do not appreciate that when I make a statement that is generally true, you instead of countering with a well reasoned reply of equal logical merit, you discount my assertions with very specialized counter examples.

Basically any statement can be shown false if we are accepting single counter examples as entire arguments.

I could say the sky is blue and then you would likely counter with, "no, at sunset it is reddish," I think you get off on trying to be cute and come up with this stuff. Frank conversations have no place for this.

When you make a broad, sweeping statement - all that is needed to falsify it is a working counter argument.

If you want to maintain the integrity of your statements, be more specific when you put forward an assertion.

This is the rules subforum: Quibbles and preciseness are what it is all about.

2 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I could say the sky is blue and then you would likely counter with, "no, at sunset it is reddish,"

Well it is reddish at sunset, so saying the sky is blue is sometimes false....

Saying, the sky in texas last friday night was blue... now thats uncouterable and specific enough to be clear.

The ambiguity created is yours and not Dras'

Whoever thinks that "the sky is blue" is a "generally true statement" clearly hasn't lived in the Netherlands

Or England.... where it's mostly grey... in fact a blue sky is a conversation piece for hours

I can not possibly make statements that are 100% correct in every possible permutation of every list and match up, no one can, so generalizations must be made based on the most rescent data and trends.

I know there are edge cases where my statements are not true, however I feel that in a majority of cases they are. Knowing that I know this, and understanding that there will always be particular counter examples to every generalized observation, I see no point in responding to a general statement with a specific counter example, unless that counter is so common place/widely accepted that it does disprove the basic premise of my generalized statement.

When I say something like," most fleets these days have ways to lock up, or shoot down 4 gauntlet fighters," we need to look at the current meta data and see if that is an accurate statement. Most lists have enough fighter cover to deal with 4 underpowered rogue squadrons. I say this based on what I have been seeing in the regional and SC lists coming in. Most people are running at least a token air wing to slow down bombing. This makes what I am saying a reasonable statement supported by the data we currently have.

When he counters with "but it works great against people going squadless," how is this relevant? Who cares is it is a great build against 30% of the lists being fielded? We would all agree that fewer lists are squadless than aren't. So unless he just likes having something to say, just for the sake of saying it and feeling important, why bring up a minority case, counter example? (to basically every thing I say)

BTW I know there would be other cute people who, also like to make witty comments that would push back against even the most basic assertions like, the sky is blue, completely missing or ignoring the point of the argument. Good job internet.

38 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

like," most fleets these days have ways to lock up, or shoot down 4 gauntlet fighters," we need to look at the current meta data and see if that is an accurate statement. Most lists have enough fighter cover to deal with 4 underpowered rogue squadrons. I say this based on what I have been seeing in the regional and SC lists coming in. Most people are running at least a token air wing to slow down bombing. This makes what I am saying a reasonable statement supported by the data we currently have.

I know there would be other cute people who, also like to make witty comments that would push back against even the most basic assertions like, the sky is blue, completely missing or ignoring the point of the argument. Good job internet.

two points .... First meta data is rubbish.... like stats in general it can be used to prove or disprove anything. There is the saying "there are lie, dam* lies, then there are statistics".... and this is what people are trying to say. You've given a sweeping generalisation ( most lists have.... ) HOW can you say that*, most lists aren't even published where you can read them, some are written on a scrap of paper at the club /house (if at all) and gamed with.....I for one have never put a list I've played with on the internet or saved it publicly on something like warlords.

I mean about your basic point, most of the fleets I've played against in the last 6 months wouldnt be able to deal with 4 gauntlet fighters because they have 3 or 4 sqns total them selves. What does that prove? Gauntlets are awsome? in the Chelmsford bunker for 2 games yes, then afterwards... who knows... lists are evolving I mean what would win 100% of the time 2 years ago might be a 50/50 ratio now. (player skills taken as exactly the same )

Second ... ....., I'm sat in an office looking at a grey sky and have been for the last 3 -4 months.... some times a joke is not aimed at the person who said the original statement but is rather just a tangent for the sake of enjoyment. (eg my comment above running on from a comment about the sky over Holland etc etc)

edit * - now if you said most published tournament lists that would be different.... as said before this IS the rules forum where pedants rule... Enter at your own risk

When I say "based on regional and SC data," what data did you think I mean if not the numerous events where the TO publishes all the lists along with their placements?

The Armada community is very good about uploading lists from most events onto the internet.

ok I missed the comment " based on regional and SC data"..... BUT that is still not most lists, ok it might be most tournament lists but I thought this forum was about the Rules in general ... which is for all players not just the tournament /competitive ones. So you sweeping generalisations that X is Y (OP, UP, naff what ever) have to be about the game as a whole not just the tournament 'level' of it. This is where cross wires come in.

1 hour ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

BTW I know there would be other cute people who, also like to make witty comments that would push back against even the most basic assertions like, the sky is blue, completely missing or ignoring the point of the argument. Good job internet.

Or maybe the "witty comments" were an attempt to gently bring the argument to an end, and avoid having to bluntly tell you that:

a) you have derailed the thread*, and

b) this is not the right place to be having this conversation.

*: specifically here , in case you were wondering.

My Gawd, can we all just agree that some people believe Raid tactics are basically rubbish, and others feel they may have some potential??

This hurt feelings festival is accomplishing naught but prolonging the agony that this topic has become... lol