The EA argument is the best one to date. Although a hull and an attack die do not seem the same to me. But the argument is a good one.

The one about other games is the same feeling I have. A cleric casts a heal spell to fix some wounds you have taken. The cleric/healer dies. But typically this does not cause you to lose whatever he healed whatever number of turns ago. I see this like that.

But the fact that they used increased by in both cases is a strong clue that Valca may be right about this.

Trouble is, that means Motti sucks beyond ridiculousness. He's just average to below average in my view. In the other view, he is worthless. I guess I am too much of an optimist. I am hoping they made a poor wording choice instead of actually thinking that if the hull is lost if he dies that the card is in any way takeable.

The EA argument is the best one to date. Although a hull and an attack die do not seem the same to me. But the argument is a good one.

The one about other games is the same feeling I have. A cleric casts a heal spell to fix some wounds you have taken. The cleric/healer dies. But typically this does not cause you to lose whatever he healed whatever number of turns ago. I see this like that.

But the fact that they used increased by in both cases is a strong clue that Valca may be right about this.

Trouble is, that means Motti sucks beyond ridiculousness. He's just average to below average in my view. In the other view, he is worthless. I guess I am too much of an optimist. I am hoping they made a poor wording choice instead of actually thinking that if the hull is lost if he dies that the card is in any way takeable.

"Sucks beyond ridiculousness" seems a bit hyperbolic. Whether or not Motti is a useful or workable choice would really be a matter of one's personal preferences and playstyle. Assuming the mechanism whereby his effect is lost when the ship is killed is the correct one, and I rather believe it is, he does provide a nontrivial benefit.

They way I see it, the question of cost for the upgrade might be debated, but, it's really the perogative and responsibility of the individual player to decide whether and how to employ him in an integrated battle plan. It's a question of risk and reward, offhand, my first thoughts would be considering how best to protect my flagship, or to dangle him as a prize to draw fire away from other ships in the limited time for the engagement.

On a side note, regarding the fluff.. We are dealing with capital warships here, just because a ship is 'destroyed' in game mechanics doesn't mean it's completely obliterated, just taken out of the fight. Don't picture the ships just exploding, so much as the crews surrendering or demoralized and disengaging without a charismatic leader to keep them in the fight past the more typical limits.

Seems I sparked quite the debate. Didn't expect such a long thread, good stuff though. The enhanced armament is what finally convinced me, although I'm not sure why. One could make the exact same argument for that as they can for Motti as far as keeping the effect after the card is gone. But for some reason this example makes sense.

I'm just imagining the rage of someone with a 4 ship fleet all at 1 hull, then Motti dies . . . extreme example I know, but I would love to see their expression as their entire fleet spontaneously vaporizes

Seems I sparked quite the debate. Didn't expect such a long thread, good stuff though. The enhanced armament is what finally convinced me, although I'm not sure why. One could make the exact same argument for that as they can for Motti as far as keeping the effect after the card is gone. But for some reason this example makes sense.

I'm just imagining the rage of someone with a 4 ship fleet all at 1 hull, then Motti dies . . . extreme example I know, but I would love to see their expression as their entire fleet spontaneously vaporizes

I would picture it as a charismatic fleet commander keeping a bunch of limping ships in the fight, then he blows up and all the other crews go "Foxtrot Tango, we're out of here." or "don't shoot! We give up! .. we never liked that guy anyhow."

You do know the Enhanced Armament comparison was brought up at the top of page 2 of this thread, right?

Still, I'm glad this has is finally put to rest. I love debate ... but wow.

It is true, I imagine that if Motti's text stands and the ruling is that the hull he gives is a persistent aura and leaves when he dies, there probably will be people who take him. Hell, some people watch Jersey Shore...lol

I don't think it has been put to rest. But I do think it is cool that your standard for trying to put something to rest is attempting to convince *me*.

What remains is - Motti is marginal if he gives a one time permanent increase. If it goes away with his death, then his only good characteristic is his cost. If you want to spend points on things besides commanders, he is a choice. Trouble is, Screed is only two points more and wayyyy better than nerfed-Motti. If nerfed -Motti became 20, then maybe as a point shaver. That would make sense too as Dodonna is a reactive choice and only 20.

