I am a new player, never played a game with anyone outside my son. I have watched lots of batreps and read many blog posts. I can't get enough armada.

Recently, I have started listening to podcasts, specifically galactic conflict and the outer Rim job among others. These are great because it's like reading an armada history book. They give a glimpse of what prior rules, ships and upgrades played like.

There was significant talk with the arrival of wave 7 about how it helped tip the meta back towards big ships and away from squadrons. I am a little unclear on what the tipping point was though? Was it the specific ships released? I know some of the upgrades certainly helped, and the nerf against the rebels ace holes lists. Was it strategies that these things enabled?

I don't have experience with star hawk or onager, but my understanding is they have pushed things even more towards bigger ship builds in many ways.

I love the strategy of this game, so I would love to see comments on this topic.

I dont think it tipped the balance away from Squadrons. You can now find squadron-less lists that actually suceed more often. It started with this 2-ship list archetype that is generally attributed to Broba. The Onager makes this even more viable as you can murder any carrier ship from halfway across the table (fun?). However there are plenty of lists that take almost full sqadrons with the Onager to provide fighter cover and to "MarekJendon" any small ships that get too close.

Rebel list variety has been diminished to my mind due to all the nerfs this faction suffered recently. You can run the AgateStarhawk with squads, maybe a RaddusProf drop trick.

Anyway, Clone Wars is around the FFG version of a corner and going by the spoiled upgrade list its likely the rules are gonna change at that point to some degree or other, thereby mixing up the Meta (maybe actually for the better this time - I dont much like the direction it has been going recently).

Well, squadrons still can absolutely win big (and often do), but squadronless fleets at least have gotten a fighting chance since Wave 7 (the past two NOVA winners had no squadrons in their lists).

I think there's more diversity in the most recent tournaments than there used to be. Compare to this Wave 6 era NOVA top 8: http://www.steelstrategy.com/2017/09/nationals-top-8-breakdown.html

What the podcasts might have meant is since Wave 7, Strategic Adviser and Governor Pryce gave large ships a big buff. You don't see as many swarms of Hammerheads, Raiders, CR90s, etc. because SAd and Pryce can match them in activations.

14 hours ago, Rogue09 said:

There was significant talk with the arrival of wave 7 about how it helped tip the meta back towards big ships and away from squadrons. I am a little unclear on what the tipping point was though? Was it the specific ships released? I know some of the upgrades certainly helped, and the nerf against the rebels ace holes lists. Was it strategies that these things enabled?

A lot of things happened in wave 7. Firstly, activation mechanics were added in the form of Governor Price , Bail Organa , and strategic advisor , it can be argued that these significantly benefited large ship builds. (Price two-ship, or just throwing a strat advisor on a large ship to pad the activations). Secondly, the ships released were both larges with a lot of interesting features. Third, the commanders were large ship friendly. (Raddus being able to drop a large ship out of hyperspace was an instant favorite, and Thrawn allowed those lists with multiple larges in them to basically double their functionality, that made a huge difference.) Lastly, and I think most importantly, just after the release of wave 7, there was a massive nerf to Flotillas . Before this nerf lists could have as many flotillas as they wanted, and they only needed one alive to keep the fleet, and therefore their squadrons, in action. Now players are limited to 2 flotillas and as soon as all the non-flotilla ships are destroyed the game is over.

Reminder that a lot of large ship lists also run max or near max squads so these aren’t exactly different things.
while no squads as a rush strategy is now viable other options of small or medium squad amounts are still losing much more often than max or near max. With small or medium point usage still looking near useless vs the multiplicative squadron effect.

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Reminder that a lot of large ship lists also run max or near max squads so these aren’t exactly different things.
while no squads as a rush strategy is now viable other options of small or medium squad amounts are still losing much more often than max or near max. With small or medium point usage still looking near useless vs the multiplicative squadron effect.

Can you fact check this

47 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Can you fact check this

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150

I just checked the data. Although only 1% of players brought 1-20 points of squadrons to competitive tournaments in 2019-2020 season, 5% of the overall winners brought 1-20 points of squadrons. That's a 5x increase! So bringing 1-20 points of squadrons can be incredibly useful.

On 5/27/2020 at 5:17 AM, Bertie Wooster said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150

I just checked the data. Although only 1% of players brought 1-20 points of squadrons to competitive tournaments in 2019-2020 season, 5% of the overall winners brought 1-20 points of squadrons. That's a 5x increase! So bringing 1-20 points of squadrons can be incredibly useful.

Sample size compared to the rest of the same and compared to max and near-max?

Can't believe that was forgotten in a fact check.

