I'll start by saying there is probably already a thread on this with lots of great dialogue, so I apologize to the OP for starting anew. However, I think the new flotilla mechanics warrant a new thread.

Anybody else experiencing some severe distress over the concept of ramming in this game? Still. While certainly not the only challenging mechanic, it is easily one the most annoying (looking at you, Demo double tappers). FFG is setting a precedent of recognizing the flaw in this game mechanic by changing the rule for flotillas (or accounting for it with an add-on rule, more precisely).

I think it's crazy that an ISD would be stopped in its tracks by a corvette, and suffer the same damage, and I know I'm not the only one. What if there was a mechanic for large ships to brush aside small ships in the same manner as squadrons, like the defender places them with bases touching side to side. Certainly not perfect, but maybe more realistic (or maybe I'm crazy).

Some other ideas I've heard in my local spot is basing damage on ship size and speed. For instance, a ship moving at speed 4 ought to do more damage than a ship at speed 1(and could shields handle bumps at the lower speeds, thus reducing the impact of the engine tech double tap). The disparity in size could also affect whether or not some of that would be critical damage. Or vice versa.

Other things to consider in this thread is how that would affect game balance. The rebels typically run smaller, faster ships, while imps love their ISDs. Would any change affect the likelihood of ramming for each faction, how would strategies change? Would the dreaded Demo double tap finish still be viable.

I don't want to exhaust all or too many topics of discussion in one post, so I'll leave it there, though I've already laid out a ton.

Again?

No, ramming works fine.

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.

But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

How does a tape measure help? Ramming is ramming regardless of how you measured. A tape measure allows for ambiguous measurements.

In an aside, I'd love to see an ordnance upgrade for "fire ship".

"Modification: When you ram an opponent's ship, you may discard this card to roll a number of black dice equal to half your total hull points. Deal one face-down damage card for each hit or crit. Your ship is then destroyed."

(In response to your question, no. Flotillas work differently because they're so small, but to change everything else would overcomplicate the game.

Ramming is what it is; use it to your advantage, and try to keep yourself out of the way so it can't be used against you.)

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

How does a tape measure help? Ramming is ramming regardless of how you measured. A tape measure allows for ambiguous measurements.

The measuring tool is one of the best things about this game! Gives you not just speed and direction but manoeuvrability as factors in how you move about the board. It means that you actually feel like you're flying a ship, rather than a unit. It wouldn't be as good a game without it.

Nope.

Yes, it should change in a perfect world. It is one of those parts of SWA that reminds you of the shackles 2D-tabletop is having, it feels clumsy and the idea that two capital ships can potentially crash into each other head on and stay this way till oblivion is hurting.

Anyway, so far I have not heard about a good alternative houseruling that did not either make the matter overly complex, kills the balancing between ships sizes or would require a 3D environment.

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

How does a tape measure help? Ramming is ramming regardless of how you measured. A tape measure allows for ambiguous measurements.

The measuring tool is one of the best things about this game! Gives you not just speed and direction but manoeuvrability as factors in how you move about the board. It means that you actually feel like you're flying a ship, rather than a unit. It wouldn't be as good a game without it.

It would be a much better game lol

Its working as intended. The new Flotilla rules confirm it.

And its collisions, not ramming, but semantics, I know. It may be dealt with like Flotilla in future expansions, but I'm sure Collisions, as they are written in the RRG, are here to stay. If they had called it 'Point Blank' or 'Assault' damage resulting from moving too close it might have felt better on the imagination....maybe.

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

How does a tape measure help? Ramming is ramming regardless of how you measured. A tape measure allows for ambiguous measurements.

The measuring tool is one of the best things about this game! Gives you not just speed and direction but manoeuvrability as factors in how you move about the board. It means that you actually feel like you're flying a ship, rather than a unit. It wouldn't be as good a game without it.

It would be a much better game lol

Explan how?

It's poorly thought out and implemented, but it's what we are stuck with unless they decide to do something different.

It's poorly thought out and implemented, but it's what we are stuck with unless they decide to do something different.

