4 hours ago, chr335 said:

BENNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Classic Ben.

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, >kkj said:

This is all fine and well, thats Armada, but for the players like me who prefer the strategic depth more to be found in the actual decisions you make DURING the game (rather than before it) it might be a good idea to remember why you got started playing the game in the first place. Because one can easily be lost in all the options availabe and want to try out all the availabe combinations but the fun (the tactical aspect) might somewhat be lost if optimization and unknown matchups are such deciding factors. 

So I've seen this argument is a lot of table-top mini games (I've played all the Games Workshop Warhammer family of games for 20 years), but while I acknowledge that not everyone enjoys the list-building aspect and trying to optimize and refine a list, many people do. I have a lot of fun creating and discussing lists with friends that I'll never get around to fielding, and when I do, trying it a bunch and working to correct flaws, so all of us have different aspects that we love.

Also, that this is the same as those who love list building. For every new 'meta' list, there's a lot of 'what if I took this upgrade with that?' theorycrafting, testing and trying. Many lists that win come out of weird inspirations, though it can definitely help to have an idea of what others are taking. Two tournaments ago a Thrawn 2 Quasar bomber fleet crushed all of us in a local tournament, as many of us were running double big ships. At the end the player realized that Cienna alone would have countered most of the fleet, as none of the ships or squadrons except Rymer and 1 Raider threw more than 1 Anti-Squad die, so her constant obstruction would have destroyed the fleet. Luckily, no one took her. The player ran something he thought would be fun, was risky, and where he had a good idea what we'd bring, but definitely no guarantee.

On 9/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, >kkj said:

At least for me it was the models and because i like fair, strategic games where your have to be smarter than your opponent in order to win. I never really found myself enjoying winning games because of being a better optimizer or by simply bad matchups, i find those those 2 reasons of winning highly unstrategic. Finding out the mathematically best combinations is something everyone with a internet connection and a calculator can do, it requires no intuitiv tactical thinking, no crazy unorthodox plan to surprise your opponent.

Also, there is a lot to be said in this game specifically about the way a fleet is flown, how it's deployed, what commands, speed, clicks on the maneuver tool are used, and all of that changes game to game depending on what you and your opponent are flying. This is again where knowing your own fleet helps. I went to the Canadian Nationals in February (and got crushed lol), but really loved the winning Raddus fleet that Carlo ran there. As a mostly Imperial player, I've had a hard time finding a Rebel fleet that really excited me and that I wanted to run, and really loved watching that one play. 8ish month later I'm still learning it and still having load sof issues making it work (though I only fly it every few games). And thew same thing came up again in a thread a few weeks ago, where someone (and I forget who) was talking about how their friend borrowed Nathan's world winning list, and got creamed, as they couldn't fly it nearly as well. So I strongly disagree that 'net-fleeting' is a huge problem. If it was, all the lists would be a few cookie-cutter formats, like what happens a lot in 40k, but I'd argue that the post-FAQ Armada scene is way more diverse, especially if you look at the top fleets for GenCon, Nova, EU, German and UK Nationals that all happened relatively recently, many of which had lots of different fleet archetypes which I think is great!

On 9/8/2018 at 8:07 PM, >kkj said:

Yeah my point is basically that i think Armada has to much competition before the game even starts and there are a lot of factors that play into deciding the match, most of them being in place before the actual game starts.

Addressing the point of looking at your opponent's fleet and seeing that you've completely lost based on list construction, that's hard, but learn from it. Generally that only happens when you've both gone heavy into different aspects of the game (ie all bombers vs no anti-squads), but that is a risk that you take when you specialize. A generalist fleet shouldn't face any list blowing out issues, but also will have a harder time dealing with whatever aspect the enemy has focused on, as they're spread out all over the place. These are all choices that come down to not how exactly you construct your fleet, but how you generally start planning it, and again is an aspect of table-top gaming that I personally, and many others love.

To sum up my thoughts, I get that there are players (like it seems yourself), who do not enjoy the list crafting aspect as much, cool! Have fun! Build lists you fine fun and hopefully they work! But at the same time, it has to be acknowledged that many people love that aspect.

