I don't think they have the agency to effectively win (consistently against enough lists). Essentially, Warhammer Fantasy Dwarves in space Of course, I could be wrong; and they do kind of shred TIE/lns and ints like no ones business since they have so many **** arcs

Indeed. I think people keep piling too much into one aspect of the game or another. Claiming "activations are god" really doesn't follow; as, like you said, CR-90 swarms really aren't competitive...just annoying as hell to play against. You need agency to back up your activations. You also need to not have "too many" as you risk running out of actual places to put the ships to actually use them: the DR of 4+ GSDs for example. And, as i've mentioned and you point out here, people seem to view the use of Squadron commands as a simple waste of an activation for their ship. I can't fathom the reasoning for this when you can simply see your VSD with NO squadron upgrades ushering 3 black-dice-wielding ships into the exact arc you want to shoot (SupPos rear shots, unshielded far side, etc) which is objectively better than adding a single die of your choice to ONE of your (potentially) two shots. Funny, that, as I've never really considered this point until this very discussion. I too, saw squad commands in leu of CF as a waste, but that can never be the case imo unless you're down to only fighters. And the only reason I have said fighters is to allow my bombers to do work if the opponent has fighters. If people insist on this trend of all-ships...I guess the best course, in Meta-listing, is to take ~4 advances instead of any fighters/interceptors at all, so that the few lists that run around with fighters can be held up while my bombers can still do work; and against all-ship lists I have a metric-ton of black dice to add to my offense that are much more effective in focus-firing than another GSD imo. EDIT So instead of: Howl 2x TIE/ln 2x TIE/int Vader Rhymer TIE/sa I would, due to meta, run: 3x TIE/adv Vader Rhymer 3x TIE/sa 8 black dice at medium range...that I can add to any of my activations, or just sit on a medium-range swivel with Rhymer. A ball that can't really be killed by AA fire very well at all. Not to mention you'll have to contend with choice of SupPos or Prec Strike if you're first...and You'll eat all these dice turn 1 if you choose ambush. I'm sorry if people think I'm insulting the top players, I'm sure they're amazing players and I'd give anything to play them; I just am convinced they are missing something in their zeal for competitive play. I think that years of other wargames have informed their thought processes on how to play "effectively"...and I honestly feel that FFG is the first company to succeed in creating a game that breaks this "meta" thought on wargames. If I find i'm wrong, well then i'll be beyond disappointed but I'll get over it cuz pushing Star Wars ships around a board is fun even with bad rules (and even if the 40k mentality wins out here, the rules are FAR from bad...so we all win )

Perhaps another avenue of argument, that no one seems to be discussing, is objectives. All of the discussion (and from the pic I saw, it was telling) is on straight up 40k-style combat: line up and shoot till dead. Said match picture, a few pages back, had a red going on. Seems like people are looking to put ships on the table and shoot eachother all day. I wonder how much these objectives would alter things if building lists around them? I find it odd that first players seem to be content taking the Reds that are often heavily stacked against them in pure combat. Perhaps 2 ship lists are hamstrung hardcore by reds when compared to 4 ship lists? Objectives are one of the major considerations to Armada, imo, and that all the tournament discussion and details center around: "These all-ship lists pewpew the best when flown well" is telling. Anyone notice how often non-red objectives cropped up? I initially hailed this game on how well its objectives steered the game away from the standard 40k "line-em-up-and-shoot-till-dead" mentality...yet people still did this at GenCon (from all accounts heard so far). Either I was wrong and shooting-till-dead with the most guns IS the best way to play; or these competitive players are just bringing their past baggage to the table and missing other options entirely. Maybe we need more options for objectives to effect the game while contending with an opponent who only wants to table us?

My Brother and I initially deployed on the whole 6x3, and it took 3 turns to even get close enough to shoot. We then decided to deploy closer to the middle and play with the whole 6x3...only after a few games realizing that this method was actually in the rules heh. It makes the game supremely deadly actually. Unless you set up with fast ships to run away immediately, there is bloody brawling going on hardcore by turn 2. Fleet Ambush extends this to turn 1...squadrons are insane for quick engagements. Of course, people wouldn't realize this due to current views on how to "properly" play

Exactly. It's just a case of lemmings with their assumed power-lists. Those that brought squadrons didn't quite know how to use them correctly or didn't have a good match-up or weren't very good players at all or combo of any/all). Gunna need some Vassal games, as my area is limited in players who give a rats-ass about the game :\

Star Wars tech isn't like that. It's more on a plateau: a really powerful beam of plasma/light is pretty much always a powerful beam of plasma/light. So, the New Order stuff isn't going to be intrinsically better in all ways. So they'l be able to squeeze in all the sequel stuff and not invalidate the original stuff.

