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)

But it's not super simple because ships have rectangular bases and so trying to slide one out of the way is inevitably going to change its orientation, which will set it on an entirely different course. You can't just push them around and treat them like squadrons because the game simulates inertia and turning for capital ships while it doesn't for squadrons.

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.

The difference is that using the squadron rules for ship overlapping would have a WAY, WAY bigger impact on the game. Imagine you overlapped your VSD with your ISD on turn 2. Oops, these things happen. I as your opponent am going to place your VSD at the back of the ISD, pointing directly at the edge of the table. Gg, you just lost a 80-100-point ship because of a minor mistake.

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

^somebody read the old posts.

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.

The difference is that using the squadron rules for ship overlapping would have a WAY, WAY bigger impact on the game. Imagine you overlapped your VSD with your ISD on turn 2. Oops, these things happen. I as your opponent am going to place your VSD at the back of the ISD, pointing directly at the edge of the table. Gg, you just lost a 80-100-point ship because of a minor mistake.

So that's why it would be similar, but not the same. I.e., having the placement be limited to whichever side was rammed, and giving split choices if it was a corner, being placed flush and facing the same general direction as Prior to the collision.

And to the gentleman who posted the link to older posts, thank you. I read through that and its subsequent link to an even older post. I feel there were lots of hurt feelings on those, so thank you everyone for keeping it clean and classy here.

I think the overriding opinion from all three threads has been keeping the game simple and maintaining the balancing of point costs. But the overriding dissent is consistently, "Rieekan and CR90s suck. Why can't my ISD just blow them up?"

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?

Totally. All these space games are basically World War 2 set against a starry backdrop. Space fighters move like airplanes. Space ships moving like naval ships. Almost every single science fiction movie and book gets it wrong. There would be no such thing as dogfighting in space because you can't turn in space. If you wanted to change the direction you were moving, You would either have to: Turn the moving object 180 degrees and burn your engines to come to a complete stop, Then you would be able to point the direction you wanted to go and move that direction. Or, in some cases, you could burn at an entirely new third vector until your heading and speed changed to the desired vector.

Besides that, real space fighting would most likely be similar to sub warfare rather than surface carrier warfare. I honestly don't think there would even be space superiority fighters because they would serve no purpose. At most, you would see long range bombers that fly by their target at extremely high speeds while dropping some sort of payload.

Basically, what's more realistic shouldn't even come into play when discussing how ramming should play out.

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

I seem to recall a specific instance of an ISD collision in the movies.

If you don't like it, think of it as boarding actions or something then.

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

I seem to recall a specific instance of an ISD collision in the movies.

If you don't like it, think of it as boarding actions or something then.

I think I remember having a debate about this with someone. I said it does happen and they said it doesn't.

the ships don't actually collide. I watched it again and they don't. But why do the crew fall over like they did?

and go...

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?

Ramming.

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?

Ramming.

Collisions

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?

Ramming.

Collisions

Greeblehauling

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?

Ramming.

Collisions

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).

That actually makes sense! First collision tweak to make sense! Woot!

I think my preferred tweak would be dynamic collision damage based on ship sizes. Black dice when a large ship collides with you. Red dice when a medium ship collides with you.blue dice when a small ship collides with you. Roll a number equal to the speed of the faster ship.

I don't like that ships are absolutely impenetrable obstacles to each other. It makes traffic jams on the center and silliness like a single Raider being the key to defeating a conga line of MC80s and AFM2s. Large ships would then smear small ships across their hulls like bugs on the highway? Sounds fine to me.

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).

You take away a part of the risk system though. Sure they can double ram but if they do it can lead to them being killed in the next turn.

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.

You could turn with the Systems they use. . .well all except the Assault Frigate. All you would need to do is apply different thrust on the side thrusters. Well at least it works in my head though I could be wrong.

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

I seem to recall a specific instance of an ISD collision in the movies.

If you don't like it, think of it as boarding actions or something then.

I think I remember having a debate about this with someone. I said it does happen and they said it doesn't.

the ships don't actually collide. I watched it again and they don't. But why do the crew fall over like they did?

and go...

That would have been me and I do remember the debate.

