There have been a number of discussions around how powerful having activation advantage is, doubly so when taking initiative into account. A few local friends of mine have even come to the conclusion that this is the worst part of competitive Armada, that activation advantage is too powerful. I'll admit, I've had a hard time finding room to play a large ship as of late, as it simply eats up too many points.

Now I'm not going to say Armada is broken, I think there are a lot of different ways to play that can all be effective. In addition, player skill has a huge impact on how the games play out. However, I'd like to start a discussion about how we can make it even *better*.

Imperial Assault dealt with a similar issue, where the dreaded 4 Officer / 4 Royal Guard Lists were dominating the skirmish game. As I understand it (having only played skirmish once), the Officers would go first, putting your RGs in good positions. Then, once the opponent had nothing left to activate, you could rush in and beat everyone up with no retaliation. This is pretty similar to the issue we're seeing in Armada right now.

On to the fix. The Imperial Assault Errata was released with the following text: "During a skirmish, if a player has fewer ready Deployment cards than his opponent, that player may choose not to activate a group and pass play back to his opponent." I'm starting to think this may be a good addition to the Armada rules. I have 2 ISDs and you have 7 Corvettes? Well I'm going to wait until you've activated the first 5 before I start moving forward.

I can't attest to how well this works in practice, we're going to playtest it locally and see what we think. I don't believe this will make small ships a lot less valuable, and I think it will make the big boys more viable. Mostly, I don't want to see this game boil down to who can take the most of the cheapest thing, sort of defeats the purpose.

Anyway, I think there is some promise in a solution like that, what about all of you?

Nope! This was talked about when the rule came into existence in IA. I still don't approve of the change.

The reason I don't agree with this change is because while activations are indeed powerful, it can actually be mitigated by lower count ships. It takes a bit more planning and patience but controlling your speed and knowing your goals help out a lot.

In a technical sense, I would say the following:

• Shoot, then move in Armada does something to mitigate this to begin with. The impact is not quite the same as IA. If Armada was move, then shoot, activation advantage would be a massive problem as spamming short range punchers would likely be a dominant strategy for all fleets.
• From a pure stability perspective, I want to see how much impact this really has. If high ship count fleets dominate gencon and regionals/worlds, then I think we are in the territory where a discussion is the kind of thing we should have about how to balance it. If they don't, then not. I do think more evidence is required before asking for changes.
• Testing this kind of change would take a lot of time. It might actually make very low ship count point denial strategies dominant, so fixing your problem by creating an equally bad problem is an issue.

I do think activation advantage is something that should be considered carefully, but I want to see more results before we jump to conclusions.

It's hard to say what FFG might do in the future, but I don't see the problem.

Yes, having more activations is a benefit, but there's also something about big ships being able to maul small ships. It's a choice you make during fleetbuilding. It's not one that gives you an auto-win in the game. I beat a (very) good player the other day, despite an activation disadvantage.

We go through meta cycles when certain archtypical builds are more powerful than others. Right now we seem to be going through an activation-spam phase of the meta. This too shall pass.

It's certainly an option for a fix if one is ever needed, but I'm not sure it is. The activation-advantage is not really a bug as much of a feature, so time will tell if it gets to the point that it needs correcting.

Nevertheless, I've been to three Store Championships this season (all with 10+ players), and two of them were won by fleets with only two ships. So I'm not convinced activation order is quite the end-all-be-all yet.

It's certainly an option for a fix if one is ever needed, but I'm not sure it is. The activation-advantage is not really a bug as much of a feature, so time will tell if it gets to the point that it needs correcting.

Nevertheless, I've been to three Store Championships this season (all with 10+ players), and two of them were won by fleets with only two ships. So I'm not convinced activation order is quite the end-all-be-all yet.

As an FYI, I like all posts from my last post in this thread to this post.

The end all be all of this game is skill and experience. That is why the GenCon Special does not work as much anymore

It's hard to say what FFG might do in the future, but I don't see the problem.

Yes, having more activations is a benefit, but there's also something about big ships being able to maul small ships. It's a choice you make during fleetbuilding. It's not one that gives you an auto-win in the game. I beat a (very) good player the other day, despite an activation disadvantage.

