How squadrons should have been

[Truthiness 5,696]

Let's get past the picture. He won two other games with that setup in that tournament alone. The fact remains Yavaris is a damned good ship when used well. I encourage you charge Demolishers right in during wave 2. Yavaris can have its big brother MC80 right by its side. That's a points trade I'm more than willing to make.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Except blow up Yavaris and then fly away. Poor old B Wings are left eating dust then.

Except is is not that easy anymore. 

 

You think us Rebel players have not had this occur enough that we don't know how to counter this? You have only 1 demolisher. The other Gladiators have to get in just like demo. Do you also think that we would let the Demo player be first so that they can get off the magical kill? Bah, silly imperials.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Except blow up Yavaris and then fly away. Poor old B Wings are left eating dust then.

I can say that when I've seen Imperial Wave 1 lists attempt that they consistently end up getting worse then they give in that exchange. Whether it is the Yavaris trading up for a Victory or tricked out Demolisher, or limping away after swatting off a generic Gladiator, closing to destroy the Yavaris without fighter cover is often suicidal.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

 

Except blow up Yavaris and then fly away. Poor old B Wings are left eating dust then.

I can say that when I've seen Imperial Wave 1 lists attempt that they consistently end up getting worse then they give in that exchange. Whether it is the Yavaris trading up for a Victory or tricked out Demolisher, or limping away after swatting off a generic Gladiator, closing to destroy the Yavaris without fighter cover is often suicidal.

 

Happened to me when I was testing things against JJs Juggernaut 

[thecactusman17 3,192]

You know what?  I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue.  Looking at the photo shows that your opponent didn't alter his strategy to COMPLETELY IGNORE the B-Wings as any ship that maneuverable should have been able to do easily.

 

What I will say is that B-Wings and every other Rebel fighter should not have been able to elicit that reaction from me.  Fighters from both sides aren't puppets or robots, they are piloted by trained soldiers.  And trained soldiers don't stumble into a fight with their safeties armed when they go into combat.  What we have now is a scenario where squadrons can't even comprehend going into a fight as the aggressors without constant capital carrier support.  Literally, it's like every pilot freezes up in fear at the idea they might have to pull the trigger after flying in a straight line.  In EVERY MOVIE, EPISODE AND BOOK  we see that not only is this not the case, but that in the instance of the droid armies and other overly-micromanaged soldiers loss is inevitable.

 

That's why my idea makes sense.  Ships flying into combat should be able to engage the targets they encounter on arrival.  If they want to do more complicated combat tactics, they need capital ship support to coordinate with specialists and feed them critical battlefield information they can't get by looking scant meters out of the cockpit.

 

In the case of ships like Yavaris and Independence, these traits would be magnified.  Nothing about what I've suggested breaks the gameplay flow.  If anything, it makes squadrons more fun to play with for both players in every game.  And it makes squadron support critical from a gameplay perspective, whether you want to field B-Wings to bomb enemy ships or TIE Fighters to intercept them.  In the case of Rhymer and other abilities that break the normal squadron mechanics, their ability is unique but it's no longer mandatory for success.

 

How broken are fighters right now?  Unless there is a core change to the way squadrons function Major Rhymer or someone similar will be in every squadron heavy fleet.  His ability to let himself and multiple allies ignore the need for capital support makes him far and away the best squadron upgrade in the game.  Only squadrons with similar capability to ignore capital ships will end up being effective tools when the meta shakes out.  Combined with the increased lethality of Capital ships, only capital ships capable of weathering overwhelming firepower at long range will be able to function as carriers.  And this sets us right back to square one.

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

You know what?  I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue.

Don't feel bad about it. Posts that basically boil down to "HURR DURR MY B WINGS BLOW YOU UP" are entirely unhelpful.

[Rhinehard 37]

For what its worth I also think fighters should have the passive ability to shoot then move. This would mean squadron command is still effective, Rogue is still effective and they don't act moronically.