On 9/8/2018 at 8:07 PM, >kkj said:

As i said, i think Armada is mostly a deck-building game and it really shows when compared to other strategy games that do not put as much emphasis on customization and specialization.

I'd argue in part that this is all tabletyop games. While it seems more apparent in Armada (and X-Wing) becuase of the upgrade cards, picking weapon options, grenades, relics etc in 40k/Fantasy is the same, picking options from what you have built or what your lists says you can take. And at least you're not going next year 'why'd I build this banner guy with a plasma pistol, I don't want that now....' all you need to do is swap a card

On 9/8/2018 at 8:21 PM, >kkj said:

ou arent able to customize them in any way but yet the game has much tactical depth during the actual matches. They way you fly your ships decides the game (assuming both fleets are of the same size and strenght). In Armada it feels much more narrowed down and each fleet is predefined in the way to fly it by the way you build your fleet. Thats also why some matchups straight up counter each other or at least put you in a huge disadvantage/advantage. In a match of Empire at war you can still react during the actual game and apply a new strategy.

Finally, as I love Empire at War (and actually just spent most of the weekend working on a Republic at War Galactic Conquest-trying to tide myself until I can get Republic Ships in Armada), the strategy is different, but similar. In a skirmish, the strategy is what types of ships do you like using and building (though you could also look online for build guides and cost to power tables I'm sure though it's not to my taste, Starcraft definitely has them), how do you deply them, do you keep your carriers back and send in lots of free squads, or send them in to crush with Turbolasers. Well that depends on what you opponent has, what he built, how he deploys it and what the mission is. What resource points are you fighting over. Same in Armada, what ships you took vs your opponent, what the mission is and points can come from that. Who has the bid/first-second player. who has activation advantage... Back to EOW if your opponent is building all MC80s, take Tie Bombers, if they're all carriers, you rush them with Victories streamed with Ties (I think it's been a while since I wasn't playing Repub at War mods).

And then if you're playingg Galactic Conquest, it's evven more the case, am I building hordes of smaller ships and trying to rush my opponent? Or huge carriers that sit back and send wave after wave of fighters and bombers to overwhelm them? Hope your Dreadnoughts don't run into Lucrehulks (again sorry RaW mod reference, but I just know it better). You can still win with enough, and if you use them exactly right, but man is it going to be a uphill battle. In Armada again, part of that is fleet construction, but a lot of it is how the fleet is moved and what commands are set when. How the ships and obstacles are deployed, what mission is played.

Anyway, hope this makes sense as it's late and I'm tired, but I hope you continue to build fleets you love, and keep trying things, and hopefully this will let you see more about how the in-game tactics compare, as well as giving you some insight into what some of us love about the other aspects of the game. (also that the issues you have are more a factor of table-top gaming as a whole, not just Armada).

I really love where Armada is at right now, as there are lots of different winning fleet builds, many of which are rock-paper-scissors counters if played by people of equal skill, and that it is the skill and luck, as well as match-ups (like when the entire Canadian contingent of Worlds a few years ago flew the same list to wildly different results) and we're finding more and more each day as people try what they like, refine it and turn it into the next meta lists, then people take those and build counters, take them in new ways or come up with completely new things, and there's a lot of ships and cards out there so there's lots left to find

Since somebody mentioned rock paper scissor fleets: that is exactly what OP addresses I think, per definition the game is uphill for one side. It might be interesting for tournament metas but ruins the experience for people that play once a month casually. It caters to tournament players and I wished to see a different design approach. Why do squadrons have to beat no squad big ship lists easily? A different design would be possible.

43 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

Since somebody mentioned rock paper scissor fleets: that is exactly what OP addresses I think, per definition the game is uphill for one side. It might be interesting for tournament metas but ruins the experience for people that play once a month casually. It caters to tournament players and I wished to see a different design approach. Why do squadrons have to beat no squad big ship lists easily? A different design would be possible.

I think I didn't play a single squadron since February. I tabled every squadron build since then.

