Hi. I'm not a beta tester, major event winner, or even a Flight Controller (or whatever those guys are called, darn work schedule keeps me from looking into the program). But I'm a little concerned about a timing issue I see developing very quickly as the game moves past wave 2. I've been forced by necessity to learn most of the rules backwards and forewards as a result of playing some unusual ship combinations, and would like to think I have a very complete understanding of the rules options when it comes to moving, attacking, and defending in Star Wars Armada.

That concern is the timing ability of certain effects that are not defined by the RRG, unlike effects such as effects such as "while" or "before" or "after." These problem effects have words like "during" or "resolves." These terms are very open, and not well defined. And because of that, the abilities change radically based on player interpretation and player order. Two players with the same abilities can have very different effects based on things like turn order, commands used, the decided wording of the card, other similar timing effects, and a host of other issues without firm definitions. Examples include players being unsure how G-8 Grav Projectors work, what happens when a player takes damage and repairs damage in the same action, and how abilities like Fire Control Team and Commander Sato should be implemented. Many of these difficult to define abilities are being introduced as the game matures beyond the initial core set rules reference.

In some systems where the game is designed by a company that is primarily concerned about model build quality these problems may not be as much of an issue. But in this game our models are pre-painted and Fantasy Flight seems intent on offering a quality tournament-focused game. Both of which I approve of.

Please, whenever possible, make the intended timing of your game abilities explicitly clear. If you can't make it clear in the card text, make it explicitly clear in an FAQ or Errata no later than mere days after the card is released. This will resolve numerous headaches as those of us introducing players to the game can explain exactly how these affects work. The game developers will see after even a cursory glance that the vast majority of the questions raised on these forums ultimately hinge on timing questions that are often not answered in the Rules reference Guide or FAQ, and which can wildly change the intended result of the card effect.

Recently, the X-Wing miniatures game received a definitions update that allowed new players to define with incredibly precise detail when and where certain game effects occurred. This same close look could potentially improve Armada greatly for many releases to come. Unlike X-Wing, Armada typically sees most or all of its action occur in a more condensed portion of game time (only 1-2 rounds out of 6 as opposed to infinite rounds until time runs out) and so more abilities are likely to directly clash during a given engagement round.

Thank you for even your briefest consideration.

thecactusman17

aka

Josh Posey, GenCon 2016 Flight 2 participant

I agree with what you are saying Cactus, but, we need to cut these designers a bit of slack. They test everything with, what, MAYBE 30 people. Then they release it to hundreds of thousands of people. What the designers may have thought was obvious, we may have found a devious way to obfuscate. I do think the designers try to make stuff clear and understandable, we the players are just much more inventive with interpretations.

I agree with what you are saying Cactus, but, we need to cut these designers a bit of slack. They test everything with, what, MAYBE 30 people. Then they release it to hundreds of thousands of people. What the designers may have thought was obvious, we may have found a devious way to obfuscate. I do think the designers try to make stuff clear and understandable, we the players are just much more inventive with interpretations.

I'll agree with you on the limited testing base, but I think that Cactus is spot on on rules clarifications. If you are going to introduce cards that affect the timing, I think it would be a logical inclusion for an errata describing how the developers intended the cards to be read, to alleviate interpretation. This can be done without telling the users all the combinations of uses of said cards.

I think the developers are doing a phenomenal job at advancing the game with these waves. But to give us 3 waves and a campaign expansion, introducing no fewer than 4 new mechanics, without some explanation or clarification of timing of effects is going to cause anguish in the community, especially on the tournament front. I know I wouldn't want to be a TO and have to make decisions based on such little information.

I was listening to The D6 Generation where they interview Isaac Vega, the designer of Ashes, Rise of the Pheonix Born. He used a template to ensure he used consistent language on the cards. That would be a very good idea to start I am sure.

But, for the most part do we have many such problems or just one or two?

I was listening to The D6 Generation where they interview Isaac Vega, the designer of Ashes, Rise of the Pheonix Born. He used a template to ensure he used consistent language on the cards. That would be a very good idea to start I am sure.

But, for the most part do we have many such problems or just one or two?

Really just one or two. Things that were not a part of the initial Rulebook such as Rieekan and such.

I was listening to The D6 Generation where they interview Isaac Vega, the designer of Ashes, Rise of the Pheonix Born. He used a template to ensure he used consistent language on the cards. That would be a very good idea to start I am sure.

But, for the most part do we have many such problems or just one or two?

Really just one or two. Things that were not a part of the initial Rulebook such as Rieekan and such.

