Jump to content

rasproteus

Members
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rasproteus

  1. My experience is that most of the anti squad upgrades require your opponents squads to oblige you: first, by engaging where they can be shot; and second, staying there. They don't work in a vacuum - they definitely need to be supported by squads - but even then, Intel alone can largely render those upgrades useless.
  2. At some point, however, we're just talking about what we are choosing to lose instead of the carrier. That said, I don't think we disagree. My personal feeling on the meta is that you either go all in and hope to at least trade points in the squadron fight, or you don't play it at all and hope to bag the ISD without taking too many losses of your own. There simply isn't much room for a fleet with defensive-oriented squadrons - they can't handle no-squad fleets very easily, and will be overwhelmed by full-squad fleets.
  3. In your example, those carrier battle groups have destroyer/cruiser/frigate escorts which are also very effective at combating squadrons. In Armada, however, once they have activated they provide no protection against squadrons at all. Indeed, they cannot even defend themselves. If I bring 75-134 points of squadrons, then I need to bring something to activate them. Rogues are not strong against the kind of squadron list you are running because all they can do is respond to your attacks. This is why Rieekan rogues were relatively popular in the Rebel meta at Worlds. I need to feed SOMETHING to your squadron ball alpha strike, whether it's a ship or Wedge/Dash, and hope that my counter attack is strong enough to do some damage. @Kristjan - how many points of squadrons did you bring? How long did they last? And how many points did they earn you?
  4. What about making something like QLT just ... happen? Having to activate in order to flak seems like half the problem.
  5. I've been using Kingstons for over a year now and just found that feature thanks to this post.
  6. There is a place for Solar Corona... Raiders and CR90s, Liberties and VSD's - they live and die by accuracies. On the other hand, I tied Intel Sweep twice (should have lost it to Yik, but it was a funky deployment for him) and lost it twice at Worlds, even with a single VCX. I don't know if I would take it again without two VCX's, minimum.
  7. I think you'll find that it ends up being used most often against flak (or 1 damage in general), and again at 3 damage (because as stated, there's a good chance of at least breaking even compared to the brace), but not as often against 2/4-damage hits unless it's absolutely an emergency.
  8. The blue objectives are easy for heavy-squadron fleets and for fleets that have strategic (and preferably Adar/FCT). Otherwise, you have to pick Dangerous Territory, Nav Hazards, or Solar Corona - or risk encountering an opponent with strategic squadrons of his own and having your objective flipped. Do you have any thoughts on optimizing objectives in that scenario, or would you just suggest running max squads and/or strategic in every fleet you design?
  9. Let it be known here and henceforth that I am all for ideas that streamline the squadron game. I don't REALLY want a chess match minigame when it comes to squadrons, although I appreciate the time and skill that is involved in learning and winning it. It's also a ton of fun to build a list that has so much synergy in it and to balance your ability to damage other squads against doing damage to ships - because otherwise it's a waste of points. No, I guess I take that back. I do like the chess match minigame, I guess. I just want to streamline it without ruining it.
  10. I think that if your end goal is simply to speed up the game, this will have the desired effect, sure. If you want a fun game where your decisions are generally better than random chance, probably not. You're intentionally eliminating a player's ability to make informed decisions about half of the game: Am I going to get shot next turn or not? How many dice? What dials do I need to set to compensate for that? Am I going to be able to shoot next turn? Do I need to set a CF dial? Will that ship survive a shot, or is he double-arced? Do I need to activate him first? If you eliminate informed decisions and reduce the tactical aspect of the game to essentially guesswork, there's really no reason to assume that people would spend a lot of time debating their next move. Of course, it's equally likely that the entire competitive aspect of the game would die out... but hey, if you can find a game, it'll probably be faster.
  11. Can you describe in detail an activation/several activations and when, where, and which rulers may be used?
  12. It's, like, right there in the fine print. I think it took me like a week to figure it out the first time I saw it.
  13. We didn't play each other that day, but I was the guy telling you about my own experiment with that archetype. I'm from the Des Moines area, but both our communities seem rather small at the moment. The distance is too far to do something weekly, but I'm sure every month or two would work just fine.