47 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

Since somebody mentioned rock paper scissor fleets: that is exactly what OP addresses I think, per definition the game is uphill for one side. It might be interesting for tournament metas but ruins the experience for people that play once a month casually. It caters to tournament players and I wished to see a different design approach. Why do squadrons have to beat no squad big ship lists easily? A different design would be possible.

Except that this rock-paper-scissors thing is a fallacy. It has no basis in reality.

26 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Except that this rock-paper-scissors thing is a fallacy. It has no basis in reality.

I didn't get to cut a rock with scissors so some real basis it has...?

I agree with the OP, in so far as Armada's length makes games decided by match-up especially painful. In an X-Wing event, I can build my list and know what my good and bad match-ups will be and decide accordingly. But even if I pair against a bad match-up in an X-Wing event, it's not so big of a deal: it's only 75 minutes of my life and it's one of 6 Swiss rounds I'll be playing that day, so you can afford a loss or two in an X-Wing event and it won't ruin your whole tournament.

But in Armada, since the game is so much longer, it's a much more negative experience. Not only do I now have to endure two and half hours of terrible match-up, it's also one of my three or four games that tournament, which is devastating. Especially since the scoring system in Armada often requires you be getting 8+ points per round if you want to be confident you can make the Top Table. So one bad game like a terrible match-up can ruin your entire event, while burning away 2.5 hours of your weekend.


For instance, at Worlds I was playing an Admo-Raddus list with a 27 point bid. In Round 2 I paired against another Admo-Raddus list with a 28 point bid. Game, set, match, all because I drew the one guy who had bid one point less than I did.


Armada is a really fun game, and it's my favorite FFG game by far and up in my top miniature games of all time. That said, it's not a great tournament game, outside of a fun event where you can hang with some fellow fans of the game and get a few games. There's just way too many elements out of your control when it comes to trying to make the final table. Seal clubbin' especially in Round 1 is rewarded far more than narrowly beating a very skilled opponent, pulling a bad match-up is devastating, sometimes an opponent can play a non-engagement game and basically stick you with a 6 Point game, similarly a naive or lazy opponent can just throw their fleet into yours and feed you an undeserved 9 or 10 points, and there are just far too few rounds to really suss out a reliable measure of skill and performance, especially since at best there is only a Cut to Top 4 or Top 2, if there's a cut at all. Contrast to an X-Wing event where you're typically playing 8 Rounds then cutting to the Top 32 for another 5 Rounds.

7 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I agree with the OP, in so far as Armada's length makes games decided by match-up especially painful. In an X-Wing event, I can build my list and know what my good and bad match-ups will be and decide accordingly. But even if I pair against a bad match-up in an X-Wing event, it's not so big of a deal: it's only 75 minutes of my life and it's one of 6 Swiss rounds I'll be playing that day, so you can afford a loss or two in an X-Wing event and it won't ruin your whole tournament.

But in Armada, since the game is so much longer, it's a much more negative experience. Not only do I now have to endure two and half hours of terrible match-up, it's also one of my three or four games that tournament, which is devastating. Especially since the scoring system in Armada often requires you be getting 8+ points per round if you want to be confident you can make the Top Table. So one bad game like a terrible match-up can ruin your entire event, while burning away 2.5 hours of your weekend.


For instance, at Worlds I was playing an Admo-Raddus list with a 27 point bid. In Round 2 I paired against another Admo-Raddus list with a 28 point bid. Game, set, match, all because I drew the one guy who had bid one point less than I did.


Armada is a really fun game, and it's my favorite FFG game by far and up in my top miniature games of all time. That said, it's not a great tournament game, outside of a fun event where you can hang with some fellow fans of the game and get a few games. There's just way too many elements out of your control when it comes to trying to make the final table. Seal clubbin' especially in Round 1 is rewarded far more than narrowly beating a very skilled opponent, pulling a bad match-up is devastating, sometimes an opponent can play a non-engagement game and basically stick you with a 6 Point game, similarly a naive or lazy opponent can just throw their fleet into yours and feed you an undeserved 9 or 10 points, and there are just far too few rounds to really suss out a reliable measure of skill and performance, especially since at best there is only a Cut to Top 4 or Top 2, if there's a cut at all. Contrast to an X-Wing event where you're typically playing 8 Rounds then cutting to the Top 32 for another 5 Rounds.