They don't fall over, they they run to the side of the bridge because of inertia and because its dramatically more exciting.

Star Wars is a cinimatic fantasy i.e. Roaring ships and fighters in a vacuum , dogfighting in space, space slugs in asteroids. Etc etc etc

I don't like the collision rule either because I find that I end up using ramming to finish off ships as well because it works and it is a viable tactic in SW-A.

However I think FFG play tested the game and came to the conclusion any alternative would be worse than what we have so I accept it because we are playing KISS game based on a fantasy/cinamatic film(s).

part of me feels like ramming was a rule that was added if the "if this happens....." situation. If their wasnt ramming there would be uproar. It may not have been intended to be a viable tactic, but it is. watching 2 newer players play, the rebel player has a hard time finishing off an ISD with 1-2 HP left and when myself and the other veteran proclaim "ram it" both newbies say its not in the spirit of the game. sure it may feel dirty but its part of the game and use it.

I think if a ship has a smaller base it should take a face up damage card instead. if my ISD rams your cr90, take a face up. if your cr90 rams my isd take a face up. it adds to the scale of it, but i do understand that an ISD has 11 (14 for me) HP so 1 ram has minimal significance compared to it compared to a raider or cr90.

I do feel ramming is the only thing that keeps the ISD competitive for me. If i can get in a ramming dual with the ISD front arc i will table my opponent. it makes my play very telegraphed and savvy opponents will easily try to prevent that but the pay off is big.

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?

NO! Please don't!

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).

That would be a good rule. It's a little wonky now, but haven't heard good alternatives that aren't overly complex or more wonky.

Just like to say, if you still have a corvette sitting in front of an isd after you've fired your front ark into it, something probably needs to be reworked in your upgrades. Ramming works just fine.

Also, I love throwing raiders in front of helpless mc80s. And my friend never complains about the ramming rules then.

At my area regional i used ramming to my benefit it meant i had a 10-0 win with a mov of 367 which means i jump to 4th. Had there been a rule where a small ship is pushed out of the way of a larger ship the. It would of been a 7-3 win at most

Placing my mc30 in front of the mc80 locked them both dow. And stopped my mc30 from flying off the board and his flagship from getting away.

Shoulf large ship be able to push smaller ship out of the way yes, will it make since for a flotilla of rebel transport to prevent a isd from moving yes.

But there no better solutions. Just like if someone sit their ISD in a corner and forces a draw

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.

God no, non-discreet movement is terrible. I've seen enough sleazy and/or sloppy players use the movement tool in Armada to place a ship in a ridiculously impossible position (usually to get a double-arc shot or to avoid an arc). Heavens knows the sleazy neckbeards of 40k and other wargames are literally f$*#&ing incapable of using a tape measure for movement and range measurement and template scattering in anything resembling a fair, impartial, and accurate way (based on my past experiences).

If Armada did not have relatively discreet movement options (ie if it used a tape measure) I would not play it competitively.

That being said, "ramming" is an unthematic and not ideal gaming element that works as well as one could hope. Short of playing Armada on a 3-Dimenstional surface, we have to accept some non-ideal abstraction to keep the game playable.


If you hate the idea of ramming, you can assume it's the ships having to use inertial dampeners, sudden course corrections, navigational tractor beams, and point-defenses against one another as they pass so closely to one another and end up doing damage to their ships (even tough perhaps no "actual" ship-to-ship contact takes place).

Ramming and boarding Assaults are actually one of the most requested features of every space based game I know of. If they don't have one or both then players tend to complain a lot. Then again, when they do have one or both, players complain anyways

Ramming in space is silly- these are spaceships, not triremes.

I seem to recall a specific instance of an ISD collision in the movies.

If you don't like it, think of it as boarding actions or something then.

Ah, the ultimate example of getting too focused on your target that you don't notice anything else: "Chase the Millennium Falcon, we can catch it!... Whoops, it has decided to remember space is 3d and gone down... Oh, ****, where did that other mile long spaceship suddenly come from!?!"

Really, what were the crew doing on those ships? What was the plan? Why did they seem to think that the fact that the Millennium Falcon was between them meant that the fact they were going straight for each other didn't matter?"