It's a little confusing with the terminology, but the player with the lowest fleet total has "initiative," or whomever wins a coin flip. Then the player with "initiative" can choose to either be the "first player" or the "second player." The first player always activates first, and selects one of the second players objectives to be the objective for the game.

The "first player" is the same thing as the player with initiative:

The person with fewer fleet points (or in the case of tied fleet points, the winner of a coin toss) gets to decide who will be the first player:

Hmmm. Just looked over the rules again and realized I would be wrong. If the second player was the Imperial player he could have his objective and sit back for a win.

I would still not go for it at all, it is a lame tactic and the player using this tactic should not be rewarded for using such lame tactics by flying into the trap.

Wave 1 will bring some nice tools to counter this though so it won't work long. And yes, you should feel cheesy for using it.

Imp player had lower point total and chose to be second player.

I don't get the logic behind 'more ships solves the problem'? If anything, doesn't that make it a worse problem? With more ships, the desire to converge simultaneously will be greater and it will dictate even more posturing, especially with the advantages to activating second in the initial engagement.

I'll agree with a few other posters, just sit in your own deployment zone, force a draw and show your opponent what a jackass he is by playing his game. That'll end the game in 10 min and you can get onto game 2 where he won't be so gamey.

There is no draw. "If both players have the same score after six rounds, the second player wins the game." (RRG pg. 13 under Winning and Losing).

Good catch on the winner bit...but to no good end, tournament scoringwise. A win at a margin of 0-10pts difference after score resolution still means a win with only 5pts (Page 2 FFG Tournament Rules). The loser get 5pts as well.

Imperials stalling (move zero) at the beginning of the game prevents VSDs being swarmed 360 by turn 3-4. Again, once more ships are available we prob won't see this as often.

Oh, right.... tournament rules. I'm catching up on them now. It's an interesting method of scoring; different from X-Wing. It seems like you do have an incentive for slow-play if it looks like your opponent outclasses you (and the objectives allow it). That way you cut your losses.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

As an aside: Some people say the victors write the history books. On HNN, HNN decides who the victor was.

(Psst. It was the Empire.)

It's a little confusing with the terminology, but the player with the lowest fleet total has "initiative," or whomever wins a coin flip. Then the player with "initiative" can choose to either be the "first player" or the "second player." The first player always activates first, and selects one of the second players objectives to be the objective for the game.

The "first player" is the same thing as the player with initiative:

The person with fewer fleet points (or in the case of tied fleet points, the winner of a coin toss) gets to decide who will be the first player:

Thanks for the clarification, still getting some of the rules down.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

The 0-speed Imperial tactic is viable at higher point levels and, while it is a legit and sensible tactic, it does give that dirty WAAC feel.

We played a 400 point game last night one Vic 1 and two Vic 2's plus figthers (6) vs. two Neb's (one escort, one support) and three Corvettes plus fighters (7). Rebs had initiative and Objective was Minefield.

End result was after 6 turns was both Neb B's lost, one Vic 2 lost (not the sitter) and an Imperial win.

Only one Vic 2 sat in the deploy zone but was a road block for flankers and since the Rebs had to bring the fight to the Imps it created a crossfire zone between the other two Vics for any ships that thought about going through the middle.

Bottom line it was a legit and sensible tactic but dull and boring to play against as we had to flank wide to avoid minefield and crossfire trap. It meant we really did not get to serious fighting until turn 5. I think aside from fighter engagement the first cap ship fire didn't happen until turn 4.

I don't consider this to be a "dirty" tactic or boring. Just because I play Imps and you are playing Rebels doesn't mean that I have to automatically give you free shots at my back arc. Having a second line ship for any flankers to have to worry about only makes sense. The way this guy did it was actually a good tactical decision.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

If something is within the rules it does not make it a good fun tool to use. So if I see someone pulling this I will just not play into his strategy.

I might sound harsh but if Rebel players fell for this that is all we will see when the Imperials get their objectives picked and the game will die a boring death. So if I see it and I can't find a good counter I will avoid it at all cost. Do not Ever play a game by your opponent's terms, first rule of war first rule of gaming.

Possible good counter to this Imperial tactic is if you have more ships than him go wide on the flanks and only turn in when you get in the side hull zone. If he is at speed 0 he will not be able to turn fast enough to put you in the front arc before you get several shoots off and the other ship is in the Aft of them. Obviously there will be many things that might change this plan but if he is at a stand still getting up to speed and turning will be an issue and if they use a command token to speed up they are not repairing and using it on attacks.

If it is two VSD's are sitting back pick off the ties and sit back. Win by the Fighter points alone.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

Well it is also not your opponent's responsibility to fly into your trap. It is within the rules to avoid your opponent then do it if he plays this way.

If something is within the rules it does not make it a good fun tool to use. So if I see someone pulling this I will just not play into his strategy.