On 5/26/2020 at 7:36 AM, RapidReload said:

Rebel list variety has been diminished to my mind due to all the nerfs this faction suffered recently

Not just the recent nerfs either.. Imperials are just too efficient right now in nearly every aspect Small, mediums, large, and squadrons.. Rebels need a medium and a new commander stat imo.

On 5/26/2020 at 7:36 AM, RapidReload said:

You can run the AgateStarhawk with squads, maybe a RaddusProf drop trick.

Rebels best commander is Agate, the rest are sub par, Rieekan would be 2nd spot if imperial 5/6 activation didn't basically nullify any use to his ability outside a dead ram. Yav has been hit with the nerf bat so many times, yet apparently is not dead so they keep hitting it xD At least that's my meta and what I see on vassal.. (corvus and SA just exacerbate the problem if anything).

After a medium ship an actual squadron commander would go a long way to bringing balance back to the force, that or a hard ace cap at 3, goodbye sloane and 100 scatter aces.

Also would've been nice to fly a starhawk for at least 1 wave before they brought a hard counter to it. Like way to kill your own ships off FFG

On 5/26/2020 at 7:36 AM, RapidReload said:

(maybe actually for the better this time - I dont much like the direction it has been going recently).

Agreed, if they get clone wars right i'll sell rebels and switch factions.. Ignition as a whole though really killed a lot of my interest in the game, you don't need skill to run 5/6 ships, out activate your opponent and blast them from out of normal legal range, ditto to starhawks and 13 hull with 2/3 salvos, or 5/6 squadrons going last with Pryce. No skill just look at my wombo combos and pray I get **** dice

1 hour ago, EbonHawk said:

Not just the recent nerfs either.. Imperials are just too efficient right now in nearly every aspect Small, mediums, large, and squadrons.. Rebels need a medium and a new commander stat imo.

Rebels best commander is Agate, the rest are sub par, Rieekan would be 2nd spot if imperial 5/6 activation didn't basically nullify any use to his ability outside a dead ram. Yav has been hit with the nerf bat so many times, yet apparently is not dead so they keep hitting it xD At least that's my meta and what I see on vassal.. (corvus and SA just exacerbate the problem if anything).

After a medium ship an actual squadron commander would go a long way to bringing balance back to the force, that or a hard ace cap at 3, goodbye sloane and 100 scatter aces.

Also would've been nice to fly a starhawk for at least 1 wave before they brought a hard counter to it. Like way to kill your own ships off FFG

I have been a long-time supporter of an ace cap, and I agree that squadron commanders for both sides (but particularly for rebels) are long overdue. I also agree that the rebels could do with a new medium base ship.

However I disagree with your moan about the 'hard counter to the Starhawk'. The Starhawk is a bloody menace and you have to start nailing it really early on in the battle, and keep nailing it, to stand a chance of taking it out. A Starhawk II lasted 3 turns in the face of my Executor II (11 dice out the front each turn plus ramming damage) in a recent 800pt battle. It nearly cost me the battle that I thought I was going to coast. I respectfully suggest that you may not have found the right fleet to run it in yet. My experience is that 'Starhawk plus squads' doesn't work.

31 minutes ago, flatpackhamster said:

However I disagree with your moan about the 'hard counter to the Starhawk'. The Starhawk is a bloody menace and you have to start nailing it really early on in the battle, and keep nailing it, to stand a chance of taking it out. A Starhawk II lasted 3 turns in the face of my Executor II (11 dice out the front each turn plus ramming damage) in a recent 800pt battle. It nearly cost me the battle that I thought I was going to coast. I respectfully suggest that you may not have found the right fleet to run it in yet. My experience is that 'Starhawk plus squads' doesn't work.

I just mean the Onager, which is a pretty hard counter to the Hawk. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the hawk and have had fun with it, I just feel the onager could've been a wave after.. instead the starhawk had a hard counter before it had even hit a table anywhere... and it like the onager both show the power creep in play for the last few waves imo

A Starhawk can beat both an ISD and an Onager in a straight fight - but loses if the Onager can put enough damage into it before it closes.

Who wins then depends on what the rest of the Rebel fleet is doing. If it draws fire from the Donkey, the Rebels should win. If it does enough extra damage to the Imps, then again Rebels win.

In this matchup, I've found, deployment and manoeuvring matter most in determining who wins. It's certainly feasible for the Imperials to kill the support ships and then run away; it's also feasible that the Hawk will die - or never get to do anything useful all game!

In 4 games, I've lost my Hawk once. And I've lost once, but not that match, surprisingly.

In another 4 games facing a Hawk, I've won twice, killing it both times.

Because it's so good, I find it very hard to omit an Onager in any Imperial fleet I build. And pretty much essential when you might have to deal with a Starhawk.

