I think there are two ways a person can approach to this game ( as in any other game I guess), thematic or formulaic.

For me, I am more of a thematic player, I choose ships, squadrons, characters mostly due to special preferences rather than their true potential. Example? I never played with MC-30 because I am not familiar with that ship in SW universe yet almost every game I have Nebulon-B because it is my favorite. I love Thrawn and I tend to choose him even sometimes it does not make sense, or I don't choose Motti becaue I cannot stand him. Most of the time, I tend to create fleets with a plot in my mind that parallels the movies, comics, games and etc.

Having said that, I don't play competitive, I never entered a tournament and I really don't mind loosing as long as I have fun on the table.

Formulaic players are better players probably because they create fleets that make sense. They don't choose ISDs becaue they look awesome on the table but rather they choose because they need a ship with that capabilities. They wouldn't mind choosing an RV with some boosters on the back as long as it does the job. For them, fleet creating becomes a variation of formulas rather than personal preferences.

So I was wondering what kind of player are you? And can you play both ways without compromising your true gaming style ( too thematic or too formulaic) ?

I think with this, like nearly all games I play, I am largely formulaic but not entirely. When in doubt, I will play “in character” or do something fun rather than devolve into analysis paralysis. I might include a ship because it seems fun, but then try to make a serious effort to win with it.

55 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

I might include a ship because it seems fun, but then try to make a serious effort to win with it.

I'm a little bit similar. With any game like this that i play, I tend to start out thematic then slowly turn formulaic the more i play.

If you were to use the MTG psychographs, I'm a johnny that Spike encroaches on. I start out with an idea that isn't popular, then try to make it work.

For example, I'm trying to make Sato work at the moment.

The formulaic side of me is trying stuff to make him work.

The thematic side of me is bothered that I'm only having success by using ships that all start with MC as it feels weird to have sato in charge of what is essentially a non-human fleet.

more or a thematic player myself, not really interested in the competitive scene, I play star wars table top games for fun, and to play out scenarios similar to the films, games and books etc.

Thematic, for sure. I play so that I can participate in my own little Star Wars story.

110% 'formulaic.'

I'm interested in the rules and how to make best use of the game's components.

To me it's like chess, only 1 million times more entertaining.

Nice looking Star Wars minis come a distant second.

For 'thematic' I play SW RPGs.

Totally thematic player here. I have no interest in competitive play or tournaments.

Totally thematic. I pick a theme for my list and build 100% around that theme. The theme might be objective based or playstyle based, always a theme though.

My theme is winning :-p.

I am a "cinematic" thematic player. I have tried to be a formulaic one as well, but there is something missing in the fleet design. When I bring a fleet to my FLGS I tend to have something akin to a themed formulaic fleet. They tend to not do so well.

I also am weird with squadrons. For example; An MC80 should only have 3 squadrons of fighters and 2 light freighters (per WEG Rebel Alliance sourcebook). On the Imperial side, an ISD should have 6 squadrons of TIEs (4 TIE Fighter Squadrons, 1 TIE Interceptor Squadron, and 1 TIE Bomber Squadron - again per WEG Star Wars sourcebook). I know that 4 Interceptors are better than 4 standard TIEs.... the "in-universe" mindset tells me this isn't likely to happen.

Regardless, the game is one of my favorites. The release of the Super Star Destroyer has finally put me in the position to play out the Battle of Endor on the floor like I wanted to do back in 1983.

I'm a formulaic player but that doesn't make me a better one. I'm just not really aware enough of Star Wars lore to think about "thematic fleets."

On 1/4/2020 at 2:50 AM, Green Knight said:

Nice looking Star Wars minis come a distant second.

Actually I am really trying to avoid that, once it happens I fear I will just see them as game pieces rather than ships.

On 1/4/2020 at 6:28 PM, Fraggle_Rock said:

an ISD should have 6 squadrons of TIEs (4 TIE Fighter Squadrons, 1 TIE Interceptor Squadron, and 1 TIE Bomber Squadron - again per WEG Star Wars sourcebook).

Hehehehe, when I first started Armada, I was really bummed to see ISD did not have 6 squadrons allowance like you said in the WEG sourcebook.

I would call myself thematic. I start with an idea or a card, be it an admiral I want to use, or a fleet name I want to fit my build... then I add one or two MC30's and build from there, unless it's an Imperial build

Completely and utterly thematic. I'm the same way in miniature games and CCGs. I don't care how much my fleet, army, or deck sucks, or how much I lose as long as I like what's in it. I put an MC30C and a Nebulon-B in every Armada fleet I build. And the main reason I haven't at least started gathering ships to make an Imperial fleet is because so far the Empire has no frigate type vessels in Armada. A decent Imperial Frigate (Nothing absurdly overspecialized like a Lancer, or Star Galleon) gets announced for Armada and I'll start trying to pool the money for an Imperoal fleet.