  14. I think that my major contention with what you've just said here is the implication that there are good flak upgrades. Honestly, I'd like to hear which ones you think are good - in my opinion some are better than others, but none are particularly good - aside from Toryn, who really should be in a category all her own. Ruthless is solid, but too expensive for the ships you want to take it on (Hammerhead scouts) and too much of a trade-off for the ships who would otherwise want to run Ordnance Experts. I would not be so hasty to disregard the power of simply flipping a scatter token with flak. Most of those scatter aces - who, let's be honest, are pretty weak against ships anyway without Sloane - really rely on the scatter to keep them up. Even putting one point of damage on their hull puts them in range of getting killed by a 4-die squadron rolling acc/hit/hit/hit. The power of flak comes as much from the squadron follow-up as it does the ships themselves. If you bring a squadless fleet, you need to figure out how to blow up the carrier or how to run away. You can't count on a middle ground. Here he goes agai----- oh, ST:AW. Carry on. ❤️
  15. Come find me on Discord and possibly Vassal if that's your thing. We're also more-or-less neighbors IRL (I believe we have met, did you bring RS bombers to a regional recently?), so I would happily attempt to talk the wife into letting me take a day trip out there and get some games on the table some weekend. Or vice-versa. I definitely have an interest in brainstorming good ways to counter heavy squads/Pryce with a low- or no-squadron rebel list.
  16. I think you're missing the point that @BrobaFett was making -- the game DEMANDS precision placement when playing at a non-casual level. Not just for squadrons, but for ships as well. You need to be able to dodge your opponent's best arc-lines, stay out of flak range, and visualize your ending position on the board. Most of my errors come when I place a squadron or notch a ship maneuver tool and utter the fatal phrase "That's probably good enough" -- which is the Armada equivalent of "Hold my beer." The reason that you are highlighting squadrons as the object of your ire is that NOBODY IS PLAYING MSU. You're coming to a tournament with 3-5 ships, two of which are flotillas most likely, and the number of turns where maneuvers are super-critical are limited. I guarantee that if your opponent had 6 or 7 CR90's on the board across from you, he would take just as long once those Vader Double Cymoons started to float into range. I know that people are boiling Broba's response down to simply "git gud" - but that's not what he's really saying at all. The point is this - it's not optimizers who are the problem, it's inexperienced optimizers. Experience eliminates certain decision trees without having to be measured, for example. Experience will lead to more consideration of your next moves while waiting for your opponent to make their own. Experience allows you to not have to go back and forth with the maneuver tool and range tool to try to determine whether that one maneuver is where you want to go. I'm definitely on board with the complexity part of what you said here. You've definitely subtly inserted your own opinion about their balance, though. The data doesn't suggest that they're imbalanced -- the data on its own simply states that they are more-often taken -- and you have drawn a conclusion from that which is not directly supported, even if you aren't entirely wrong. I suspect that if you were to ask most players why they aren't taking 16 TIE fighters in their list is simply because they can't adequately command them before they started discussing inter-squadron synergy. Generally speaking, most heavy squadron lists I have encountered run between 8 (almost always) to 10 (much more rarely) individual squadrons. Even if aces were only SLIGHTLY better or the only difference was from the defense tokens, they would be included simply because when you can reasonably only use 8 squadrons, you want to take the best ones you can. I will also add that the onus is on both players to speed up the squadron game. If you are going to sit on your side of the table and demand precision play from your opponent, then you do not get to be upset at the amount of time that it takes your opponent to attain said precision. If you say "oh, Mauler wants to hit Jan? Better not **** it up, dude..." then your opponent is going to play to the requirements you placed on him, and if it takes forever that's as much your fault as his. World-Championship-finals-level players are agreeing with each other that 1) Yes, Mauler can get anywhere he wants within distance-1 of Jan, and 2) allowing their opponents to use the distance-1 ruler to get the optimal placement of their squadrons. If your suggestion is to make this de-facto rule official, I entirely support it. But if you are demanding flawless precision play from your opponents while simultaneously denying them the tools to do so quickly, it will take them a long time, no matter how many tools you deny them.
  17. Hoping you guys can help me out real quick - I need to get going so I can make it to Worlds, and keep going back and forth. Do I bring this: Or this:
  18. I'll be there and I'll be square. I will have transportation for 2-3 people, depending on how friendly they are. This year, I think I will probably even remember to take the car seats out of my car!
  19. Yeah, sorry to post and run. I am not sure I have time for it either. Go go gadget @Ardaedhel
×
×
  • Create New...