I would suggest adding 'ymmv' and/or 'IMO' to all others' posts. Obviously these things are opinion. I do not take your posts as more than opinion, no need to waste time constantly pointing out that mine are too.

'course, ymmv....

The EA argument is the best one to date. Although a hull and an attack die do not seem the same to me. But the argument is a good one.

The one about other games is the same feeling I have. A cleric casts a heal spell to fix some wounds you have taken. The cleric/healer dies. But typically this does not cause you to lose whatever he healed whatever number of turns ago. I see this like that.

But the fact that they used increased by in both cases is a strong clue that Valca may be right about this.

Trouble is, that means Motti sucks beyond ridiculousness. He's just average to below average in my view. In the other view, he is worthless. I guess I am too much of an optimist. I am hoping they made a poor wording choice instead of actually thinking that if the hull is lost if he dies that the card is in any way takeable.

But if you consider that this cleric had an aura that increased maximum HP of the group, if the cleric dies, the group lose the HP aura buff.

The EA argument is the best one to date. Although a hull and an attack die do not seem the same to me. But the argument is a good one.

The one about other games is the same feeling I have. A cleric casts a heal spell to fix some wounds you have taken. The cleric/healer dies. But typically this does not cause you to lose whatever he healed whatever number of turns ago. I see this like that.

But the fact that they used increased by in both cases is a strong clue that Valca may be right about this.

Trouble is, that means Motti sucks beyond ridiculousness. He's just average to below average in my view. In the other view, he is worthless. I guess I am too much of an optimist. I am hoping they made a poor wording choice instead of actually thinking that if the hull is lost if he dies that the card is in any way takeable.

But if you consider that this cleric had an aura that increased maximum HP of the group, if the cleric dies, the group lose the HP aura buff.

And in that kind of game, if someone in the group was at 1HP, they would lose the cleric buff and then still be at 1HP. Only their max allowable HP would change, and only people in the group still over their normal max would see a reduction.

What makes the Armada/X-wing so different is that instead of tracking how much HP a ship has left, like most other games, the damage card system tracks how much HP you have sustained.

Other games:

• I have 1 HP left, and I can have up to 7 HP thanks to Motti!
• <pew pew> Motti's dead, you can only go up to 4 HP now
• Ok, well, I'm still at 1 HP

Armada/X-wing

• I have sustained 6 damage, and I'm still ok because Motti makes it so I only die when I sustain 7!
• <pew pew> Motti's dead, you can only sustain 4 damage now
• I shall explode now

****, I am used to play Mage Wars where damage and HP are 2 different thing. You have a set HP amount (that can increase or decrease via different effect) and then you take damage (you do not lose HP). It is the same in Armada. You do not lose Hull, you are taking damage.

So in my example, you would die

It is true, I imagine that if Motti's text stands and the ruling is that the hull he gives is a persistent aura and leaves when he dies, there probably will be people who take him. Hell, some people watch Jersey Shore...lol

I don't think it has been put to rest. But I do think it is cool that your standard for trying to put something to rest is attempting to convince *me*.

What remains is - Motti is marginal if he gives a one time permanent increase. If it goes away with his death, then his only good characteristic is his cost. If you want to spend points on things besides commanders, he is a choice. Trouble is, Screed is only two points more and wayyyy better than nerfed-Motti. If nerfed -Motti became 20, then maybe as a point shaver. That would make sense too as Dodonna is a reactive choice and only 20.

I would suggest adding 'ymmv' and/or 'IMO' to all others' posts. Obviously these things are opinion. I do not take your posts as more than opinion, no need to waste time constantly pointing out that mine are too.

'course, ymmv....

Imagine for a moment, him on an Imperial Star Destroyer flanked by two victories in a 4 point game.

He's added 7 hull and is on a 14 hull target.

Right now he's trivial.

Later. Well I don't know about you but adding 7 hull to a list is pretty cheap. Especially if those victories are screening Motti's Imperial.

But at 300 points. When he's adding 4 hull, 5 at best, and is best placed on a Victory class that's too far back to manage the fight well. Yeah. He's eh.