A bigger bid was not beyond your control...?

True that now it seems possible to stomp squadrons with just big ships. And they tried to give big ships antisquadron tech from early on, but failed (cluster bombs etc). Armada is not a good example for rock paper scissor. But I hear the term in many games and I find it a bad idea to use it as a design principle. Maybe it is just the easiest way to create a balanced game, or it is no design principle and just faulty perception plus our habit to put everything in few categories.

38 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

True that now it seems possible to stomp squadrons with just big ships. And they tried to give big ships antisquadron tech from early on, but failed (cluster bombs etc). Armada is not a good example for rock paper scissor. But I hear the term in many games and I find it a bad idea to use it as a design principle. Maybe it is just the easiest way to create a balanced game, or it is no design principle and just faulty perception plus our habit to put everything in few categories.

Big Heavy has always been able to handle squads. It’s just how you build and fly. I took 4th at my first ever regional flying Double ISD, 2 Gozanti, Mauler and a Jumpmaster with Motti. QLTs, Cluster Bombs, flack, Kallus, and Mauler can put out some hurt. Wasn’t going to win me anything, but it was resilient and decent against most stuff. 28 hull is just hard to chew through. The tools are there. And I don’t say this to brag, but rather to say that Motti ISDs are just absurdly resilient. Be willing to fly without ECMs. Learn when to que repairs.

And I was trying to address that point, Rock-paper-scissors generally occurs when someone has really heavily gone into one aspect, and is confronted by the opposite aspect. If you've worked to mitigate your weaknesses, or design an all comers list, then there is little to no r-p-s. It then comes down to using the tools that you have. As I said in my longer post, if you go all in on one thing and run into the counter, that's the risk you run for going all in. You are gambling with that fleet build that you'll generally be able to overwhelm that aspect against someone who takes a generalist list, and then use that to win, but if you hit your counter you're in trouble. That's why it's a gamble. If you want to play it safer, take a more balanced list, but you then are gambling that you will be able to withstand someone who has specialized long enough to beat them with whatever they didn't specialize in.

And you always have a shot. I mentioned Carlo's list from Canadian nationals, that tournament I came in bottom of those who didn't drop. I'd made some silly (in hindsight) changes and was matched up against Yik (who came runner up to Nathan in Worlds this year, and who at the Nationals ended up top of the swiss and runner up after the cut) round 1. He proceeded to use his Biggs ball to delay my heavy Sloane fighters until he had time to kill all my ships, (in part by keeping them on the station, costing him his Escort on all the X-Wings, but also me my Swarm, Mauler damage and a bunch of stuff, as we were never engaged) as well as scoring a ton of points as I made a bad call on objectives. It was still a fun, if up-hill game, and taught me a lot. My other games (after the bye I got the next round) were great, and closer, but still got me tabled each round, but you take risks when you try to go all in on an aspect, and they didn't pay off.

Fast forward a few months to August when I'm in a Store Champ, and I won it. I refined my list, practiced it, and had some luck (as well as an opponent round 2 who made a bunch of mistakes), but the core of that fleet was the same that was destroyed a few months (and an FAQ) before, though the fleet wasn't helped at all by the FAQ (except in the way that it also changed what people were running). I flew differently, and got some good luck in dice and match-ups, but most importantly I had to react to an MSU, a double big ship and a mixed Dodonna fleet. One thing that really helped was that the Dodonna fleet was run by a friend, and I learned a lot by playing it the night before. He beat me in practice, I made a few changes (mostly to objectives and way I flew the fleet), but came out (barely) ahead , but that was enough to table him with still a lot of stuff left (at really low health) on my side.

So again match-ups helps, but so does learning from your mistakes, reacting, and tactics. It's also been quite a few big tournaments where I've read that a player who was beaten in the Swiss but still made the cut frequently does better if they play again, as they've learned more from their defeat than their opponent did from the win.

