DtO w/Hammers

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Challenge accepted @Armada Jim

DtO W/Hammers 
Author: Lyraeus

Faction: Rebel Alliance
Points: 383/400  

Commander: General Dodonna

Assault Objective: Targeting Beacons
Defense Objective: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

 

Hammerhead Torpedo Corvette (36 points)
-  Task Force Antilles  ( 3  points) 
-  Ordnance Experts  ( 4  points) 
-  External Racks  ( 3  points) 
= 46 total ship cost

 

Hammerhead Torpedo Corvette (36 points)
-  Task Force Antilles  ( 3  points) 
-  Ordnance Experts  ( 4  points) 
-  External Racks  ( 3  points) 
= 46 total ship cost

 

GR-75 Medium Transports (18 points)
-  Bright Hope  ( 2  points) 
-  Slicer Tools  ( 7  points) 
= 27 total ship cost

 

MC30c Scout Frigate (69 points)
-  Intel Officer  ( 7  points) 
-  Ordnance Experts  ( 4  points) 
-  Turbolaser Reroute Circuits  ( 7  points) 
-  Assault Proton Torpedoes  ( 5  points) 
= 92 total ship cost

 

MC30c Scout Frigate (69 points)
-  Intel Officer  ( 7  points) 
-  Ordnance Experts  ( 4  points) 
-  Turbolaser Reroute Circuits  ( 7  points) 
-  Assault Proton Torpedoes  ( 5  points) 
= 92 total ship cost

 

[ flagship ] CR90 Corvette A (44 points)
-  General Dodonna  ( 20  points) 
-  Jainas Light  ( 2  points) 
-  Intel Officer  ( 7  points) 
-  Turbolaser Reroute Circuits  ( 7  points) 
= 80 total ship cost

[BrobaFett 4,209]

The golden number on task force titles is generally 3. You would probably be better off, especially considering Dodonna, with Garels and naked HH.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

7 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

The golden number on task force titles is generally 3. You would probably be better off, especially considering Dodonna, with Garels and naked HH.

Thus the challenge. I get the reason for the number. That way you can shift at least 2 damage but my opponents have other things to consider as well. Likely this wont work but @Armada Jim threw down a challenge with the "Accepted methods of play" and I want to trash that.

[BrobaFett 4,209]

There's going against convention which I am all for then there is doing something dumb and ineffective just cause no one else is doing it (cause it's universally agreed to be dumb and ineffective).

I'm playing a 2 ship list I fully expect to win with when I play. That's unconventional.

Needlessly handicapping yourself away from an unbelievably effective upgrade for a lesser one just comes off as foolish.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

1 hour ago, BrobaFett said:

There's going against convention which I am all for then there is doing something dumb and ineffective just cause no one else is doing it (cause it's universally agreed to be dumb and ineffective).

I'm playing a 2 ship list I fully expect to win with when I play. That's unconventional.

Needlessly handicapping yourself away from an unbelievably effective upgrade for a lesser one just comes off as foolish.

Did that in wave 2 remember  it ended with me talking about a list for years. . . sometimes I wonder if I am a one trick pony. . . /sigh

Ahhh the wave where squadrons were considered kings of the boards. . . 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lyraeus

[The Jabbawookie 5,613]

4 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Thus the challenge. I get the reason for the number. That way you can shift at least 2 damage but my opponents have other things to consider as well. Likely this wont work but @Armada Jim threw down a challenge with the "Accepted methods of play" and I want to trash that.

No offense, but what does successfully proving your point even look like here?  To demonstrate that two copies of TFA are viable, you need to win because you brought exactly two copies.  I can’t think of a likely way for that to happen once, let alone reliably...

[Lyraeus 4,759]

40 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

No offense, but what does successfully proving your point even look like here?  To demonstrate that two copies of TFA are viable, you need to win because you brought exactly two copies.  I can’t think of a likely way for that to happen once, let alone reliably...

The same way I helped prove that squadronless was as huge of a thing in a super squadron meta. 

 

Look I get it, the concept is stupid and it will take lots of work and practice to become usable if it ever does but here is the thing, how will I learn what can and can not be done if I just follow the "prescribed doctrine" will I then just become stagnant and pointless, why even play if it it's already a drawn out conclusion? What's the point? 