The one Star Wars tabletop game where I prefer playing the Dark side is the old Pocket Models TCG/Minis hybrid because the Light side had two medical frigates while the Dark side had two Imperial combat Nebulon-Bs and some Separatist Heavy Cruisers/Frigates. When the Scum and Villainy set was announced I hoped it would include Far Orbit or Free Lance but no such luck. Then I hoped some Alliance or New Republic combat Nebulons would come once they finished their Clone Wars cartoon sets but that never happened.

And every Light Side Star Wars CCG/TCG deck I've built included a frigate or had one added ASAP once a frigate card was released for the game. I even included a pair of Lancers in ,my Dark Side WOTC TCG deck despite hating the class.

Thematic and sometimes formulaic but always a pleasure to play. This game is a passion.

Thematic as much as possible. I think list building can be inherently formulaic, so there are times where the choices require it as cost restrictions really narrow down options. I avoid "optimization" list building though. Outside of competitive play riding the mechanics is a soul draining experience for me.

I'm definitely formulaic . I build my list to a playstile and than do a rundown on what my list is good at and bad against before I even get to the table. As knowledge is power and knowing where and how my fleet is dangerous or weak can significantly improve my chances at winning or making it a hard faught loss. Building a list to build a list to match a theme or cannon just bothers me as a list builder. Why limit myself or handicap my fleet because of some movie that was released decades before I was born.

With that said I often chronical stories about the ships and builds I use. My Warloard Victory 1 with H9s has quite the battle history. With that said I feel my issue with playing thematicly is the 400 points cost. As I don't really care about the cannon lore, I'll build ships and attach squadrons as I think is right. A ISD 1 with its 'internal' fighter squadrons: 1TIE Advanced, 2 TIE fighters, 1 TIE bomber, and a pair of Lambda class shuttles blows most of the fleet budget. Lists at 600 or 800 tend to get my thematic treatment than are analyzed before I bring them to the table.

19 hours ago, RogueCorona said:

Completely and utterly thematic. I'm the same way in miniature games and CCGs. I don't care how much my fleet, army, or deck sucks, or how much I lose as long as I like what's in it. I put an MC30C and a Nebulon-B in every Armada fleet I build. And the main reason I haven't at least started gathering ships to make an Imperial fleet is because so far the Empire has no frigate type vessels in Armada. A decent Imperial Frigate (Nothing absurdly overspecialized like a Lancer, or Star Galleon) gets announced for Armada and I'll start trying to pool the money for an Imperoal fleet.

The one Star Wars tabletop game where I prefer playing the Dark side is the old Pocket Models TCG/Minis hybrid because the Light side had two medical frigates while the Dark side had two Imperial combat Nebulon-Bs and some Separatist Heavy Cruisers/Frigates. When the Scum and Villainy set was announced I hoped it would include Far Orbit or Free Lance but no such luck. Then I hoped some Alliance or New Republic combat Nebulons would come once they finished their Clone Wars cartoon sets but that never happened.

And every Light Side Star Wars CCG/TCG deck I've built included a frigate or had one added ASAP once a frigate card was released for the game. I even included a pair of Lancers in ,my Dark Side WOTC TCG deck despite hating the class.

The Arquitens could arguably be the best frigate in the game, especially after RitR added the LTTs, Expert Shield Tech, and even Aux Shield Team

43 minutes ago, Cap116 said:

The Arquitens could arguably be the best frigate in the game, especially after RitR added the LTTs, Expert Shield Tech, and even Aux Shield Team

Arquitens command with RBD, LTT, Expert Shield Tech, and Aux Shield team sounds expensive but amazing. I'll need to try it.

6 hours ago, Grathew said:

Arquitens command with RBD, LTT, Expert Shield Tech, and Aux Shield team sounds expensive but amazing. I'll need to try it.

I typically forego the RBD, opting for the Light cruiser if I want it to primarily flank and shoot, or the Command Cruiser if it's in a Thrawn list and is also pushing squadrons.

Arquitens Command Cruiser (59)
• Expert Shield Tech (5)
• Auxiliary Shields Team (3)
• Linked Turbolaser Towers (7)
= 74 Points

Arquitens Light Cruiser (54)
• Expert Shield Tech (5)
• Linked Turbolaser Towers (7)
= 66 Points

I do think it has a bit higher survivability than the Neb-b, but that is probably mostly due to the prevalence side arc/flank attacks instead of head-on attacks more than anything else. (I dont fly the Neb-b well, and know my skills are lacking with it).