So you can have bad match-ups, but try to play them out, and take it as a challenge to see how well you can do! If it's a friendly game, try talking to your opponent and see if there's something else they or you can try. I try not running my tournament Sloan fleet in my casual games unless I really need to practise for an upcoming tournament, as I know it's not fun and the level that they play at. (we also HAVE to do the same when we play 40k, as the difference there is worlds apart from a bad Armada match-up-basically 2 different games depending on fractions that you play).

If it's a tournament, well there's not much you can do except to play it as best you can, and see what you can learn. Also, it's rare that you get completely cut from a tournament with a single small win/loss. It might take you from first, like in the store champ I mentioned, but second was a player who won a 6-5 round one (against my brother) and then came back strong against his next two opponents (perhaps because where he wound up in the standings after round 1). I much prefer our graduated system over X-wing's simplet win/loss, both because of the size of fleets, and because it means it's way harder to just kill something and disengage (except in a cut where that's a viable strategy, and is the reason why a lot of people are pushing that the cut be change to a second smaller swiss cut). Sorting people by the level of their win also ensures that you have the top players playing each other (and knocking each other out sometimes) rather than having someone who got a 10-1 win playing someone else who got a 6-5 just because they were both a win (like what happened in a 40k tournament I was in a few weeks back, where it was just a random parring of people with the same win/loss record, so the first few rounds were really rough).

Anyway,that's my thoughts, and hope the examples illustrate rather than distract from the points!

OP has fallen into the trap of trying to rationalize and externalize their performance instead of learning from them.

I recently played in a Store Champ where I played the final round against a player who had brought a list (Ruthless ISD Bombers) that was specifically designed to counter my list type (Rieekan Ace Bombers) and I didn't see it coming, my aces were wiped off the table by Round 2. But I managed to claw my way back into the game by concentrating on the objectives (Superior Positions) with my remaining forces of Hammerheads, Yavaris and VCX-100s, and started to rack up 15 point tokens. I ultimately brought it back from a 9-1 to a 6-4, or however this game's dumb tournament scoring system works, and actually I could have salvaged a 6-4 victory, but through my own misplay I allowed his Demolisher to escape with 1 Hull left. Moral of the story is that even though my opponent brought a list that was specifically designed to crush mine, that game was still mine to lose, and I only lost because of my own misplay.

This is one of the reasons I still play this game from time to time, I know that so long as the list I bring is half decent, I know that I always have a chance to overcome matchup odds and whatever the latest hot tech is through determination and smart play.

3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

A bigger bid was not beyond your control...?

It is in fact not in your control, because you DONT KNOW the bid of others. Unless you wanna take a GR75 with a 382 point bid

10 minutes ago, >kkj said:

It is in fact not in your control, because you DONT KNOW the bid of others. Unless you wanna take a GR75 with a 382 point bid

Can’t.

... got to at least be a Torpedo Head with Dodonna...

At least in tournament play ?

8 minutes ago, >kkj said:

It is in fact not in your control, because you DONT KNOW the bid of others. Unless you wanna take a GR75 with a 382 point bid

Then turning two clicks to the left is not in your control as you don't know if your opponent is gonna turn two clicks to the right.

Bidding hard is under your complete control.

4 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I didn't get to cut a rock with scissors so some real basis it has...?

Really?... what about Xi7/APs? Vader Gunneryteam Cymoons vs Hammerheads? Sloane Aces vs no squadrons? Rieekan Yavaris vs no or few squadrons? (Just take a look at what won german nationals -surprise rieekan yavaris aces again) Last first with huge ini bid vs 2 activation lists? Ackbar Tank Fleet against Arquitens?

Those combinations look at lot like Rock Paper Scissors to me, not to speak of certain objectives that clearly benefit specific fleettypes. If you just have bad luck and have to play against a counter fleet to your fleet you automatically are at a disadvantage. My point is in a 400 point match were both players have the same amount of pointinvestment available you shouldnt be at a disadvantage or advantage just because of which matchup (completely out of your control) you have to play.

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Then turning two clicks to the left is not in your control as you don't know if your opponent is gonna turn two clicks to the right.

Bidding hard is under your complete control.