Advances are great balanced ships for imps. Very nice tactic. B-Wings and A-Wings are similar for rebels...though Rhymer sure adds that extra threat level.

One event doesn't do anything. Perhaps the actual most skilled players took all ship, and outplayed any Joe-shmo with a squadron. Each game is more important than any list vs list analysis. Metas require time to play out. I'll wait till it happens. Till then, well played to all the ship spam that took most people by storm.

I love Abrams. I like the new Star Trek art direction...but ill fully entertain that Abrams isn't a great fit for Star Trek. However, he's utterly perfect for Star Wars

A-Wings are freakin scary good.

Yup it is a landslide effect. So because no one is taking squadrons that means more anti-ship and then when squadrons come out people don't have an answer. That is how Mets's work Exactly Mxlm. People keep thinking you need all this nonsense to make squadrons work. Yet against all-ship lists its painfully easy to make squadrons the best thing in your list: bombers. Per your example: "best" players think all-ship is best, "best" players will be at regionals, therefore bring rock to counter scissors at regionals: bomber lists. Any of those terribad 2VSD1GSD or 1VSD3GSD lists would be utterly annihilated by a rhymer ball, or B-Wing horde. IF FLOWN WELL. This is the self-correcting concept that squadrons WILL introduce. I'm starting from the end-point, myself, and I'll see you all here when you're forced to it As to Lyraeus' point: that's the long-version is... All-ship lists dominate due to netlisting. People bring bombers to counter all-ships. People get decimated by bombers. People bring fighters to counter bombers so their ships can fight. People bring all fighters on both sides and have pointless fighter engagements. People spend less points on fighters to counter full-fighter lists and bring some bombers to punish ships. Balanced meta emerges: balance of well-equiped ships and fighters to cover your bombers. Viola.

You should re-watch the video again or actually watch it. There were more B-Wings than that.You are really not thinking are you. So what if your 72 point ship is better than a 44 point ship, if you can't bring that firepower to bear it might as well be useless. Tactics tactics tactics. 5 squadron dice? Maybe but you would need to waste a turn to get the token and take the points for that. Investments that may turn a profit though. . . Well blue dice is 50% hit rate so 5 squadrons is 2.5 damage, not that scary for 40 points AND the token, AND the Hanger bays, AND the command. Your 45 points sent 5 dice to my 39 to 44 point ship. Nope not worried. That is all based on TIE Fighters since you used a VSD. You are looking at a single aspect of what more ships means. It means I have more concentrated points to throw at you that do t need to be herded. I can focus on my other commands like navigation and concentrate fire. You're right, I didn't watch the video, I was going off what you said in the thread. The bottom line is that people claim 2 shots with your bombers and such aren't significant: you're just wrong imo. Not to mention that it can be set-up to be more than 2 shots...thats with fire and forget. Which is funny, that your next statement is so utterly ironic: all these pro-ship people claim great things about all these dice you can buy and use when it's objectively true that squadrons are more easily placed where they need to be. I assume you're using tactics to properly place your ships; yet it's assumed i'm not doing that with my squadrons. Not fair representation of opposing points imo. As I keep having to point out: it's MUCH easier to focus the points you bought in squadrons into a smaller area than it is to fly ships well enough to focus all their dice. This is objectively true: end of story. 5 blue dice? I have that..but if I'm using a squadron command i'm not using them. My blue dice is just extra shots I get that I never expected to get. A "free" 50/50 shot at your ships that can't really be mitigated? I'll take it. I'm investing FIVE whole points in "carrier-ing"...expanded hangars. Oh noes...broke my bank for sure. Even so, if you look at the commands I can do on my ship: what is better? A Conc Fire for ONE extra dice in a single attack? Or activiting 2 bombers, 1 advance, and a fighter? People seem to argue that squadrons need commands to be good; while I would argue that (at least with imps) I feel the foundation assumption is bad. I'd rather activate 3-5 squadrons with decent bombing power than take a concfire command. Seriously, it's objectively better in nearly ever single way...EVEN if it's ONLY blue dice. I find the current stance on anti-squadron rhetoric really pigheaded and silly. Sure, it might be that you need nav or eng commands so your squads are left out...well guess what? Learn to fly better. Setting up squadrons so they can just fire away turn 2-3 then command them back into position for turn 4 so they can fire another two turns seems more than reasonable. Also, as many rebel players have stated, B-Wings are amazing "mines" to protect space. It's the same argument I make for my Vic-1...I can never use black dice and be happy as long as the area control allows me to pull off something important. Funny, how the people saying I need to apply tactics and non-dice-only concepts are the very people who do this.