I might sound harsh but if Rebel players fell for this that is all we will see when the Imperials get their objectives picked and the game will die a boring death. So if I see it and I can't find a good counter I will avoid it at all cost. Do not Ever play a game by your opponent's terms, first rule of war first rule of gaming.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

Well it is also not your opponent's responsibility to fly into your trap. It is within the rules to avoid your opponent then do it if he plays this way.

If something is within the rules it does not make it a good fun tool to use. So if I see someone pulling this I will just not play into his strategy.

I might sound harsh but if Rebel players fell for this that is all we will see when the Imperials get their objectives picked and the game will die a boring death. So if I see it and I can't find a good counter I will avoid it at all cost. Do not Ever play a game by your opponent's terms, first rule of war first rule of gaming.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

Am I missing something? The Imperial player had initiative and sat in his deployment zone and let the Rebels come to him? Sounds like the Rebels played it completely wrong. They were second player and should have just sat there waiting for you. You burn 3 turns sitting there and then move out, Rebels run away, you lose because nothing was killed and Second player wins in the tie game. Had you been second player, maybe there would be more to this but as is, the Rebel player just played wrong.

Imps were second player

I know this point is lost in the actual "issue" but you said you had initiative which means you were first player. I see now that you mention the opponent chose the objective which is what the person with initiative would do. Minor point but still confusing in the OP.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

Well it is also not your opponent's responsibility to fly into your trap. It is within the rules to avoid your opponent then do it if he plays this way.

If something is within the rules it does not make it a good fun tool to use. So if I see someone pulling this I will just not play into his strategy.

I might sound harsh but if Rebel players fell for this that is all we will see when the Imperials get their objectives picked and the game will die a boring death. So if I see it and I can't find a good counter I will avoid it at all cost. Do not Ever play a game by your opponent's terms, first rule of war first rule of gaming.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

I don't think anyone said jackass or that it was an abuse,but it is a lame tactic. It slows the game down and basically is telling your opponent that if they want to play a Fun game they have to play by your rules, and if they don't then the game goes no where and both sides sit there staring at each other. You Are Forcing Your Opponent To Make One Of Two Bad Choices. That is not being a good sport.

Check posts 10, 22, 24 for examples of calling it an abuse of the speed 0 rule or such players are jackasses for playing it that way.

I agree it would make the game boring if everyone just sat there at speed 0. But in some cases, it may be the best tactical option for one side or the other to do just that. It doesn't make that person lame, a jackass or someone who is abusing the speed 0 rule.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

...,but it is a lame tactic. It slows the game down and basically is telling your opponent that if they want to play a Fun game they have to play by your rules, and if they don't then the game goes no where and both sides sit there staring at each other. You Are Forcing Your Opponent To Make One Of Two Bad Choices. That is not being a good sport.

I'd dispute the idea that it slows the game down. I'd argue that it speeds the game up. The game is 6 rounds long. If there is less movement and/or shooting during those 6 rounds, then the rounds go by faster and the game is over sooner.

In the meantime, don't be a playa hater.

Actually, don't hate the game either.

Now, obviously, it's no fun when someone slow-plays, but I don't think it's useful to create norms of shaming for people who see opportunities where they can find them within the rules.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what's going on with people shaming others for trying to use a valid tactic allowable within the rules.

The OP shouldn't have felt dirty for simply playing a strategy in a match that would work to his advantage. It's not like he was punching Girl Scouts for selling cookies for goodness sakes....

Well it is also not your opponent's responsibility to fly into your trap. It is within the rules to avoid your opponent then do it if he plays this way.

If something is within the rules it does not make it a good fun tool to use. So if I see someone pulling this I will just not play into his strategy.

I might sound harsh but if Rebel players fell for this that is all we will see when the Imperials get their objectives picked and the game will die a boring death. So if I see it and I can't find a good counter I will avoid it at all cost. Do not Ever play a game by your opponent's terms, first rule of war first rule of gaming.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

I don't think anyone said jackass or that it was an abuse,but it is a lame tactic. It slows the game down and basically is telling your opponent that if they want to play a Fun game they have to play by your rules, and if they don't then the game goes no where and both sides sit there staring at each other. You Are Forcing Your Opponent To Make One Of Two Bad Choices. That is not being a good sport.

Check posts 10, 22, 24 for examples of calling it an abuse of the speed 0 rule or such players are jackasses for playing it that way.

I agree it would make the game boring if everyone just sat there at speed 0. But in some cases, it may be the best tactical option for one side or the other to do just that. It doesn't make that person lame, a jackass or someone who is abusing the speed 0 rule.

Now there maybe times that remaking at speed 0 might be good but players should understand that doing so can hurt the game overall if used wrongly.

I have seen some games from other systems where an opponent used a rule like this and forced me to make the choice of walking into a death trap or not fall for it and nothing happens. It is not fun to have those games and kills the Fun of the game and can turn players off to the game if it happens often.

It's a little confusing with the terminology, but the player with the lowest fleet total has "initiative," or whomever wins a coin flip. Then the player with "initiative" can choose to either be the "first player" or the "second player." The first player always activates first, and selects one of the second players objectives to be the objective for the game.