Still doesnt matter if your just unlucky and your opponent bids harder. I call that a mechanic of complete randomness. The point is not that your own bid isnt under your control, but rather that the sometimes gamedeciding decision which player is First/Second Player is something just decided by a "slot machine" mechanic. Just gotta bid on the right number ...

5 minutes ago, >kkj said:

Really?... what about Xi7/APs? Vader Gunneryteam Cymoons vs Hammerheads? Sloane Aces vs no squadrons? Rieekan Yavaris vs no or few squadrons? (Just take a look at what won german nationals -surprise rieekan yavaris aces again) Last first with huge ini bid vs 2 activation lists? Ackbar Tank Fleet against Arquitens?

Those combinations look at lot like Rock Paper Scissors to me, not to speak of certain objectives that clearly benefit specific fleettypes. If you just have bad luck and have to play against a counter fleet to your fleet you automatically are at a disadvantage. My point is in a 400 point match were both players have the same amount of pointinvestment available you shouldnt be at a disadvantage or advantage just because of which matchup (completely out of your control) you have to play.

I. Just yoking about the rock-paper-scissors game?

7 minutes ago, >kkj said:

Still doesnt matter if your just unlucky and your opponent bids harder. I call that a mechanic of complete randomness. The point is not that your own bid isnt under your control, but rather that the sometimes gamedeciding decision which player is First/Second Player is something just decided by a "slot machine" mechanic. Just gotta bid on the right number ...

Like rolling the higher number on a d6? At least the bid mechanic allow you to choose a number depending on your build and the tactics you want to develop during the game.

Of course you can play RTS games.

6 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I. Just yoking about the rock-paper-scissors game?

Paper can beat scissors

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

Paper can beat scissors

Specially since scissors last nerf.

4 minutes ago, >kkj said:

Really?... what about Xi7/APs? Vader Gunneryteam Cymoons (skew) vs Hammerheads? (gonna assume this means MSU, so skew) Sloane Aces vs no squadrons? (skew, skew) Rieekan Yavaris vs no or few squadrons? (skew, skew) (Just take a look at what won german nationals -surprise rieekan yavaris aces again) Last first with huge ini bid vs 2 activation lists? (skew, skew) Ackbar Tank Fleet against Arquitens? (skew, skew)

Those combinations look at lot like Rock Paper Scissors to me, not to speak of certain objectives that clearly benefit specific fleettypes. If you just have bad luck and have to play against a counter fleet to your fleet you automatically are at a disadvantage. My point is in a 400 point match were both players have the same amount of pointinvestment available you shouldnt be at a disadvantage or advantage just because of which matchup (completely out of your control) you have to play.

I think I see a trend. So first off, XI7s do nothing vs Hammerheads, and Hammerheads do surprisingly well against Cymoons (one of which won't have APs.) Rieekan and especially Sloane risk getting tabled, because their squadless opponents didn't just not use those points, they have more firepower. Those 2 activation lists better have had a plan to go second or a massive bid themselves (and still a plan for second) or it's just a bad fleet, because nobody always goes first. I can't even say whether an Ackbar tank fleet comes out on top vs an Arq list.

But most importantly: these are not moderate, balanced lists. It's like saying "just because you've decided to be really strong in one area shouldn't mean you're sacrificing strength elsewhere." Skew is not an obligation; it's a trade off. If you view the only viable fleets as skew, and see it as a foregone conclusion when you face an opponent who's strong in an area you didn't invest in (not gonna say weak matchup, because you have strengths he doesn't) that's not the game limiting you. That's you limiting yourself.

4 minutes ago, >kkj said:

Still doesnt matter if your just unlucky and your opponent bids harder. I call that a mechanic of complete randomness

It's like objectives: hidden information you can still do things about. Not random from your opponent's standpoint, therefore not truly random. Know your meta, know what you're willing to commit, know how much you need first, come to terms with going second sometimes. You can't have certainty about going first no matter what, because your opponent will have the same overall options. Otherwise it wouldn't be a level playing field.

1 hour ago, Tvboy said:

OP has fallen into the trap of trying to rationalize and externalize their performance instead of learning from them.