 

I get that to everyone who continued to play that they see these are already tested and tried, to me they are brand new and I want to take a ship that people call trash and make them fun for at least me. I took Dodonna and squadronless and made them a threat so why not a new challenge 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Oh and I recommend constructive criticism in the future not just a bash on a thought or goal. It really doesn't help and just makes people not want to play

[The Jabbawookie 5,613]

Just now, Lyraeus said:

Oh and I recommend constructive criticism in the future not just a bash on a thought or goal. It really doesn't help and just makes people not want to play

I'm absolutely not trying to bash on your goal here, and I'm sorry if I came off that way.  My question is genuine: how, specifically, do you plan to achieve your goal?  You haven't explained what makes this list equal to or better than a fleet with three TFA titles, and knowing that would be a huge benefit to anyone offering changes.  I wasn't around when you were going squadless, so that doesn't tell me much.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Practice practice practice. Maybe a regionals if the pairings work out. 

 

The goal is to win when and where I can and go up against as many "meta defining lists" as I can and find solutions to as many of them as I can. 

 

I suspect Rieekan aces will still be my biggest weakness wince I can't just Raddus up some pain. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lyraeus

[Lyraeus 4,759]

30 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I'm absolutely not trying to bash on your goal here, and I'm sorry if I came off that way.  My question is genuine: how, specifically, do you plan to achieve your goal?  You haven't explained what makes this list equal to or better than a fleet with three TFA titles, and knowing that would be a huge benefit to anyone offering changes.  I wasn't around when you were going squadless, so that doesn't tell me much.

Equal or better than? Armada is not X-Wing. Just because a card seems powerful doesn't mean that its better than something. People said Dodonna was trash. I helped prove that vastly wrong. He may not have list synergy in most kings like Sato or Raddus or even Rieekan but he is a time bomb to many lists. 

The two hammers are just that, hammers. 

 

Maybe it's been lost since I have been away but Armada is about innovation and skill meshing with a fleet to create something beautiful. We shall see if I can make it happen, if not then I gave it the best effort I could. If I succeed then I proved not only to myself that I can do it but I get to prove those who limit a concept based off what they see or tested. 

 

[The Jabbawookie 5,613]

I think we’ve simply had a misunderstanding.  My point is this.  When making a fleet, you should have an answer to the question “what makes this fleet good?”  Normally, there would be plenty of answers you could give here: “high activation count,” “burst damage,” “APTs + Dodonna,” etc.  To my understanding, you chose to answer “this fleet is good (at least in part) because it specifically has two copies of TFA.”  That’s what you need to answer to really make your challenge.  So I’m looking for that answer to be explained.  Winning with squadless Dodonna small bases isn’t the point; you can, and it wouldn’t push boundaries.  Those lists are already a thing.  This isn’t about whether you can win, it’s about why.

[Green Knight 9,746]

2 TFA = pretty meaningless.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

3 hours ago, Green Knight said:

2 TFA = pretty meaningless.

Maybe. Sure negating 1 damage is not usually huge but sometimes 1 is all you need to survive 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I think we’ve simply had a misunderstanding.  My point is this.  When making a fleet, you should have an answer to the question “what makes this fleet good?”  Normally, there would be plenty of answers you could give here: “high activation count,” “burst damage,” “APTs + Dodonna,” etc.  To my understanding, you chose to answer “this fleet is good (at least in part) because it specifically has two copies of TFA.”  That’s what you need to answer to really make your challenge.  So I’m looking for that answer to be explained.  Winning with squadless Dodonna small bases isn’t the point; you can, and it wouldn’t push boundaries.  Those lists are already a thing.  This isn’t about whether you can win, it’s about why.

That's what fleet testing does. You get those answers as you test the fleet and the tactics, see what strengths you have what weaknesses there are. 

"Practice makes perfect" is a saying for a reason. 

 

Oi vey. You have only the one mode eh? It's simple. I did it to buck convention and to show that there are ways to use two. Winning is also the only way to prove this

[BrobaFett 4,209]

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Winning is also the only way to prove this

I think the point myself and many others are attempting to convey is that playing something bad and somehow winning despite that doesn't prove it's good. It just proves that you can win despite it. I am trying to encourage you to do something truly unconventional, not just hop on something bad and lazy and make it your life's mission to try and "prove" it's good when it's simply not - even if you win no one is going to accept that your victory could not have been larger by substituting out TFA for Garels and a non-titled HH.