 

I do feel like a squadrons should be intelligent enough to approach and engage a ship with out being told to by a carrier, fair enough they can go after all ships but come on fire your weapons!

 

But at the very least it would be nice for the bombers to bomb and then pursue their target, I mean why would you have to be told to do that by a carrier?

[BergerFett 708]

I try to think of it as squadrons without commands stay in a defensive satellite formation, protecting the capital ships from enemy bombers.  They can only move or fire due to having to react.  The squadron command in my mind is more of a "Ignore the enemy squadrons/or ignore that C90 and hit that nebulon" and they go for it and the order gives them a better direction where they aren't making decisions independently.

 

Doesnt really explain the ruling but kinda make sense to me thematically.  

[TheRealStarkiller 3,446]

Well, I can get around this kind of.

If Snubfighters on their own, without direct guidance by mission control, the decision process of the fighter pilots kicks in, leading to a less efficient result in average. This is especially true for pilots w/o combat experiences.

but ..... either move or shoot is a bit too harsh to reflect this ....

 

Hmmm ... at least the named pilots should be able to move and attack then ... because they bring experienced squadrons...

Edited October 19, 2015 by TheRealStarkiller

[jocke01 920]

Having played my first game with imperials recently I don't get why people are still down on squadrons. I tried a 2 victory build (went a little overboard on uppgrades including tarkin) One was build just to shoot with gunnery team and the title that lose shields to add dice and the other one was had boosted coms to activate squadrons at long range and the title that made bombers go further.

I had 4 ties and 2 tie bombers. The 4 ties stopped my opponents x and b-wings from bombing my victory the 2nd and 3rd turn and helped me shoot down some of them for extra points. My bombers did a long flanking move thanks to my carrier victory and did some of the last dmg on a nebulon to close the game in my favour.

I know this is one game but squadrons have always worked for me in my rebel lists. I think that squadrons have there place in armada, they are a part of the game like a 1/3 or 1/4 depending on how heavy you go. They won't win you games on their own but they will help you succeed in you mission objective before the 6 turns are up. If that is to bomb some extra dmg on a enemy ship or just tie up som bombers 1 extra turn they will do the job you give them.

[Green Knight 9,731]

Discussing squadrons always boils down to two statements: A) they are hopeless or B) my Yavaris B-wings will autokill anything.

[BergerFett 708]

Discussing squadrons always boils down to two statements: A) they are hopeless or B) my Yavaris B-wings will autokill anything.

 

All squadrons supported by squadron commands are very effective.  Yavaris B-Wings is the rebel version of the Rhymer ball.  I have debated dropping Rhymer since a lot of times I can just take something cheaper and I don't need to worry too much about his threat extender.  We will see.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

You know what?  I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue.

Don't feel bad about it. Posts that basically boil down to "HURR DURR MY B WINGS BLOW YOU UP" are entirely unhelpful.

He (and you) just gave the equivalent inverse of that statement. How is is that any less unhelpful?

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

 

You know what?  I'm not going to apologize for (correctly) ****-waving over the B-wings with Yavaris issue.

Don't feel bad about it. Posts that basically boil down to "HURR DURR MY B WINGS BLOW YOU UP" are entirely unhelpful.

 

 

the big difference, apart from not being a jackass, is that B-wings do blow you up

 

that is predicated on the fact the GSDs, and really nothing much in the game, can take that many dice and come out smiling

 

the strange idea that close range ships can just blow up yavaris without being challenged by un-engaged B-wings is, at best, a pipe dream. Close range, turns out, is shorter than the ship's medium range commands + distance 1 shots (it's less than half the range, actually)

 

the only ship that can fire before getting slaughtered is Demolisher which, turns out, is a unique title. Even in that case, a single black die broadside simply isn't going to kill you.

