Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DrunkTarkin

Zero Squadrons

Recommended Posts

Well i guess untill a carrier list wins the worlds (or makes it to the top 3 at leats) we can't really say its better than all ship build. Dont get me wrong i like squadrons and i played only 2 games without them (one was 10:0 other 4:6). Still i think that top players at the Worlds should be considered very good and if no carrier list made it there it means something.

Edited by AlohaAckbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That works but I feel like the 99 points are wasted if they are minefields. That is 99 more points I can bring to bear on you.

Look at it from the perspective of force, if I have 290 points in ships and you only have 201 or so, I have more firework to use every turn. Squadrons on the other hand need to be heeded into place.

The catch is that in order to bring anything to bare you have to fly through them and they hurt. So for the first set of hits you don't need a squadron command because they land right in them then you give the commands and they shred dropping shields and forcing you to make hard choices with your defense tokens before the ship even shoots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try it on a table, see how many shots a squadron can get against a ship.

I show it in my second B-Wing. The VSD escapes after 2 attacks from one of the B's.

It is not a misconception, it is tried and tested.

@Brozojoe and @Bitharne, first off this game is like a martial arts contest between masters, the strategy and styles of play as well as the mentality is roughly the same for high levels of play.

It is all about activation and timing. It is not hard. The use of squadrons is once again regulated to how many points you can effectively bring against your opponent at one time.

If you are winning 10 to 0 you need better opponents and those you play need to ask you for help to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try it on a table, see how many shots a squadron can get against a ship.

I show it in my second B-Wing. The VSD escapes after 2 attacks from one of the B's.

It is not a misconception, it is tried and tested.

@Brozojoe and @Bitharne, first off this game is like a martial arts contest between masters, the strategy and styles of play as well as the mentality is roughly the same for high levels of play.

It is all about activation and timing. It is not hard. The use of squadrons is once again regulated to how many points you can effectively bring against your opponent at one time.

If you are winning 10 to 0 you need better opponents and those you play need to ask you for help to improve.

Well there is your problem :P if you only take two or three squadrons then there is no point. You need the numbers to make them effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is SO freaking sad. Like... SO sad. Who in the hell cares so much about winning that they don't take so many of the ships that make Star Wars iconic?

Absolutely ridiculous, and it makes me so glad I don't bother with these dumb tournaments, but instead play with friends who say things like "I'm doing a Rebel strike force with a bunch of A Wings protecting the B Wings!" or "Of course I am taking TIE fighters... I am taking a huge swarm of them, along with Vader, because that is what imperials do!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is SO freaking sad. Like... SO sad. Who in the hell cares so much about winning that they don't take so many of the ships that make Star Wars iconic?

Absolutely ridiculous, and it makes me so glad I don't bother with these dumb tournaments, but instead play with friends who say things like "I'm doing a Rebel strike force with a bunch of A Wings protecting the B Wings!" or "Of course I am taking TIE fighters... I am taking a huge swarm of them, along with Vader, because that is what imperials do!"

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like playing with fighters and think they are useful but you cannot argue with the facts. The best players do not even consider them. Maybe FFG will release a new rule in the next FAQ that tweaks fighters to make them more competitive.

 

I would definitely like to see situations where people want 1/3 of their points as fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like playing with fighters and think they are useful but you cannot argue with the facts. The best players do not even consider them. Maybe FFG will release a new rule in the next FAQ that tweaks fighters to make them more competitive.

 

I would definitely like to see situations where people want 1/3 of their points as fighters.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes sense. The lists are GSD heavy. I'm guessing they put all three GSDs up close at once to tear apart the opposing fleet one at a time at close range. Most folks see single GSD (or maybe two) and were prepared for that. But the hard core people bought max ships to see what could happen. Since plenty folks didn't buy triple Gs, it's more of a surprise for the slightly more casual player. If I had gone to nationals I would have gone with a list fewer people talked about provided it was still good. I'm more of a rebel player so it might be triple AFs with a small A-wing escort or something along those lines.