I mentioned some items in the original post that I think are good candidates. For example, does Sato replace dice before or after they are rolled? G-8 Grav Projectors can potentially work before or after a player has committed to a speed and course, but if triggered afterwards they can retroactively make some maneuvers illegal, so what was the design intent?

I mean, the timing on G-8s is a question, but its not that questionable.

I agree with thecactusman17, and nice job on the well written post.

Armada needs a flow chart like the one recently released for X-Wing. It would help new players TREMENDOUSLY!!! There is 0 (ZERO!!!!!!!) chance a new Armada player can play this game correctly by just reading the RRG and LTP guides. I've seen many Armada players that have been playing since day 1 that do not play correctly and it hurts the game. No one likes to be told they are playing wrong ,and the move they just wanted to do isn't correct and their plans and game are now shot. Very frustrating for them.

It's not just 1 or 2 issues. It's not a few outstanding issues for us regular forumites. Non-forum players just read the RRG and LPT guide and some also read the FAQs. The FAQ needs a flow diagram on when important things occur like, using accuracies, and how they relate to defense tokens, and when damage from Assault Concussion Missiles occur with these other 2, and the same for Assault Proton Torpedos, and when you use your dial and when you change your speed and how the nav token works with these things. New players have no clue, and many vets don't.

The chart should also show where all effects take place and in what order. The G8 timing being discussed in another thread needs clarification ASAP.

Urgh.

I am so torn on this.

By all means, try to make things "easier"... But you can't fault what is there to the level that is being done.

The rules are there, though... And they're clear and precise. People just don't read them. They get taught by other players, which introduces recursive mistakes as those players were taught, and so-on and so-forth...

How many times have we resolved questions on attacking, simply by quoting the rulebook ....... That doesn't mean the rule is poorly written. It means people have either failed to read it, or failed to understand it in context...

I'm pretty sure that if you have a flow chart, at this point, people will simply fail to read that , because it will come to light that they have been doing something wrong in the interim, and will refuse to admit it...

Rarg.

I think that when you're having to jump through multiple different sections of the rule book before FAQs to get to understanding how a single card works like G-8, there's a problem.

I agree Drasnighta. Most people who read the rulebooks aren't adept at comprehending complex rulebooks. They just don't get it or give up. A flow-chart will at least show players where things are done and that is much better than rules that confuse most people. I've played 1,000s of games and have been board/computer playing games for 40 years and most people struggle with rulebooks, some more than others, but most can't get the rules correct no matter how many times they read them. Armada isn't easy to learn correctly, and that doesn't help.

Don't forget those people who read the rules but add in their own tidbits such as rolling Add abilities during the initial attack and such. . . I have seen High level players do this. . . annoys me to no end. . .

The word "resolve" and its variations shows up in the Star Wars Armada Rules Reference Guide and FAQ a combined 75 times and yet what it means in game terms is never explained. The word "During" occurs 66 times in the RRG and FAQ, yet it too is left up to the player to define. Both words are even used in the Effect Use and Timing section of the FAQ, but are used to define other timing issues.

We have two words repeated 141 times that are directly used to define timing for other cards in the RRG and FAQ without a definition themselves.

This is the sort of issue I'm talking about. It's more than any one card, though some cards demonstrate the issue more than others.

I think alot of this has to do with how timing works in this game.

An example being the way dice are modified.

The designers have already stated that the timing on dice modifying card is intentionally left open ended to allow the roller to resolve dice modifiers in the order that the he chooses.

And unlike other games there is no limit on the number of times a die can be re-rolled per turn. with the only restriction being that you can't use a source more then once.

But if you have the characters/upgrades to do it you can.

Leaving the timing open allows for cards to be use tactically.

for this reason I feel that the wording was intentionally left open on some cards.

all timing issues are discussed on page 5 of the rules reference guide.

and remember this is not magic there is no first in last out rule or exact timing use in this game.

The word "resolve" and its variations shows up in the Star Wars Armada Rules Reference Guide and FAQ a combined 75 times and yet what it means in game terms is never explained. The word "During" occurs 66 times in the RRG and FAQ, yet it too is left up to the player to define. Both words are even used in the Effect Use and Timing section of the FAQ, but are used to define other timing issues.

We have two words repeated 141 times that are directly used to define timing for other cards in the RRG and FAQ without a definition themselves.

This is the sort of issue I'm talking about. It's more than any one card, though some cards demonstrate the issue more than others.

I like your approach and very much support your plea for a clear-cut, precise language in game rules. Good idea would be to employ some of the most eager rule-benders on a consultant level and let them go havoc on new rules. Anything that survives the regular carnage should be well-suited for the average player, occasional outliers excluded.