I'm really confused. I dont get the feeling that anything in armada is poorly thought out, but what specifically are you referring to? Ramming? Or the maneuver tool?

Remember, the CR90 in Armada isn't exactly the Cr90 in the movies. The model is not to scale, and it's given way more firepower than any CR90 actually had in the movies. Leia would've given an arm and a leg (maybe C3PO's) for some TRCs and Engine Techs in A New Hope.

Ramming isn't perfect, and that's okay. I prefer Armada's rules to XWing's.

Whenever you try to simulate anything with little plastic pieces, some of reality gets lost. The question is, do you want a more accurate representation of Star Wars combat that would entail more complicated rules? I like the level of complexity v. realism in this game.

Let's consider alternatives. I could see one based on speed (one point of damage to both ships for the speed you're going at), but it wouldn't stop ramming tactics, which seems to be what was irritating the original author. If you were to add in ship size, again it could work (one point for a small base, two for a medium, three for a large, added to the damage total on the opposite ship), but that would create a situation in which an ISD could swat CR90s from the sky just by bull-dozing them at speed 3, which would be unlikely to happen in reality (given how much more manoeuvrable a CR90 would be), and a bit dull for both players.

Each layer of reality you add brings a bit of extra complexity. It is a single, simple rule that applies to everything EXCEPT flotillas, that have their own single, simple rule. As long as everyone is playing by exactly the same rules, then it doesn't cause any problems. If someone wants to use a collision to ram an opponent's ship, it's a fair tactic. If you don't want to be on the receiving end, then do your best to keep out of the way.

Ramming is one of those things. It clearly bothers people, which is why we have this thread every month or two.But FFG backed themselves into a corner when they decided to use their movement tool instead of just using a **** tape measure like they should have done in the first place.

How does a tape measure help? Ramming is ramming regardless of how you measured. A tape measure allows for ambiguous measurements.

The measuring tool is one of the best things about this game! Gives you not just speed and direction but manoeuvrability as factors in how you move about the board. It means that you actually feel like you're flying a ship, rather than a unit. It wouldn't be as good a game without it.

It would be a much better game lol

Explan how?

To the OP: I don't know that I agree with some of your premises. Your assertion that the damage is 'the same' on the two ships is faulty. An ISD has 11 hull points, so 1 damage is only about 9% of it's damage capacity (less on a Motti ship). However, a CR90 only has 4 hull points, so 1 damage is 25%. That is a HUGE difference. Different hull values is how the game handles the different resilience of the ships. Damage is constant, but ability to eat damage is not. Also, when it comes to speed determining damage, you would have to ensure that the amount dealt was still to both ships (both ships would have the same amount of unleashed energy from the collision), and to be honest I think this would just increase the likelihood of people playing the intentional ramming game. As for the larger ships being 'stopped,' I get where you are coming from on that, but I think that is simply a mechanic of a tabletop game that is designed to be simple and playable. Trying to have ships get knocked aside, having different rules for different size collisions, etc. would add a level of complexity that I think is just unnecessary.

On the maneuver tool, that is about as integral a part of this game as there is. I have played a couple of space combat simulator games before and nothing creates a feeling that how you maneuver your ships is as important as this does. Nor does anything 'feel' like moving large bulky ships around in space the way that this does (inertia is represented brilliantly by the tool, IMHO). Changing to a simple tape measure would completely change the game, and take away a lot of what makes maneuvering so important.

To the OP: I don't know that I agree with some of your premises. Your assertion that the damage is 'the same' on the two ships is faulty. An ISD has 11 hull points, so 1 damage is only about 9% of it's damage capacity (less on a Motti ship). However, a CR90 only has 4 hull points, so 1 damage is 25%. That is a HUGE difference. Different hull values is how the game handles the different resilience of the ships. Damage is constant, but ability to eat damage is not. Also, when it comes to speed determining damage, you would have to ensure that the amount dealt was still to both ships (both ships would have the same amount of unleashed energy from the collision), and to be honest I think this would just increase the likelihood of people playing the intentional ramming game. As for the larger ships being 'stopped,' I get where you are coming from on that, but I think that is simply a mechanic of a tabletop game that is designed to be simple and playable. Trying to have ships get knocked aside, having different rules for different size collisions, etc. would add a level of complexity that I think is just unnecessary.