Hammerheads, as a ship, without TFA are already pretty durable. What differentiates them cr90's is that they have the ability to take that one big shot - a mid range ISD-2 level shot - and live through it by the skin of their teeth at 1/2 hull. Adding in 2 TFA means that the next 2 follow up shots - not atypically from squads - need to deal at least 2 damage to push one onto that wounded HH to kill it. You need enough instances of TFA that incidental damage can't sink it - that your opponent looks at his options to remove the hammerhead after that first shot - maybe a supper ship, or some squads, and decides that rather than try and finish it off with a side arc here or some plinks from squads there they must commit a substantial squadron presence or another big arc to kill it, at which point they have over committed and the rest of the fleet now comes to bear on the primary target less damaged. 1 TFA does not force that hard choice.

What you are attempting to do is akin to throwing point defense reroute onto that ship and saying look PDR is viable. No it's not. Even if you win, it doesn't make PDR good. It just means you won with a handicap. When you played DTO back in the day it was unconventional - it was something people weren't playing and had real misgivings about and you showed that it could perform. But this doesn't do that. I understand you are trying to recreate that magic, but this isn't it.

Edited August 9, 2018 by BrobaFett

[Green Knight 9,746]

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

Maybe. Sure negating 1 damage is not usually huge but sometimes 1 is all you need to survive 

Yes, but does it happen often enough to warrant spending 6 points? Or are they worth more elsewhere?

[Lyraeus 4,759]

9 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

I think the point myself and many others are attempting to convey is that playing something bad and somehow winning despite that doesn't prove it's good. 

Bad is subjective. You can tell me its bad by the numbers all day long doesnt mean that we dont play a game of chance and tactics and that the "numbers" are the end all be all. If that was the case, why play at all? We could just use the numbers to decide things

10 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

even if you win no one is going to accept that your victory could not have been larger by substituting out TFA for Garels and a non-titled HH.

I guess that depends on how much of a 10-1 I can do. Cant get better than that but thats the goal, though unlikely. I am also not a Garels fan because I am already figuring to lose ships and dont need to be giving kills away just to gain a single face up card.

13 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Hammerheads, as a ship, without TFA are already pretty durable. What differentiates them cr90's is that they have the ability to take that one big shot - a mid range ISD-2 level shot - and live through it by the skin of their teeth at 1/2 hull. Adding in 2 TFA means that the next 2 follow up shots - not atypically from squads - need to deal at least 2 damage to push one onto that wounded HH to kill it. You need enough instances of TFA that incidental damage can't sink it - that your opponent looks at his options to remove the hammerhead after that first shot - maybe a supper ship, or some squads, and decides that rather than try and finish it off with a side arc here or some plinks from squads there they must commit a substantial squadron presence or another big arc to kill it, at which point they have over committed and the rest of the fleet now comes to bear on the primary target less damaged. 1 TFA does not force that hard choice.

Thats the thing, You are looking at this wrong. I want the hammerheads to take that hit and then have the ISD or big ship move into it so it can shoot at effect while the MC30's can swing in and do my traditional aggression tactics. The hard choices are built into the list are various levels, you might just be thinking of the ships as linear. I am looking at it as a whole.

22 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

What you are attempting to do is akin to throwing point defense reroute onto that ship and saying look PDR is viable. No it's not. Even if you win, it doesn't make PDR good. It just means you won with a handicap. When you played DTO back in the day it was unconventional - it was something people weren't playing and had real misgivings about and you showed that it could perform. But this doesn't do that. I understand you are trying to recreate that magic, but this isn't it.

What I am doing is simple, I am adding an additional level of choice to my opponent. Do they want to focus on the dinky ship that can survive a tad more damage than normal or do they focus on the mean ole mc30's of doom?

 

I get the fun task of testing to see how those choices play out. 

[BrobaFett 4,209]

Ok I'm done. I disagree fundamentally with just about everything you are saying. This is gonna be my last post here. Go ahead and prove whatever it is you think you are proving with this fleet.

19 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Bad is subjective. You can tell me its bad by the numbers all day long doesnt mean that we dont play a game of chance and tactics and that the "numbers" are the end all be all. If that was the case, why play at all? We could just use the numbers to decide things

-bad is objective when it's been played and found to be bad. This has been played to death and found to be bad. This is not an "unfounded speculation". Hammerheads have been out a long time, and people have played 2x task force titles to death (since there are 2 in the box so it's a natural choice) and found that it is just objectively bad.

I guess that depends on how much of a 10-1 I can do. Cant get better than that but thats the goal, though unlikely. I am also not a Garels fan because I am already figuring to lose ships and dont need to be giving kills away just to gain a single face up card.