1 hour ago, Cap116 said:

I typically forego the RBD, opting for the Light cruiser if I want it to primarily flank and shoot, or the Command Cruiser if it's in a Thrawn list and is also pushing squadrons.

Personally I think that RBD is the most useful upgrade for an Arquitens. Although Expert Shield Tech is probably equivalent for survivability. Although I tend to use them as an escort for something bigger where body blocking often comes into play. Either way they are the best smalls in the game IMO.

13 hours ago, Grathew said:

Arquitens ... are the best smalls in the game IMO.

The best small flanker, but not the best small area denial (Raider), the best small speeder (CR90), the best small front arc (Nebulon), the best small killer (Gladiator/MC30c), or the best small swarm (Hammerhead).

And no this thread is officially derailed!

On 1/4/2020 at 7:28 AM, Fraggle_Rock said:

I also am weird with squadrons. For example; An MC80 should only have 3 squadrons of fighters and 2 light freighters (per WEG Rebel Alliance sourcebook). On the Imperial side, an ISD should have 6 squadrons of TIEs (4 TIE Fighter Squadrons, 1 TIE Interceptor Squadron, and 1 TIE Bomber Squadron - again per WEG Star Wars sourcebook). I know that 4 Interceptors are better than 4 standard TIEs.... the "in-universe" mindset tells me this isn't likely to happen.

This, a MILLION TIMES this.

I had started a thread about that a while back -

I'd *like* to create a "thematic" list, but...*oof*, they are bad .

IMHO, though, probably a better 'fix' would be a campaign game. One of the reasons in-universe the ships HAVE the loadouts they do is because they aren't getting to change their configuration before their next assignment. It's escort after escort after bombardment after piracy pursuit after fleet engagement, with LOOOOOONG stretches of boring patrols that have to cover enormous territory, etc.

I think maybe RitR does a better job of this than CC, but still it doesn't quite embrace the variety of missions the fleets need to allocate resources for. (Maybe if there was side 'assignments' alongside the battles the players were fighting - say drawn from a card deck or something - that you were required to commit a certain number of ships or squadrons to? IE., okay you are planning your next campaign round but missing from your player's fleet will be 3 squadrons of non-bomber fighters that have to be out on patrol and 1 squadron of 'bomber'-keywords fighters required for a bombardment mission. Or another mission might call for two squadrons with 'strategic' to perform a diplomatic escort. etc. Failing to meet the requirement for the side mission...maybe campaign points for the enemy side?)

5 hours ago, xanderf said:

IMHO, though, probably a better 'fix' would be a campaign game. One of the reasons in-universe the ships HAVE the loadouts they do is because they aren't getting to change their configuration before their next assignment. It's escort after escort after bombardment after piracy pursuit after fleet engagement, with LOOOOOONG stretches of boring patrols that have to cover enormous territory, etc.

I think maybe RitR does a better job of this than CC, but still it doesn't quite embrace the variety of missions the fleets need to allocate resources for. (Maybe if there was side 'assignments' alongside the battles the players were fighting - say drawn from a card deck or something - that you were required to commit a certain number of ships or squadrons to? IE., okay you are planning your next campaign round but missing from your player's fleet will be 3 squadrons of non-bomber fighters that have to be out on patrol and 1 squadron of 'bomber'-keywords fighters required for a bombardment mission. Or another mission might call for two squadrons with 'strategic' to perform a diplomatic escort. etc. Failing to meet the requirement for the side mission...maybe campaign points for the enemy side?)

I kind of want to run Rebellion in the Rim with Squadron limits per ships. I think that would drastically change game-play.

3 hours ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

I kind of want to run Rebellion in the Rim with Squadron limits per ships. I think that would drastically change game-play.

We played a modified CC campaign with the house rule: You are only allowed to deploy as many (non-rogue) squadrons as the squadron value of the ships you already deployed. The sum of (non-rogue) squadrons you deploy at distance 1-2 of a ship can't exceed that ship's squadron value. Rogue squadrons that exceed your squadron value must be deployed after all other squadrons.

That's a rule I would like to see in tournamental play. It doesn't allow to deploy a flotilla and then 12 squadrons to outdeploy your opponent. You would only be allowed to deploy 2 squadrons and then you would have to bring another ship. Deployment and fleet building needed a bit more thinking. And it felt thematic. First a ship jumps in, then it loads out its fighters.