I honestly feel this a self-correcting issue. All-ship lists dominant? 60-80 points of bombers or more. Then they take some fighters to counter bombers. Then we end up with balanced lists. The facts are that ships have momentum, they can't zip around like X-Wing ships...squadrons can. Until I'm consistently pantsed by all-ship lists I'll continue to point out mechanical advantages of squadrons that people just dismiss.

We need more options in the game as a whole: for sure. I also can't help but see how much fun my squads would have in there

Don't fret Ashram. They're wrong, and it'll be born out in time.

I think you should re-read what I posted...I didn't argue the point of two shots. I argued that after two shots, with support from my ships, you're going to be hurting or dead. Also...a SINGLE B-Wing? That's scary o_O Mentality the same? I very, very much doubt it. As my post to Aloha suggests. I've been around Table-Top gaming for a while now, and with the internet there are clear pushes towards whats popular as being what IS good (essentially self fulfilling prophecies). Take, for example, in X-Wing if everyone agreed that Turrets were bad and X-Wings dominate (I'm aware the difference is that X-Wing has concrete concepts that direct the meta...Armada doesn't have as much of that yet) then you would see all the "best" players take X-Wings and no turrets to a tournament. Thus the internet would conclude this as fact. I don't see these tournament people as anything but avid netlisters living in their own echo-chambers of "all ships are awesome". As for activations...so what? All activations aren't equal. My VSD is far more deadly than your CR90. Perhaps you can gang-up on me..but if I pop out a squadron command while you try to flank me, I can drop 5 squadron dice on your head, followed by one of my bad arcs, and move such that it's hard for you to move again next turn to hurt me again. This is why I claim points effectiveness are better than points. And upgrades/squadrons have multiplicative values that CAN (but don't intrinsically) surpass sheer activations.

Very fallacious Aloha: if you don't have X represented, and all the players who show up (the best?) have Y lists. Then Y is better than X? And Y.1 wins so Y.1 is pretty good. Sorry, but with the advent of the internet: group think on matters really screws up reality. Take X-Wing, the internet decides XYZ is bad, so no one takes it, so it's bad...even if it's perfectly viable and good.

Bold mine: this is another massive issue people seem to have. They think that I need more than 2 solid volleys of squadron dice to pay for them. I can assure you that this is a very bad mistake in perception.

There isn't enough room to do what people are claiming to do with all-ship builds. It's really that simple. Perhaps some people will get really good at maneuvering their swarm of ships, and be able to line up tons of double arc shots on demand consistently; but one blocking move from your opponent can bring your swarm to a halt. It is funny, to me, that people claim squadrons are mentally taxing: mirroring X-Wing in that most people like to take 2 powerful ships since 8 TIEs drains you mentally. Yet this is completely wrong. Squadrons are the thing in armada that give you freedom. Running 5+ ships is like running 8 TIEs in X-Wing, only much much worse...at least to fly well. You have to fly perfectly to bring all the dice you bought to bear effectively, and any mishap will set you back. And, Lyraeus, you say that the goal is to smash my two ships? Of course, my goal is to smash all yours. I don't play for points with my balanced list, I play to table. I make it happen 3/4 of the time. The only all-ship list that annoys (doesn't even worry me, I just want my 10-0) are corevette swarms. They are like the Warhammer Fantasy Dwarves of SW: Armada in denying your opponent real wins. I don't quite understand how people can take a well-established meta from X-Wing and come over to another game with similar objective realities (kill the ship for the points: favors fat turrets in X-Wing) and basically throw the concepts out the window in Armada cuz they think they're extra clever (when they're the opposite imo). The bottom line is that you need to effectively use the points you spent on your list. A balanced list of: ships, upgrades, fighters, and bombers is the only way to pull this off. It is amazing, for me, to finally see a wargame that is set up in the exact way I wanted to play one...balance and options. Armada is the first game of this type to actually pull this off. X-Wing failed, but got close. 40k is the worst. Warhammer Fantasy is bad. Haven't heard of it in all the other games like Maulefaux, etc. So i'm just sitting here happy as a clam, seeing how this game is designed and wondering why everyone things they can play "wrong" and it be OK? Time will tell, but I am more than confident that balanced fleets will win out to powergaming-theory lists.