We go through meta cycles when certain archtypical builds are more powerful than others. Right now we seem to be going through an activation-spam phase of the meta. This too shall pass.

I have all ready seen 2-3 major meta shifts in Wave 2 exclusively.

I'm more concerned about the future as well here, especially with flotillas looming on the horizon. I very much dislike the idea of taking several flotillas just to compete in the activation game (even though I believe flotillas are going to be good anyway). Of the Store Championships I've attended, 3 of the 4 have been won by 5 ship fleets, while the other was a Fireball. 2 ISD or MC80 + 2 AFMII fleets have performed decently around here, but they aren't taking the wins from the Activation Advantage fleets.

That's what drove the discussion locally, and why we are interested in testing it.

Don't Gozantis help this?

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal folks. No one alive has been to enough store championships to have a significant sample size.

Now, if we could look at ALL the lists from ALL the store champs we could maybe start arriving at some conclusions.

Don't Gozantis help this?

I would imagine Gozantis will exacerbate the problem, not help to fix it. As has already been talked about in several of the Wave 3 threads (even by myself, admittedly), 20ish point activations are a thing of beauty in the current meta. The problem is, how many do you take? There is obviously a point where you are just shooting yourself in the foot, but is that point 3 Gozantis? 5?

We go through meta cycles when certain archtypical builds are more powerful than others. Right now we seem to be going through an activation-spam phase of the meta. This too shall pass.

something to note about the Strength of Armada as a game system is that we go through meta shifts WITHOUT product change, I.e. a new wave.

I have all ready seen 2-3 major meta shifts in Wave 2 exclusively.

Yes, indeed - the meta is intersubjective. It is created by the choices that the community makes in reaction to previous choices by the community (or personal preferences of "I think this would be cool").

If the meta were structural - given by the range of choices available - then FFG might have to fix something.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal folks. No one alive has been to enough store championships to have a significant sample size.

Now, if we could look at ALL the lists from ALL the store champs we could maybe start arriving at some conclusions.

You're right, it is mostly anecdotal. But go to the miniranker (or, better yet, contribute to the miniranker to help out with data collection) and tell us what you see. It certainly doesn't suggest that activation-spam is hegemonic.

I think that would be a rough change to make right now, and a little premature. If I took a two ISD list and you had three of anything, would it be fair to allow me to force you into activating all of your ships first, when they're out of range and have no shots, then I get to activate after you've maneuvered into range?

I think that would be a rough change to make right now, and a little premature. If I took a two ISD list and you had three of anything, would it be fair to allow me to force you into activating all of your ships first, when they're out of range and have no shots, then I get to activate after you've maneuvered into range?

That's not how it works... If you have two ISDs and I have three ships, you can pass on the first activation, while I have the advantage. Then, when we both have two activations, you will need to activate a ship. When activations are equal, passing is not allowed.

I've seen this issue handled with tokens in a cup. One token per activation. This way, the extra activations are spread out among the game turn in a random manner. Not something I'd recommend in a tournament setting though. Personally, I like the addition of an RNG element (and I also like double blind setup).

I've seen this issue handled with tokens in a cup. One token per activation. This way, the extra activations are spread out among the game turn in a random manner. Not something I'd recommend in a tournament setting though. Personally, I like the addition of an RNG element (and I also like double blind setup).

I would find this incredibly frustrating. I would be really frustrated if I'd engineered my list to take advantage of going first, taken all the negatives associated with leaving points unspent on the table, and then flip a coin every turn to see if I'm actually going first, or if all of my ships will be dead before I get to use them and take advantage of my carefully-considered positioning for the turn.

But then, I currently run a 95% RNG-free CR90B/SW7 list, so take my opinion with a grain of salt--I like to minimize RNG the best I possibly can.

The tokens in a cup is how bolt action works. . . Not a huge fan..

I do not see the need for any sort of "fix"

The advantage of player one is activating first.

The advantage of player two is your objective is picked.

You can have 2-3 ships and a load of squadrons, and with the right objectives, and ship movement, etc etc, absolutely cripple an opposing 5 ship fleet.

Being player one is not the be all end all.