I think even in online games - let's say SWTOR - our healer hits me with a heal effect. I had lost 3000 health and he gave it back to me. Then he dies - which happens all too often lol - I don't immediately lose 3000 health. Sure, there are some spells that are auras of extra health - and the question here is which is Motti. I would agree that the balance of the evidence is that its lost when he dies, but not so strong as to convince me unequivocally. FFG's track record on things like this isn't perfect enough for me to think we have conclusively divined their intent.

As for Motti, even if he gives lots of HP out in a 400 point game, he is entirely reactive. He's there to make it better to take damage. If I never get to where I am within 1 HP of losing a ship, his effect never comes into play. Tarkin on the other hand, helps me every turn. That makes Motti a second class citizen. If all those hull go away when he dies, he's worse. So much worse that I'd rather be an optimist and think FFG will fix this my way - because if they don't they clearly continue to be plagued by serious micro design issues. Don't get me wrong, I love their games. And having met some of these guys I know they know how to design, so I assume this is a publication schedule thing. But Motti, who has a marginal power that, if you are right, is lost by the very effect he is designed to fix, makes him a nonsensical choice.

I could, however, see having him be that way and having him be 18 or 19 points...

I think even in online games - let's ay SWTOR - our healer hits me with a heal effect. I had lost 3000 health and he gave it back to me. Then he dies - which happens all to often lol - I don't immediately lose 3000 health. Sure, there are some spells that are auras of extra health - and the question here is which is Motti. I would agree that the balance of the evidence is that its lost when he dies, but not so strong as to convince me unequivocally. FFG's track record on things like this isn't perfect enough for me to think we have conclusively divined their intent.

As for Motti, even if he gives lots of HP out in a 400 point game, he is entirely reactive. He's there to make it better to take damage. If I never get to where I am within 1 HP of losing a medium ship, his effect never comes into play. Tarkin on the other hand, helps me every turn. That makes Motti a second class citizen. If all those hull go away when he dies, he's worse. So much worse that I'd rather be an optimist and thing FFG will fix this my way - because if they don't they clearly continue to be plagued by serious micro design issues. Don't get me wrong, I love their games. And having met some of these guys I know they know how to design, so i assume this is a publication schedule thing. But Motti, who has a marginal power that, if you are right, is lost by the very effect he is designed to fix, makes him a nonsensical choice.

I could, however, see having him be that way and having him be 18 or 19 points...

Motti is not healing you, he is buffing you. In many games if the thing buffing you dies, the buff goes away. Most importantly that is exactly how the rules for this game are worded.

Seriously once you started with, well in SWTOR you should have realized you are making an untenable comparison.

Motti is more useful than you think. He's not Tarkin, but he also costs much less.

Here's the thing: Armada is a 6 round game. Were this a situation where the game keeps going on indefinitely, he'd be less useful. But when you are fielding big capital ships that can take hits, having Motti could be the difference between your VSD blowing up on round 6 or surviving till the end. He's also good at mitigating weird spiky situations by offering an HP buffer. I personally still prefer Tarkin for defensive as him dishing out engineering tokens every round helps mitigate damage, and he'd be much much better if the game lasted more rounds. But as it stands, Motti is solid in helping you simply win by attrition. Having three VSDs on the field with 10 hull each is really tough to crack.

Well, one man's 'untenable comparison' is another's 'totally fluff-based, irrelevant and illogical support.' lol I was just going along with the flow. I'd never actually try to convince someone of a rule based on my reading of the EU or how supposedly similar things work in an entirely different game type. But it was fun to dabble in it and see that people actually do that stuff and mean it.

But I appreciate you supporting my view that that is indeed not a useful line of argument.

No, I agree that the balance - say 60-40, of the evidence is that the hull increase is lost. What is nagging at me is how unuseful that makes him. I keep thinking to myself "well, I guess it looks like the hull is lost, but man, you'd think they would get how poor a choice that makes him" - which brings me back to the possibility that its the wording that is wrong because I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt of rushed wording over bad design.

One die can erase two hull. And on the wrong ship can now erase six in your example.

I do not hide Tarkin, I don't take needless risks with him, but I need his ship shooting, and shooting effectively, which means medium range.