This isn't quite right... In Armada, there actually isn't a term for the person who owns the lowest point fleet. The lowest point side (or coin toss winner) gets to determine who has initiative/first player but they are never considered to have initiative until after the decision is made. It does make for some confusing terminology though. While awkward, the player with the lowest fleet total wins the ability to determine initiative but saying they "won" or "got" initiative will be misleading.

I have zero issue with not falling into it or playing into that players trap.

I do however have issue with people in this thread calling such a player a jackass, saying it's lame, abusing rules or other demeaning/shaming type comments.

...,but it is a lame tactic. It slows the game down and basically is telling your opponent that if they want to play a Fun game they have to play by your rules, and if they don't then the game goes no where and both sides sit there staring at each other. You Are Forcing Your Opponent To Make One Of Two Bad Choices. That is not being a good sport.

I'd dispute the idea that it slows the game down. I'd argue that it speeds the game up. The game is 6 rounds long. If there is less movement and/or shooting during those 6 rounds, then the rounds go by faster and the game is over sooner.

In the meantime, don't be a playa hater.

In the meantime, don't be a playa hater.

I don't hate my opponents but I am not going to let you dictate how the battle goes willingly either. And don't worry Mikael I am working out some ideas to counter it if you try it.

Bring it, brother!

FB message sent.

I don't see speed 0 being a problem. It means the Imperial player is going to be exactly where you, the faster and more reactive side, want him. Because the Victory turns like a boat, and if he's not careful when it's his turn to activate he'll have no target to shoot at.

There is no reason to run your rebel corvette, for instance, under speed 3. The only time you'd want to is when you're approaching the Star Destroyer's flank and want to stay there. In which case you bank a navigate command and just coast in. The Nebulon is going to have a harder time of it but so long as you're pointing your front to that ship you should be okay.

And if you catch him unprepared at speed 0 he can't defend against any of your attacks.

For the Victory Driver it seems like a good idea to stay at speed 0, but inevitably you will have to pick which ship to go after and steer for it. What I'd probably do is go after the Nebulon as the easier target, and leave the CR-90 to the fighters. Problem here is if he places his corvette, you must place your star destroyer, and then the Nebulon can deploy to make killing it more difficult (Say next to the Corvette, where both of his ships are constrained in your forward arc!).

There are always options and there are always pitfalls. But I think it's folly to sit at speed 0 without an eventual plan of moving around 2-3. The Victory might seem tough, but with no defense tokens it's going to die surprisingly quick.

Things become more interesting when you expand beyond the core set limit. Two Victories can cover each other's arcs pretty well, and with more rebel ships on the board you actually become a firepower threat.

I do not think at this stage in the game there are any dirty tactics, unfair strategies, cheating, or even "meta." If speed zero works, you owe it to your self to play it, let the opponent devise their strategy. However, if that's the only way your play, then it is going to get tiresome...

Also with the next waves coming out, everything is going to change.

I do not think at this stage in the game there are any dirty tactics, unfair strategies, cheating, or even "meta." If speed zero works, you owe it to your self to play it, let the opponent devise their strategy. However, if that's the only way your play, then it is going to get tiresome...

Also with the next waves coming out, everything is going to change.

Seriously I am telling you this is the best way for a Rebel player to not just Give the Empire player a brutal win. And if the Imperial player gets bored of the game not going anywhere then he should switch up his tactics.

Seriously it is a Trap and a Rebel player would be Stupid for flying into it without a list designed to counter it.

My reservations about speed 0 lie more in the objective selection than in the ability to hit the brakes

While I think we should honestly reserve any criticism until we get more games in, especially with more options out, I do fear that the objective system will put an undue emphasis on the initiative bid. Rather than a game like Warmachine, where the objective is randomly generated and strictly positioned equidistant from both players' deployment zones, Armada allows you to skew objectives to your particular playstyle which can (and is intended to be) exploited

My reservations about speed 0 lie more in the objective selection than in the ability to hit the brakes

While I think we should honestly reserve any criticism until we get more games in, especially with more options out, I do fear that the objective system will put an undue emphasis on the initiative bid. Rather than a game like Warmachine, where the objective is randomly generated and strictly positioned equidistant from both players' deployment zones, Armada allows you to skew objectives to your particular playstyle which can (and is intended to be) exploited

I am just going by what we have available to us for now. Wave 1 fixes a lot of things for both factions.

Aye

our perspective of the game and it's future incarnations is woefully incomplete until I get my hands on those sexy new ships, squadrons, and upgrades

My reservations about speed 0 lie more in the objective selection than in the ability to hit the brakes

While I think we should honestly reserve any criticism until we get more games in, especially with more options out, I do fear that the objective system will put an undue emphasis on the initiative bid. Rather than a game like Warmachine, where the objective is randomly generated and strictly positioned equidistant from both players' deployment zones, Armada allows you to skew objectives to your particular playstyle which can (and is intended to be) exploited

Agreed.