On the maneuver tool, that is about as integral a part of this game as there is. I have played a couple of space combat simulator games before and nothing creates a feeling that how you maneuver your ships is as important as this does. Nor does anything 'feel' like moving large bulky ships around in space the way that this does (inertia is represented brilliantly by the tool, IMHO). Changing to a simple tape measure would completely change the game, and take away a lot of what makes maneuvering so important.

Spot on. Hadn't thought of it like that, but you're 100% correct.

Do ramming lamenters deserve a good old fashioned greeblehauling???

The only change I would make is that a collision should end the activation of a ship, so that a ship which collided cannot use engine techs (to eliminate the possibility of double rams) or take any action such as shooting (looking at you, Demolisher).

To the OP: I don't know that I agree with some of your premises. Your assertion that the damage is 'the same' on the two ships is faulty. An ISD has 11 hull points, so 1 damage is only about 9% of it's damage capacity (less on a Motti ship). However, a CR90 only has 4 hull points, so 1 damage is 25%. That is a HUGE difference. Different hull values is how the game handles the different resilience of the ships. Damage is constant, but ability to eat damage is not. Also, when it comes to speed determining damage, you would have to ensure that the amount dealt was still to both ships (both ships would have the same amount of unleashed energy from the collision), and to be honest I think this would just increase the likelihood of people playing the intentional ramming game. As for the larger ships being 'stopped,' I get where you are coming from on that, but I think that is simply a mechanic of a tabletop game that is designed to be simple and playable. Trying to have ships get knocked aside, having different rules for different size collisions, etc. would add a level of complexity that I think is just unnecessary.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of it from the perspective of relative damage, in terms of "the same." And I also suppose that my tone indicated I disapprove of ramming, when I'm actually all for it (especially as a user of the CR90). But only in a way that makes sense (like not the engine tech double tap) and only presents itself as a last ditch effort with more severe consequences rather than "I AM going to shoot then ram that ship to finish it off and still have enough hull left on my tiny ship to cause some more grief).

As far as complexity and keeping the game simpler, you are absolutely correct. Armada is already a complicated game with lots of rule lawyering. However, the lawyering on mechanics like those here suggested would be pretty hard to accomplish when speeds are set, the maneuver tool is set, ship size is set, and damage totals would be set. perhaps adding more than 1 layer would be too much, but a single layer, like size or speed shouldn't be hard to accomplish.

But to give creedance to an earlier comment, the level of realism v. complexity in this game is plenty enjoyable. And while CR90s are my go-to ships, I do realize the paradox in my plea for more realism versus the fact that CR90s ought to more resemble flotillas in this game than an actual ship given actual relative sizes. And that CR90s are much better AS than anti ship.

I find it funny that people complain about ramming and they want it more "accurate" or "realistic". Yet we have ships that if we applied real physics would only be able to fly straight. Never mind all this Tokyo drifting they do.

Not to mention we are playing on a 2D battlefield. You can suspend your belief for those aspects of the game but not ramming?

Ramming is fine.

So all those that complain a bigger ship should take less damage from ramming...technically it does.

Look at it as a percentage of a ships hull. A CR90 takes 25% damage when ramming, and Star Destroyer takes 9% damage.

the part I don't like (and its been wrong to me since my first game of SWA) about the rule as written is bigger ships being stopped by smaller ones the smaller ones should be pushed out of the way by just sliding the bigger ship to the end of its move and the smaller one ends up wear ever it gets pushed to. (super simple)

No. Ramming is fine.

For all the reasons laid out in last week's thread that just dropped off the front page.

The problem with something that simple, though, is that some people are really touchy about their models. The rules do prevent the intentional and over-aggressive manipulation of game pieces, which theoretically would prevent the unsportsmanlike manipulation of what you are suggesting, but there are many who definitely would not be ok with that. A rule similar to squadron overlapping would maybe suffice.