1 hour ago, EbonHawk said:

I just mean the Onager, which is a pretty hard counter to the Hawk. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the hawk and have had fun with it, I just feel the onager could've been a wave after.. instead the starhawk had a hard counter before it had even hit a table anywhere... and it like the onager both show the power creep in play for the last few waves imo

If you look at the data, Starhawks have outperformed Onagers in official tournaments (the last two weeks of Primes). (Can confirm a Starhawk also won a local casual tournament in February with 18 players--and yes, there were Onagers present.)

Granted, that isn't much of a sample size, and perhaps Onagers will outperform Hawks in the Primes season. But they haven't been so far at the official tournament level.

4 hours ago, Gilarius said:

A Starhawk can beat both an ISD and an Onager in a straight fight - but loses if the Onager can put enough damage into it before it closes.

Who wins then depends on what the rest of the Rebel fleet is doing. If it draws fire from the Donkey, the Rebels should win. If it does enough extra damage to the Imps, then again Rebels win.

In this matchup, I've found, deployment and manoeuvring matter most in determining who wins. It's certainly feasible for the Imperials to kill the support ships and then run away; it's also feasible that the Hawk will die - or never get to do anything useful all game!

In 4 games, I've lost my Hawk once. And I've lost once, but not that match, surprisingly.

In another 4 games facing a Hawk, I've won twice, killing it both times.

Because it's so good, I find it very hard to omit an Onager in any Imperial fleet I build. And pretty much essential when you might have to deal with a Starhawk.

This is all pretty fair, salt and lack of real games of late is adding up.. man needs to see some models soon xD

I played the SH a lot, and mostly against Onagers as they absolutely dominate the Metas I currently observe. The Onager is (too?) good against pretty much anything that has been around the Armada tables previously.

I believe to FFGs mind the SH was supposed to be the Counter to the Onager actually, however the Onager is so good and the SH such an easy target that it becomes a race of "can the SH get in range before it blows up". That depends on deployment and the rest of the fleet as someone else pointed out. I dont necessarily think the two ships are unbalanced against each other, except wrt fun (I do however think the Onager should also only be speed 2) . The SH is soooo boring to play while the Onager kills **** from halfway across the table. However both Ships are really (too?) powerful against the rest of Armada. Never lost a game with the SH against a non-Onager fleet. Even AgateMK couldnt deal with it.

I just really dislike the skilllessness of Ignition and Magnites and that both counter what I liked most about Armada: the tactical and strategic aspect of deployment- and activation advantage, and maneuvering.

28 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

I played the SH a lot, and mostly against Onagers as they absolutely dominate the Metas I currently observe. The Onager is (too?) good against pretty much anything that has been around the Armada tables previously.

I believe to FFGs mind the SH was supposed to be the Counter to the Onager actually, however the Onager is so good and the SH such an easy target that it becomes a race of "can the SH get in range before it blows up". That depends on deployment and the rest of the fleet as someone else pointed out. I dont necessarily think the two ships are unbalanced against each other, except wrt fun (I do however think the Onager should also only be speed 2) . The SH is soooo boring to play while the Onager kills **** from halfway across the table. However both Ships are really (too?) powerful against the rest of Armada. Never lost a game with the SH against a non-Onager fleet. Even AgateMK couldnt deal with it.

I just really dislike the skilllessness of Ignition and Magnites and that both counter what I liked most about Armada: the tactical and strategic aspect of deployment- and activation advantage, and maneuvering.

I thibk the Starkhawk is a counter to the SSD, and the Onager is a counter to the Starhawk, and most larges in general.

You need the ISD or MC80s Nav'ing exclusively and pretty much at Speed-3 to get out of that Ignition arc. It's really hard to do at Speed-2 with the Starhawk.

39 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

I played the SH a lot, and mostly against Onagers as they absolutely dominate the Metas I currently observe. The Onager is (too?) good against pretty much anything that has been around the Armada tables previously.

I believe to FFGs mind the SH was supposed to be the Counter to the Onager actually, however the Onager is so good and the SH such an easy target that it becomes a race of "can the SH get in range before it blows up". That depends on deployment and the rest of the fleet as someone else pointed out. I dont necessarily think the two ships are unbalanced against each other, except wrt fun (I do however think the Onager should also only be speed 2) . The SH is soooo boring to play while the Onager kills **** from halfway across the table. However both Ships are really (too?) powerful against the rest of Armada. Never lost a game with the SH against a non-Onager fleet. Even AgateMK couldnt deal with it.

I just really dislike the skilllessness of Ignition and Magnites and that both counter what I liked most about Armada: the tactical and strategic aspect of deployment- and activation advantage, and maneuvering.