-Garel's has the same power as an APT demo- the ability to deal a face up after a move before the enemy has any ability to react. Dealing a crippling crit with no recourse is an insane ability you are undervaluing.

Thats the thing, You are looking at this wrong. I want the hammerheads to take that hit and then have the ISD or big ship move into it so it can shoot at effect while the MC30's can swing in and do my traditional aggression tactics. The hard choices are built into the list are various levels, you might just be thinking of the ships as linear. I am looking at it as a whole.

-I'm not "looking" at it wrong, you are saying works what I am saying does not work. So one of us is just plain wrong. Not a perception issue.

What I am doing is simple, I am adding an additional level of choice to my opponent. Do they want to focus on the dinky ship that can survive a tad more damage than normal or do they focus on the mean ole mc30's of doom?

-Again, the above. I am saying you are NOT adding an additional level of choice to your opponent. With 1 TFA you are NOT making it more survivable enough that it gives them a hard choice on what to focus on because they can confidently both focus on your mc30's and use incidental fire that is unable to kill the hammerhead.

 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

4 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Ok I'm done. I disagree fundamentally with just about everything you are saying. This is gonna be my last post here. Go ahead and prove whatever it is you think you are proving with this fleet.

 

Thanks for your disapproval  I also thank you for attempting to make me think like you and everyone else. I thank you for attempted indoctrination into what does and does not work by the community at large. 

 

Once again, Thank you.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

@BrobaFett @The Jabbawookie 

What are you trying to achieve here? 2 task force titles isnt great, agreed. Does it cause you personal hinderance if Lyraeus plays with 2? No? There why the sustained negativity? Let him learn this himself. 

[The Jabbawookie 5,613]

7 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

What are you trying to achieve here? 

Note something important: I never said two copies of TFA were bad.  Whether I think they’re bad or not is beside the point.  I was looking for Lyraeus’ reasoning.  Because if you don’t know why someone is doing something, and they do, you shouldn’t be offering advice in the fleet builds section.  Lyr doesn’t have a good reason beyond his desire to be different.  And that’s totally fine, but I didn’t get that answer directly, hence the prying.  I wish the best of luck to him, having now understood why.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

5 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Note something important: I never said two copies of TFA were bad.  Whether I think they’re bad or not is beside the point.  I was looking for Lyraeus’ reasoning.  Because if you don’t know why someone is doing something, and they do, you shouldn’t be offering advice in the fleet builds section.  Lyr doesn’t have a good reason beyond his desire to be different.  And that’s totally fine, but I didn’t get that answer directly, hence the prying.  I wish the best of luck to him, having now understood why.

My reasoning is innovation. Would people figure new things out if they didn't try things even when told that it has already been done? I like to be original and maybe this isnt but learning to fly these ships, learning how they operate and how to maximize their effectiveness is what I am about.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

@The Jabbawookie I am no savant player, I dont think I will come up with something not done before but at the same time I want to try. I want to figure out the ins and outs of these and not testing them means I will never learn these ships.

 

When I first started playing I was UTTER CRAP with the CR90's. I always got them killed, I moved wrong and it was horrible. It made me stop playing them for months until I found some interesting movement by running 5 and 6 Nebulons for fun. Learning how Inside turns worked helped me master the cr90 and I learned a lot from that ship that helps me with MC30's. If I had just subscribed to the ideology that Nebulons were bad except for salvation and yavaris I would never of been able to master the 90 or 30. So this is for me to learn how these ships operate 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lyraeus

[Heimdallson 24]

As I understood it, the other side's point is that while certainly doable, it's not optimal to run 2 titles instead of 3. To me, it seems that you mix up innovation with doing something differently for the sake of doing something differently it.

3 instead of 2 titles is a very small difference compared to estimating a ship's efficiency. Take the Pelta, for example, which used to be shunned (at least in my area and subjective impression of "the internet's" opinion, yet only recently, it used to gain popularity as people found new / rediscovered known ways to run it.

Discussing the Task Force titles is different. There are mathematical, objective arguments as for why 3 is better than 2. It's doable, nobody denied it. It's like "innovating" the bicycle by inventing a bike with square wheels. Even before you try it, people can say that it's not optimal - for clear reasons and testing will certainly yield the same results as theory dictates.

You are adamant on your opinion and good luck with that list and trying it, have fun playing as usual. I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between theoretical / mathematical thinking ahead and your example of ship popularity.

Cheers!