That might actually also be a decent counter to 1V3G lists. (Not that I saw that coming). The AF2 moves fast enough to keep from getting dog piled (the GSD with ET is still faster, but you're moving fast enough to not make it easy). It's also tough and good guns from the side. I'll have to try it out now against these lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently experimenting at 400 with a two VSD, three GSD list with no fighters. Still working it out, but it's very festive so far.

There's a tourney coming up, but I think to that I'll take a one VSD three GSD list with a few ties for bomber intercept duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a slap on squadrons. It's that these lists jump in and bag a critical ship making the opposing list fall apart. It's burst damage. Once a carrier is down, the remaining squadrons are severely limited. Not impotent, but also not synergizing as they were built.

Going to 400 points will be interesting as it might give enough points to actually run a destroyer screen around your more important ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently experimenting at 400 with a two VSD, three GSD list with no fighters. Still working it out, but it's very festive so far.

There's a tourney coming up, but I think to that I'll take a one VSD three GSD list with a few ties for bomber intercept duties.

At 400 points I think squadrons will see more play. The reason is because you can effectively field 2 carrier ships AND the ISD has a command of 5.. . That is 6 with hangers and 7 with a token. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a slap on squadrons. It's that these lists jump in and bag a critical ship making the opposing list fall apart. It's burst damage. Once a carrier is down, the remaining squadrons are severely limited. Not impotent, but also not synergizing as they were built.

Going to 400 points will be interesting as it might give enough points to actually run a destroyer screen around your more important ships.

It is more than that. This game is not a vacuum. That means that the numerical is not 100% of the game. So these list CAN work,they can work but you have to understand the weaknesses of such lists.

Obstacles, movement, chosen command can all play a VERY important role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really believe this is indicative of much

 

Armada is a deeply complex game, far more so than X-wing miniatures, (point being not complexity for complexity's sake, but that there is a lot more to an individual ship than "jousting value" and far moreso than in X-wing) and it owes quite a bit to the unique squadron mechanics (some other mechanics being asymmetrical arc-distribution, leading VSDs to be silly strong or wimpy, and range-dice distribution, leading GSDs to be silly strong or strictly worse than CR-90s). Skill is required in every element to ensure the difference between optimal use and just plain inefficiency.

 

 

 

having said that, though, I don't see how squadrons are that much more difficult to utilize than ships. What they lose in capital ship dependency, they gain with "move & shoot" (which cap ships outside of Demolisher don't have, and we all know how amazing Demolisher is with move & shoot)

 

the counter to bomber-heavy lists, engaging them with fast nippy buggers such as interceptors and As while cap ships go to town unmolested, is itself a product of the squadron system and is, funnily enough, vulnerable to itself (initiative pending ofc)

 

 

For anyone having trouble with squadrons (or discouraged by recent results), imo, the easiest way to start appreciating their ins and outs is to run a balanced list that doesn't crutch on them, but doesn't forgo them completely. A very forgiving initial list would be 2 fatties kitted out for anti-ship (EAs and intels, both titles present) with a relatively minor squadron escort (been running Dutch, Luke, and Wedge because braces scale hard with Haven, and then 2 generic Xs)

 

Fatties are great, flexible bastards that are right at home just listing away from a large body of ships, pelting them with long range firepower. The squadron escort mainly derps around with Haven and serves the dual purpose of anti-squadron (especially anti-rhymer, dude blows holes in Afs large enough to shove a demolisher through :() and close range punch (which the fatties do not have, getting one blue dice out of their sides at most).

 

 

on the imperial side, I havn't seen much that's more potent than Skreed's squadron support VSD-1 w/rhymer & howlie running a mottly crew of interceptors/bombers (though I personally prefer the more flexible Advance to bombers) and scary as hell Demolisher.

 

 

 

there is also good news, however, in ship skews winning. If squadrons pick up in popularity, we'll have precedent to say that they're useful but not required, and that's really optimal for game variety.

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Haven you have to bring that fattie into a dangerous range.

Now I believe you are 100% correct fickle, though I believe we don't yet have the tools that will make squadrons better.