I don't agree that it requires no skill to use an Onager or Magnites. I haven't used Magnites because I haven't played with a Starhawk (currently playing my first game using it on Tabletop Simulator), but the timing is an absolute nightmare.

I have played with the Onager a fair bit but it's not EASY to use. Against enemies with Evade, or small fast targets, it's not good.

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

I played the SH a lot, and mostly against Onagers as they absolutely dominate the Metas I currently observe. The Onager is (too?) good against pretty much anything that has been around the Armada tables previously.

I believe to FFGs mind the SH was supposed to be the Counter to the Onager actually, however the Onager is so good and the SH such an easy target that it becomes a race of "can the SH get in range before it blows up". That depends on deployment and the rest of the fleet as someone else pointed out. I dont necessarily think the two ships are unbalanced against each other, except wrt fun (I do however think the Onager should also only be speed 2) . The SH is soooo boring to play while the Onager kills **** from halfway across the table. However both Ships are really (too?) powerful against the rest of Armada. Never lost a game with the SH against a non-Onager fleet. Even AgateMK couldnt deal with it.

I just really dislike the skilllessness of Ignition and Magnites and that both counter what I liked most about Armada: the tactical and strategic aspect of deployment- and activation advantage, and maneuvering.

^- My main gripe I think, not that they're too easy to use, just suck too much fun out when pulled off.)-Ebon

Agree with this, but also as Eliteone said, SH seems a natural counter to the SSD.

8 hours ago, flatpackhamster said:

I don't agree that it requires no skill to use an Onager or Magnites. I haven't used Magnites because I haven't played with a Starhawk (currently playing my first game using it on Tabletop Simulator), but the timing is an absolute nightmare.

I have played with the Onager a fair bit but it's not EASY to use. Against enemies with Evade, or small fast targets, it's not good.

I have to disagree that the Onager's Special Arc is "not easy to use". The Onager has quickly become my favourite Imperial ship because of the deadly effectiveness of its Superweapons.

Of course, you're correct that it's not as good against small, fast targets and ships with Evade -- nor should it be. I call that balance .

I recently used the Onager against a Mostly Small Unit fleet and it performed very well. It heavily damaged a Hammerhead, one-shotted a second Hammerhead, and heavily damaged a MC80 Liberty, all in the first 3 rounds. However, from Round 4 to 6, my opponent's ships outflanked the Onager and I couldn't use its Special Battery for the remainder of the match. The only thing I could do is increase the Onager to Speed 3 and use Repair commands to desperately restore the 1 rear shield and discard damage cards to keep the ship alive. It was a tense battle that highlighted the best and worst aspects of the Onager. So again, balance.

Also, the Cataclysm ship title is vital IME. It enabled me to take a 1st round Special Arc shot using the OBPC superweapon, and allowed me to re-position the Ignition token in Round 2 so it was in close range of the Hammerhead that I one-shotted. It's by far my favourite ship title for the Onager, and I think anyone who is learning to use the Onager should equip the Cataclysm title until they get the hang of the ship's abilities and limitations.

As for the Magnite "superweapon", it is somewhat of a disappointment -- which is surprising because a lot of players were expecting it to be a game changer. So much so that when I first faced the Starhawk, I designed my Onager build to specifically counter the Magnite Speed-0 Freeze trick... but, of course, my opponents figured out what I was up to and refrained from reducing the Starhawk to Speed 0 and using the Magnite -- except for one occasion, which was a disaster for the Starhawk.

I feel like the Magnite either needs an Errata fix to make it more useful, or the Starhawk needs a second Superweapon card. Preferably something offensive in nature, like the Onager's superweapons. Considering the location, size, and shape of the Starhawk's tractor beam array, I think it's plausible it could be reconfigured into some sort of weapon, like a "Super Heavy Turbolaser Array" or a giant Ion Cannon (similar to the Malevolence ) or a mega calibre rail gun.

It just doesn't seem fair that the Rebel Wave 8 ship was only given 1 Superweapon whereas the Empire Wave 8 ship received 2 Superweapons. (And I'm primarily an Imperial player.)

Regardless, I highly recommend practicing with both Onager and Starhawk. It's the only way to gain proficiency with them. But I know that's difficult under the current circumstances, so Tabletop Sim and Vassal are your smartest and safest options right now and for the foreseeable future.

10 hours ago, flatpackhamster said:

I have played with the Onager a fair bit but it's not EASY to use. Against enemies with Evade, or small fast targets, it's not good.

This. I’ve fought at least three Onager lists with TRC90s, flown by different players, and the Empire has yet to emerge victorious. In only one of those games did the Onager live, and that was because I had to chase an ISD.

Hammerheads might have some trouble, but that arc isn’t big enough to catch speed 4 small bases (at least not without investing in a high activation count.)