I suppose one could build a plan around a tanky Motti-ship, with manuevers to match that made it impractical to focus on him.

Trouble is, the initiative belongs to the one dictating the course of the game, not the one trying to protect himself.

One die can erase two hull. And on the wrong ship can now erase six in your example.

I do not hide Tarkin, I don't take needless risks with him, but I need his ship shooting, and shooting effectively, which means medium range.

I suppose one could build a plan around a tanky Motti-ship, with manuevers to match that made it impractical to focus on him.

Trouble is, the initiative belongs to the one dictating the course of the game, not the one trying to protect himself.

But that extra durability gives a form of control. You're more durable. Forcing the rebels to engage faster. Taking some of their control by making the game more urgent. Unless they have an objective where they can score points without fighting you.

I would advise caution on that. Speed does not automatically control the game.

Also, I see a lot of chatter about objectives that makes it sound as though the idea of 'score points without fighting you' is somehow a thing. Take my advice - it's not.

The objectives being taken right now are almost exclusively Advanced Gunnery, Hyperspace Assault and Dangerous Territory, sometimes Minefields. You really can't choose AG - it is just a ship killer. Minefields is really the best choice, if you can get it - the mines damage both sides and no victory points. Hyperspace Assault is generally a ship killer, but we have been working on tactics to give it to the second player and then use manuever to use it against him. Its extremely hard - in the hands of someone without practice it is a ship killer on the order of AG. But a couple of us do think there is a way to use it against the assaulter, just needs more work and wave 1.

That leaves the most commonly taken objective being Dangerous Territory. yes, there are victory points there, but you get to oick where three sets of them are - and they are only 15 apiece. Risk two early on your side and repair and the best the other guy can do is get a 15-30 point edge from them. The danger of dangerous territory is not the points, its the ability of the second player to overlap for free.

Bottom line of all that - if you end up first player, you are choosing between Minefields and Dangerous Territory. One grants no points and the other isn't about the points. So, the score points without fighting is conjectural and does not actually work that way in reality beyond maybe a 15 point advantage in DT. The reality is bidding for second and if you don't get it, taking DT (as players get better they realize it is better to take that then minefields) or working out your aggressive anti-HA tactics.

I LOVE that Motti is not in the FAQ. I have to believe that is because his actual text fixes this.

FFG typically does not include in thier FAQ products which are not released.

So it is not at all odd to not see Motti in the FAQ. Afterall we don't know what is card actually says as of yet, we've only seen a preview.

They also tend to not answer questions for unreleased products either.

Chiraneau.

Yes I am aware, like I just said typically.

Perhaps noone bothered to ask FFG about Motti.

I think it is more likely his text is fixed. Good news is, not long to wait.

I would advise caution on that. Speed does not automatically control the game.

Also, I see a lot of chatter about objectives that makes it sound as though the idea of 'score points without fighting you' is somehow a thing. Take my advice - it's not.

The objectives being taken right now are almost exclusively Advanced Gunnery, Hyperspace Assault and Dangerous Territory, sometimes Minefields. You really can't choose AG - it is just a ship killer. Minefields is really the best choice, if you can get it - the mines damage both sides and no victory points. Hyperspace Assault is generally a ship killer, but we have been working on tactics to give it to the second player and then use manuever to use it against him. Its extremely hard - in the hands of someone without practice it is a ship killer on the order of AG. But a couple of us do think there is a way to use it against the assaulter, just needs more work and wave 1.

That leaves the most commonly taken objective being Dangerous Territory. yes, there are victory points there, but you get to oick where three sets of them are - and they are only 15 apiece. Risk two early on your side and repair and the best the other guy can do is get a 15-30 point edge from them. The danger of dangerous territory is not the points, its the ability of the second player to overlap for free.

Bottom line of all that - if you end up first player, you are choosing between Minefields and Dangerous Territory. One grants no points and the other isn't about the points. So, the score points without fighting is conjectural and does not actually work that way in reality beyond maybe a 15 point advantage in DT. The reality is bidding for second and if you don't get it, taking DT (as players get better they realize it is better to take that then minefields) or working out your aggressive anti-HA tactics.