And this proposed fix, what does being player one do for you exactly? you don't get an objective, you have to place first, and then you lose the only benefit there was for them losses, so instead you make player two become the be all end all you seem to think player one is, sounds awesome.

And this proposed fix, what does being player one do for you exactly? you don't get an objective, you have to place first, and then you lose the only benefit there was for them losses, so instead you make player two become the be all end all you seem to think player one is, sounds awesome.

I think the idea is you'd retain the benefit of being player one (first activation is very good) but it would disable the ability to pair that with the advantage of going last as well as first, at your opponent's discretion.

It's an interesting idea. I'm not altogether sure it's required, but it's an interesting idea at the very least.

And this proposed fix, what does being player one do for you exactly? you don't get an objective, you have to place first, and then you lose the only benefit there was for them losses, so instead you make player two become the be all end all you seem to think player one is, sounds awesome.

Though I did note that first player is an added benefit, the entire point of this post was to discuss activation advantage, not initiative. Even when you are second player, having more ships than your opponent is still a significant boon. Anywho, Snipafist beat me to it, but there is still a big advantage in going first in a shoot then move system.

It's a terrible idea.

2 ships means big dice, big health, big shields

Lots of little ships means less dice, less health, less shields.

The balance is there already, you want a load of little ships? then be prepared for them getting popped easily, big ships can give and take a beating, little ships might be able to punch above their weight depending on upgrades but they cannot take it in return, so this proposed fix allows you to remove all the negatives to taking 2 huge ships, you can just sit and wait till they have activated then unload on them.

And this proposed fix, what does being player one do for you exactly? you don't get an objective, you have to place first, and then you lose the only benefit there was for them losses, so instead you make player two become the be all end all you seem to think player one is, sounds awesome.

Though I did note that first player is an added benefit, the entire point of this post was to discuss activation advantage, not initiative. Even when you are second player, having more ships than your opponent is still a significant boon. Anywho, Snipafist beat me to it, but there is still a big advantage in going first in a shoot then move system.

I played in a Tournament with 5 ships, against 2 ISD II with Motti, by the end of round 6 I had dealt 13 damage to one, and 12 I think to the other, he killed a single raider, and won 53pts to zero, I cannot imagine how badly that game would have worked out if he'd have been able to sit back and dictate even more the way I had to approach his fleet, by not even having to move after I did, until we reached activation parity.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal folks. No one alive has been to enough store championships to have a significant sample size.

Now, if we could look at ALL the lists from ALL the store champs we could maybe start arriving at some conclusions.

I have won tournaments recently with 3, 4, and 5 ship fleets. I have not yet gone lower than 3 (I do think 2 ships can be a real problem in some cases), and I haven't gone higher than 5 (though it could be done) recently.

A few brief thoughts on why this is complicated:

• How do you count rogue squadrons? I agree they don't activate in the ship phase, but they certainly function as pseudo-ships not reliant on squadron activations to attack ships with mobility in the squadron phase. Would a list with 3 ships but 7 Firespray (extreme example) have more or less "activations" than a list with 5 ships and 2 TIE fighters?
• More ships are also worse ships. Depending on the profile of the ships being used, while I fully agree that one can delay, depending on the relative fleet composition, can you have enough force concentrated with smaller ships to always have this dominate?
• How do you account for objectives, or card effects (Rieekan, Han Solo) that change the activation dynamic?

I really do think we need more data. I am also interested in seeing how this plays out when we get to regionals, as I still have a real question in my head as to if activation advantage is a problem because it is a problem, or is a problem because people aren't used to playing against it and make obvious mistakes that, with experience, they rectify.

Right. Ow if a player loses all his ships games over. Yet we dont know if flotilla will count towards this or not. We dont know how fast they move. We know they get two click at speed 1, but ehat the max speed 2, or 3. I dont see them having a speed of 4.

Poiny is there far to many unanswered questions to get upset. Ie will ackbar/motti effect flotilla. What upgrades can they take?

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal folks. No one alive has been to enough store championships to have a significant sample size.

Now, if we could look at ALL the lists from ALL the store champs we could maybe start arriving at some conclusions.

One thing is nice that after I won 2 of them. FFG does want the winning lists so they are collecting data.