The only time they can act like single die Demolisher's is when a command is used other than that they are limited to one action or another. That is the big downside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Haven you have to bring that fattie into a dangerous range.

Now I believe you are 100% correct fickle, though I believe we don't yet have the tools that will make squadrons better.

The only time they can act like single die Demolisher's is when a command is used other than that they are limited to one action or another. That is the big downside.

 

It is true you have to bring the fattie into dangerous range if trying to enable the bombers

 

 

if, however, you are using the squadrons strictly defensively (which is possible if you go whole hog on the fattie's batteries, not so much if you go hardcore squadron support) you can keep the fattie away as best as possible, and unleash the squadrons only when necessay

 

To be more specific, Haven is the only dedicated squadron support tech on the ship I'm talking about. The rest of the upgrades are intel officer, enhanced armaments, and electronic failsafe.

 

 

in the above case of super anti-ship haven, the title's (note, not the ship's) primary goal in life is to protect squadrons from the likes of interceptors (especially 6 dice FC + howlie; ouch!) and the squadrons' primary goal is to protect haven. The Ship bearing haven has a primary goal of "shoot the enemy"

 

in the case that Haven never actually fires once per game, it's all good so long as you acomplish something (such as having the squadrons get an alpha on normally faster squadrons) or even if nothing happens and Haven lives

 

 

the danger described by the fattie getting close is absolutely real when using it in a very squadron-centric setup (such as adar + fc + hangars and supported by Yavaris), but the goal of the double fattie list is primarily long range firepower (and being very annoying, as only strafing fatties can be :P) with the squadrons being more along for support by tackling enemies (squadrons and fast, close-range ships such as demolisher) that the fatties have trouble with

 

 

basically, the list does not crutch on the squadrons; the squadrons simply provide diversity by allowing the fleet to deal with enemies that it could not normally with the available stable of ships. When Wave 2 comes out, I can certainly see people running shrimpies instead for the purposes of "**** off, demolisher" (especially if the Scout Frigate is 2 red and 3 black out the side, which means they can strafe like fatties and be too not bad at all for long range; if the price is right) even if they can't quite deal with squadrons either

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can strafe like fatties and when it comes down to it they can hop into close range and punish everything. Even side arc ISD 1's can't afford to take that kind of punishment. At speed 4 the Shrimp frigates will be a strong force (though I expect their movement to be 0, 1, 1, 1 at speed 4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, cards on the table: I mostly without squadrons. I am, however, skeptical of the notion that squadrons are strictly inferior to ships.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but: the anti-squadron arguments advanced so far are not especially persuasive, at least the context they are made. If we accept that Serious People do not believe squadrons are worth using, and we expect to face Serious People across the table, then isn't a carrier unnecessary? Why load up a ship with squadron-buffing upgrades when you can load it up with anti-ship upgrades and then just use squadron commands? I don't need flight controllers because you're not bringing fighters. I don't need Gallant Haven, I don't need RAC, I don't need to concentrate squadron buffs on one ship in order to better crush opposing squadrons, because there aren't any. I don't want to concentrate squadron buffs because then you'll prioritize that ship. I can instead bring a couple ships that are focused on anti-ship fire, add on a bomber complement, and distribute squadron orders between them.

 

Or not? If not, what am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, cards on the table: I mostly without squadrons. I am, however, skeptical of the notion that squadrons are strictly inferior to ships.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but: the anti-squadron arguments advanced so far are not especially persuasive, at least the context they are made. If we accept that Serious People do not believe squadrons are worth using, and we expect to face Serious People across the table, then isn't a carrier unnecessary? Why load up a ship with squadron-buffing upgrades when you can load it up with anti-ship upgrades and then just use squadron commands? I don't need flight controllers because you're not bringing fighters. I don't need Gallant Haven, I don't need RAC, I don't need to concentrate squadron buffs on one ship in order to better crush opposing squadrons, because there aren't any. I don't want to concentrate squadron buffs because then you'll prioritize that ship. I can instead bring a couple ships that are focused on anti-ship fire, add on a bomber complement, and distribute squadron orders between them.

 

Or not? If not, what am I missing?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...