Otherwise, have some law-consulting office write the rules. Wait 1+years for each rule release as overpaid consultants try to garrote each other with their ties over the meaning of the word during. Once released, learn that due to some minor spikes regarding the overall consulting expenses, FFG had to increase the suggested resale price by ~1300%. Apply for a new mortgage at your bank of convenience to afford your new MSU build idea, probably resulting in getting divorced.

Satire aside, I do feel that Hesekiel has a point. I have played a HUGE variety of games over the past two deecades, and the only company I have direct experience that puts more effort into having iron clad rule sets than FFG, is Privateer Press: A company with only one game and only 2 rulesets to clarify and balance. In my experience, when there is a real disagreement on how a thing works in these FFG products, either a real mistake is made and a clarification is often quickly forthcoming OR someone has found a gap in the rules and are exploiting something that where the rules have a clear implication, but don't explicitly say for definate what the rule is. It's rare for how an effect behaves to be truly counter-intuitive. (It has happened)

In short, I agree that clarity is the most desirable state. But I think the standards being asked for here might be a little above and beyond what is reasonable.

someone has found a gap in the rules and are exploiting something that where the rules have a clear implication, but don't explicitly say for definate what the rule is. It's rare for how an effect behaves to be truly counter-intuitive. (It has happened)

Without looking up FAQs or the resolution on these forums, can you answer, citing just from the rules and card text:

Can G8 prevent Engine Techs?

If a squadron with Grit is engaged by two squadrons, one with heavy and one without, can it move?

Can a bomber within range of two BCCs reroll the die twice?

If a ship with XI7 attacks a ship with Advanced Projectors, can the AP ship redirect one damage to each shield, or one damage to one shield?

If a squadron is engaged by one squadron with heavy at distance 1 of Instigator, can it shoot at Instigator? What about at another ship? What if the engaging squadron has heavy and escort?

If you're using Rieekan and playing Fire Lanes and lose a ship with dice on the objective tokens, are dice totaled for the objective before or after the ship is destroyed?

If so, I would love for you to hang around here more, because you can answer questions that none of the rest of us can.

Not all, but many of these questions could have been prevented by the implementation of a clear "stack" or "ladder" timing structure. I think OP is right on the money that this game could use such a mechanic for clarity.

The word "resolve" and its variations shows up in the Star Wars Armada Rules Reference Guide and FAQ a combined 75 times and yet what it means in game terms is never explained. The word "During" occurs 66 times in the RRG and FAQ, yet it too is left up to the player to define. Both words are even used in the Effect Use and Timing section of the FAQ, but are used to define other timing issues.

We have two words repeated 141 times that are directly used to define timing for other cards in the RRG and FAQ without a definition themselves.

This is the sort of issue I'm talking about. It's more than any one card, though some cards demonstrate the issue more than others.

I like your approach and very much support your plea for a clear-cut, precise language in game rules. Good idea would be to employ some of the most eager rule-benders on a consultant level and let them go havoc on new rules. Anything that survives the regular carnage should be well-suited for the average player, occasional outliers excluded.

Otherwise, have some law-consulting office write the rules. Wait 1+years for each rule release as overpaid consultants try to garrote each other with their ties over the meaning of the word during. Once released, learn that due to some minor spikes regarding the overall consulting expenses, FFG had to increase the suggested resale price by ~1300%. Apply for a new mortgage at your bank of convenience to afford your new MSU build idea, probably resulting in getting divorced.

I'm suggesting that there needs to be a greater clarity on where within a given turn an intended effect is designed to take place. the word "during" can refer to any point within a given period, and the word "resolves" in particular is present and future tense simultaneously depending on the context.

Here's an example: G-8 Grav Projectors trigger "before an enemy ship ... resolves the Determine Course step." However, this is an awkward placement. "Resolves" by dictionary definition is the appropriate tense for present progressive tense and future progressive tense. it is just as reasonable to say that the G-8s have to be declared before the Determine Course step even begins as it is to say they have to be declared before it ends.

So my opponent decides he wants to use G-8s to slow my ship down. Strictly by dictionary definition of the word "during" I can then choose to spend the token or dial in response, as it is still the Determine Course step. I can even make a strong argument that the word "resolves" could refer to the entire Determine Course step, as "Resolves" can be a past, present, and future tense in English. So I could turn to them and say that they have to resolve G-8s before I even start premeasuring with the tool or consider whether or not I want to spend my command.

These confusing situations would be avoided by expanding, through an FAQ or errata, the Effect Timing rules part of the FAQ.