 

 

With Wave 2, the range advantage Yavaris already had over close range ships is being hilariously emphasized on other ships by the introduction of boosted comms, Independence, Silly Bombers, and Firesprays. These are all 2-dice bombers more than capable of pursuing assault frigates while their commanding ship stays way out at long range.

Edited October 19, 2015 by ficklegreendice

[Madaghmire 7,274]

Squadrons are fine, we're all fine here. How are you?

On a more serious note, consider squadrons to be running CAP until otherwise ordered and it all makes sense. At least it does for me. I really think in the early stages of playtesting they let squadrons have shoot/move uncommanded in the squadron phase and they were simply too strong for how inexpensive they wanted the general squadrons to be. Rogue allows the player to make the choice to buy back into that mechanic. Of course, thats purely speculative.

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

Squadrons are fine, we're all fine here. How are you?

 

 

Who is this? What's your Gladiator's number!?

[Red Winter 381]

Remember that everyone voluntarily choosing to play within the box of Star Wars Armada rulesets. This mean squadrons perform as intended. It's also very clear that squadrons are far from useless and serve an important role in the game. Admirals are free to choose a variety of tactical doctrines, each with its own risk and reward.

 

Some of you dislike the way squadrons operate under the current rules. This emotional response has no bearing on their actual objective utility. You have the freedom to build fleets without escort. The reward is more activations and bigger ships. For you, your banking on easily perceived advantages. The risk is great however, because this doctrine ignores the very real threat many squadrons pose.

 

Conversely, choosing a fighter heavy approach may leave the commander without tactical redundancy. There are fewer captial ships on the board and each loss will be much greater than the proponent of capital ships only!

 

Each captain makes up his own mind. I simply hope that you see the brilliance of squadron activations instead of mewling over how you thought it should have been.

 

Squadrons, in this game, play the very same role as fighter craft during World War II. Very fitting considering Star Wars combat inspirations.

[Kiwi Rat 538]

 

Yeees ... so wrong to play squadrons as squadrons.

I need to play squadrons as minefields.

I was so wrong. I see so clear now.

How could I ever thought to use squadrons as squadrons.

They are minefields! So clear now.

Bwings are the slowest but deadliest mine fields. Park them in front of a ship and let it contionusly overlap them till death

 

 

Yes that works fine if the opposing ship moves at speed 1 or 2, but a quick speed 3 sprint and your B-wings will be playing catch up for the rest of the game.

 

And apparently a huge Star destroyer can't be attacked or hit from behind even if the B-wing managed to move into base contact with it (point blank) from behind.

 

Maybe they should make a rule that says that if a squadron moves without a squadron command, then they may only attack if they get into base contact with an enemy ship/squadron.

As a compromise the defender may select one or more dice that the attacking squadron must re-roll,

Or the Attacker has only half the number of attack dice.

This is to show that making a un-guided/un-coordinated closeup attack run is more difficult to perform than one assisted by a fighter control onboard a command ship.

After all once fighters gets mixed up in a close range tactical melee, Fighter control can do very little, but wait for the outcome, accept advice fighters which direction to go (nav. point), if they want to disengage or if there are new enemy targets some distance away.

 

But to see if the above works, requires a bit of playtesting.

Is any game for that? 

[KAGE13 270]

I've seen others say this.  The fact that this debate even happens is a testament to how well balanced the game is. 

 

Fleets with squadrons win, fleets without squadrons win.  What more could you ask for from a game? 

You should be able to win with any fleet that fits your play style.

 

The thing people forget about "collectible" miniature games is that the rules have to go some where.

When the game first came out everyone that it was dumb that squadrons could only move and shoot, and they "should" be allowed to do both. 

 

Well if they did that then the "rogue" ability does not come into play.

 

A game cannot just do what you think it "should" be able to do.  Otherwise there is no room to grow the game with new abilities and mechanics.  

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

 

 

Yeees ... so wrong to play squadrons as squadrons.

I need to play squadrons as minefields.

I was so wrong. I see so clear now.