No, this is a bunch of other people falling into the trap of assuming everyone enjoys the same things they do. The OP wasn’t complaining about his performance. For all we know he is consistently winning. He was talking about the level of enjoyment the game provides. And that was pretty clear from the thread. If you actually read the posts and try to understand what is being said, you’d see that there is nothing in this topic about performance.

12 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

No, this is a bunch of other people falling into the trap of assuming everyone enjoys the same things they do. The OP wasn’t complaining about his performance. For all we know he is consistently winning. He was talking about the level of enjoyment the game provides. And that was pretty clear from the thread. If you actually read the posts and try to understand what is being said, you’d see that there is nothing in this topic about performance.

You're probably right.

Disclosure, I stopped reading after about three paragraphs. I agreed with some of what you said, and I disagreed with other parts, but it was just too long to invest. That said...

It's a mistake to think that your fun and someone else's fun are in competition

I'm also someone who much prefers the creativity outlet of tabletop gaming to the min/max efficiency game. On that, OP and I agree. But try to train your thinking in a few ways. Number one, it's not about one fun being superior or ascendant over another. Neither is somehow purer or smarter or better or even preferred by FFG. Look to Magic the Gathering, which has famously profiled what makes its players come back to the game, and these profiles inform their game design.

Think about things like Grand Admiral Thrawn. General consensus is that he's outvalued by hyper-specialist admirals. Some cutting-edge fleet that finds the most ruthlessly optimized card combos probably doesn't invest 32 points into a commander that just does normal things better and more flexibly than default. So, the card is more of a style card and a flavor card than it is a meta card. However, Armada has lots of different options for different types of players, and those can let people have different kinds of fun, even in the same game.

Locus of control

In any competitive activity, it's important to keep a handle on your gut instincts. When you win, it feels elating, and cockiness can ruin it all. When you lose, it's tempting to blame an opponent's cheap OP combo, or rules-lawyering. But that's bad sportsmanship, and cheating yourself of a learning opportunity. I guess what I'm saying is, in a discussion of whether Armada should cater more to listbuilding or to gameplay decisions, it's important to keep in mind that we all have access to both of these levers at the same time. We can listbuild more carefully if we want, and we can practice mechanics if we want. When I lose a game, it's not my opponent's fault for approaching the game differently. I can keep my focus on what I want to improve, if anything.

Psychologists call this your "locus of control." Do you ascribe setbacks to external unfairness and cold dice, or do you look for solutions?

What's wrong with casual play?

Not to call out OP specifically, but even as s/he defends playstyles other than standard tournaments, there's an element of defensiveness around the term "casual." Let's get rid of the elitism around that idea and notice that most of us play pretty casually. Armada is actually much more pleasant about this than many other games, but remember that, although we congregate to discuss exciting and powerful playstyles, we don't have to diminish the fun of: playing with experimental ideas, playing against opponents who are likely to beat you, playing the fleets we enjoy even if they have Konstantine in them, and taking part in the social aspects of Armada. Most gamer communities on the internet aren't great at this. We try to bring down competitive players by calling them tryhards and we try to bring down casual players by acting like they're allergic to winning. The reality is that most of us are somewhere in between. Let's all just be comfortable with playing what gives us a fun experience.

It took me a long time to realize that the debate about this topic is more about fun versus mastery than it is about casual versus competitive. "Casual" and "competitive" are inherently judgmental labels that place value on an expectation of winning. I came to the realization that I'm not actually terribly motivated by mastery of the game. I'm not playing in order to hone my tactics to perfection or to fix every mistake I make. Sure, I want to win and I do get better over time, but let's recognize that some players are focused on mastering the game, and some aren't. I'm not hoping to win Nationals, and the game is a lot more fun when I act like it.

Here's what I do

I know what you mean about Armada having a big collectible card game element to it. It's the FFG approach to make all games at least partially collectible. It's not my favorite thing in a wargame, but fortunately for FFG, it's also quite a good Star Wars game so they've got me hooked. Look at Legion for a game with a little bit less of this, and look outside FFG for games that break from this approach.

In the meantime, you can also try out some *ahem* fan-made campaigns if you want an experience that emphasizes strategy over listbuilding.