At the very least, when you add certain cards that upon being spoiled lead to a multipage debate on the rule forum, maybe come down off the ivory tower and clue us in. That would be great.

At the very least, when you add certain cards that upon being spoiled lead to a multipage debate on the rule forum, maybe come down off the ivory tower and clue us in. That would be great.

"... He will learn (more than 30 days of) Patience...."

At the very least, when you add certain cards that upon being spoiled lead to a multipage debate on the rule forum, maybe come down off the ivory tower and clue us in. That would be great.

"... He will learn (more than 30 days of) Patience...."

This isn't about patience. I love FFG, and will happily keep hemorrhaging money into their coffers for their phenomenal games. I'm happy to allow them to take 7 months to drop a product if it means I get awesome stuff like the Liberty. But there's no good reason I've seen that they can't toss us a little clarification on the big obvious questions at street date. I'm not saying they need the whole FAQ. There's bound to be stuff that we/they don't see until it gets on the tables of the playerbase at large. But we know they read these boards. I know its policy that they don't interact. Just the big obvious stuff, maybe drop us the word so we aren't playing wrong for a month.

I mean, the whole thing with Sato is a perfect example. People are legit confused as to how he works, because I don't think replace had been used in text before. This is a brand new commander that is gonna see tons of boards when thay drops. Now, maybe when the pelta preview comes out, they'll avoid the issue and clarify it some. That would be awesome, and honestly I would pretty surprised if they didn't. But if they don't, we're waiting 30 days to be sure we have it right or find out its wrong.

Really not a patience thing, in my opinion. Just a reasonable expectation that the rules of the game I'm buying are available at the time I buy the product

Not to jump down your throat or anything Dras, I get that you were just ribbing me. But I felt a need to say that.

At the very least, when you add certain cards that upon being spoiled lead to a multipage debate on the rule forum, maybe come down off the ivory tower and clue us in. That would be great.

"... He will learn (more than 30 days of) Patience...."

I mean, the whole thing with Sato is a perfect example. People are legit confused as to how he works, because I don't think replace had been used in text before. This is a brand new commander that is gonna see tons of boards when thay drops. Now, maybe when the pelta preview comes out, they'll avoid the issue and clarify it some. That would be awesome, and honestly I would pretty surprised if they didn't. But if they don't, we're waiting 30 days to be sure we have it right or find out its wrong.

Not to jump down your throat or anything Dras, I get that you were just ribbing me. But I felt a need to say that.

No worries at all.

And in the means of serious statements:

I think one thing that could be added is - even if they do clarify Sato when the Pelta Preview comes out, no-one will believe it , one way or the other, because its just a preview and no-one trusts a preview anymore... I mean, if they did, then the whole G-7 and Dangerous Territory thing wouldn't have been an issue at all, because it is shown there....

...

But then we'd also have issues with Foresight discarding four enemy dice a turn because it was initially showing using two evades on the one attack...

...

Maybe I'm just biased because I can read rules. I do digest them...

I'd love to be able to go over things in the short term, and make decisions, or at least put something up to make decisions flow faster out... But FFG's policy is FFG's policy, and I highly doubt they'll change it in the meantime - they just have too much work to do, by all research I have done (which, on FFG's working portfolios and practices, was quite a bit - because I was honestly putting in time at trying to build a portfolio to work there at one stage).... The 30 day period is partially to assist them in identifyng, codifying, and responding to problems that arise that they have not seen, and confirming problems that they have forseen, but to see if the greater public also provides a solution that they can then ratify...

There are numerous problems about. And none of them have "simple" solutions to them... As much as I'd love to see them...

... like I said earlier, I'm torn as all hell on a lot of this right now.

Lol, you are spot on regarding the preview's credulity.

I feel like though, there are a lot of things its fine to wait the 30 days and see what happens. Xi7/AP was one of those things, maybe sit back and see how the balance plays. Sure.

But, and the G7/ Dangerous Territory is a perfect example, when you introduce entirely new mechanics such as shifting obstacles after they have been dropped, where RAW becomes somewhat murky, or Sato's ability to replace dice, where the operative word doesn't even exist in the RAW, I feel like there's a responsibility to the player-base to tell us by the time we get the product in hand. If their staff is so overburdened that such a momentous task of releasing a note or a locked forum post clarifying like 2 or 3 cards a wave is beyond them, then its good news that their games are doing so well. Because they clearly need to expand their workforce.

Hell Dras, they should hire you to do what you do now for free, and just give you a line to the development team for the toughies.

Probably could pay you in coffee.

My Credibility would be shot ...

Imagine me. Actually a Rules Guru.....