How could I ever thought to use squadrons as squadrons.

They are minefields! So clear now.

Bwings are the slowest but deadliest mine fields. Park them in front of a ship and let it contionusly overlap them till death

 

 

Yes that works fine if the opposing ship moves at speed 1 or 2, but a quick speed 3 sprint and your B-wings will be playing catch up for the rest of the game.

 

And apparently a huge Star destroyer can't be attacked or hit from behind even if the B-wing managed to move into base contact with it (point blank) from behind.

 

distance 1 != base contact (it's actually a huge difference; almost close range)

 

the only non-GSD Star Destroyer that can speed 3 is the ISD, and that thing is FAT (overlap city!). The GSDs themselves are fragile enough to just die with 4 B-wing attacks + some ship fire levied at them.

 

B-wings suffer against fast long range ships such as Afmk2s, which you either respond to by having the rest of your list punch well at long range or apparently Independence. The speed 4 boost doesn't allow attacks, but it lets you position yourself right where the enemy cannot avoid you. Otherwise, unless you're real good at predicting where the opponent goes, he won't have to park anywhere even remotely near them like GSDs do

 

 

Personally still skeptical about the point cost of Independence, but I did order a bunch of R&Vs to try out speed 3 B-wings Silly Bombers which move 150% the distance and have little trouble catching up to the guppies

Edited October 19, 2015 by ficklegreendice

[GronardII 385]

I'm sure this topics have been discussed already.

I just want to share what my local players think about squadrons:

 

1. Every squadron which havn't been activated until then should be able to move and attack in the squadron phase.

2. Squadrons with Bomber should be able to attack ships at close range (and not range 1).

3. Rhymer's effect should only affect Bombers (there is even an opinion that Rhymer is the worst and most broken element of the game, because if bombers (squadrons) work its only because of his effect and not because of the general mechanics for squadrons)

4. Squadrons that have been activated by ship command should get a reroll of 1 die while attacking (though we have no consense about this point, the idea was to make squadrons more effective while activated by a ship)

 

Those rules are untested.

Its just an impression about how we think of squadrons in general and why they are underwhelming and therefore underused.

Point 1 in the upper list is the most importent one.

 

What do you think?

I Like the idea about Rhymer only boosting bombers.

Other than that, bit much.

What I would sujest is letting bombers that are escorted attack ships even when engaged.

[Tranenturm 470]

Boring conversation anyway.

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

 

I'm sure this topics have been discussed already.

I just want to share what my local players think about squadrons:

 

1. Every squadron which havn't been activated until then should be able to move and attack in the squadron phase.

2. Squadrons with Bomber should be able to attack ships at close range (and not range 1).

3. Rhymer's effect should only affect Bombers (there is even an opinion that Rhymer is the worst and most broken element of the game, because if bombers (squadrons) work its only because of his effect and not because of the general mechanics for squadrons)

4. Squadrons that have been activated by ship command should get a reroll of 1 die while attacking (though we have no consense about this point, the idea was to make squadrons more effective while activated by a ship)

 

Those rules are untested.

Its just an impression about how we think of squadrons in general and why they are underwhelming and therefore underused.

Point 1 in the upper list is the most importent one.

 

What do you think?

I Like the idea about Rhymer only boosting bombers.

Other than that, bit much.

What I would sujest is letting bombers that are escorted attack ships even when engaged.

 

 

does kind of conflict with intel...but I'd actually love to see that

 

It'd be a great excuse to pop out X-wings again

 

 

then again, Xs don't have a great track record of escorting their bombers

 

https://youtu.be/NnP5iDKwuwk

[Tranenturm 470]

X-wings are still the most cost efficient rebel anti-squad fighter.  They'll be more useful when more people play squadrons.  Their bomber trait isn't bad for precision strikes and Dodonna.

[Wes Janson 1,184]

After a few games with Intel on some scum types, I am happy to report that my squadrons will see more play then ever.