You and me both which reminds me I need to get my Vassal updated so we can battle it out For sure. Let me know. Amen. I find the group-think of these people really sad: they take the popular opinion of "I'm lazy and think ships are better/cooler so we'll all agree to not take squadrons" and run. Sorry, but any list with balanced squad use will have a massive advantage over these bad lists. Not only that, anyone who takes FFGs poor advice of 60+ points on bombers will almost auto-win the tournament (then lose to balanced list).

If only I had enough money to have gone...easy first place.

Balance. A swarm of ships is probably better than a decked-out super-ship, but a balanced force of well-equipped (to their role and point ratio) ships will fair well against both. This is, coincidently, the same line of reasoning for squadrons.

Most games I play have ended in tablings. There simply isn't enough room for ships to espace a victory destroyer and a demolisher with squadron support. If you're driving AT each other then there's very little room for you to escape unless you have a special lane for you. The exception to this is corvettet swarms...those ships are so quick it's hard to pin them down with enough firepower to table them if they don't want to engage. Of course they aren't going to pull many points off of you anyhow. Not to mention that objectives often force the engagement to happen in a way that encourages a fight.

And, I would agree FGD. However, that my examples are nebulous and squishy is part of my point. The "values" assigned are not (and probably can not ever) be know; thus they are subjective. This is to say, Lyraeus might value 2 56 point ships of identical stats more than I value a single 88 point Demolisher; but there isn't likely to be some objective formula that tells us that one is better than the other in a factual way. So in certain sets of conditions: the two Gladiators will be better, and in some other Demolisher will be better. This is the nature of the entire game: everything is contingent on, literally, everything else. This is the basis of my fundamental view of: options. The most flexible list is, to me, the "best" list in the most situations; and, accordingly, the player that plays better with the most flexible list should (theoretically) win most of his games. The example of Demolisher, is a little unique, in that (I, and many, feel) it is so fundamentally useful/powerful that it more than pays for itself in opportunity costs in other ships. Perhaps most other examples don't quite hold up as well as this one...who knows for sure atm. That said, I'm still not sure that I agree that Perhaps just dropping the final "equally well" would suffice for me. I see this in similar light to no-squadron lists. I honestly feel that all-ship-no-upgrade lists are simply worse than either other option..and the full-squadron-well-equipped list has nearly insurmountable obstacles that can't effectively be overcome in equal-skill-level opponents. Of course, all of this is subject to context: loading up cheap ships with full upgrades is most-likely a bad use of points; just like buying 67+ points of bombers. Then again, this is just my views based on my understanding of game mechanics and relatively limited gameplay against varrying lists and skill-level opponents (a dozen games and change maybe?).

I vehemently disagree with you (friendly-y though, if I ever sound mean i don't mean it ) Of course when you postulate examples like that it doesn't get to the actual point. Essentially, it's this: Upgrades increase a ships effectiveness value. Their base value is their point cost. This value can be seen to be effected by other game factors like activations. This is to say: two of one ship is more valuable than each ship alone. Now, my overall point is that certain mods increase the effectiveness of ships by large amounts (all of this is broad, no real measure per se). As I said months ago in a post: two Gladiators are worth 112 points. Since you have two they are more effective, let's say 50% per ship, so 168 value for spending 112 points. Now look at a standard "Demolisher" worth 88 points...let's say the upgrades and what it can do make it twice as valuable as its cost: 176 value for 88 points. Essentially you get more value for less points, and this is a good thing since a large investment can be made exponentially better by a fraction of the initial cost. Now, again, these are all random numbers that don't reflect reality well. It's to illustrate the concept: I'd rather take an 88 point demolisher than two glads for 112 points. Simple as that. As for your CR90+EA case: you'd have to look at it individualy and judge each case...Prob better to have another corvette than an extra red on all your side arcs. Then if you look at AFMKIIs, those are almost always better when upgraded...this goes to proportion of cost. Is Naked Chirpy as good a buy as 4-5 naked TIEs? Think In those aspects.