I would be much happier if FFG did their job and issued a FAQ for the numerous unresolved situations that are being discussed on the rules forum, in a timely manner. I feel the period for a FAQ including waves 3 and 4 are past due. We pay a LOT of money to support this game and until they make an official statement that Armada is no longer supported, it is their duty as a game vendor to address issues, especially for games with officially sanctioned tourneys, such as Armada. We shouldn't be doing the job we are paying them to do.

I'm pointing the finger at FFG for this. They should have already released a FAQ including wave 3 and 4 issues and it should also include a much-needed flow chart for all game effects and states, similarly to one released for X-Wing. It's been 6 weeks since the official release date of waves 3 and 4. That's more than enough time.

Luckily and thankfully, Armada doesn't have a lot of issues and has much less than many other games of its complexity level.

I'd be willing to spearhead a thread that documents all the known issues so far if I can get some help from people feeding me information on where to find this stuff. I'm going to email FFG today and see if they will allow us to get a sticky thread on it.

I'm considering having a format of what the topic is, the link to find it, and a quick summary of the major arguments on how the issue at hand.

Suggestions?

Honestly, I would help with this as well.

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for a sticky thread in the rules sub forum. If they allow it, I will start another thread for people to contribute their ideas.

Great work!

See "just do it"

This also has the added benefit that there is seperation between the unofficial rule creators and the messenger. If you dont like a version of the rules as suggested, then you will have to work quite hard to find out who to blame.

Also, you dont necessarily need to wait for FFG to sticky a thread for you.

I happen to have decent skills at continuously bumping threads to the top of the forum and am happy to do so for this.

I'm not doing anything this weekend so I plan on putting close to 20 hours into this.

My girlfriend might be concerned with how much time I dwell on Armada now that I'm done with college...

I'm not doing anything this weekend so I plan on putting close to 20 hours into this.

My girlfriend might be concerned with how much time I dwell on Armada now that I'm done with college...

If my weekend is less busy than I expect I'll try to chip in. I'll drop you a PM if/when I find the time.

I'm not doing anything this weekend so I plan on putting close to 20 hours into this.

My girlfriend might be concerned with how much time I dwell on Armada now that I'm done with college...

If it helps, Biggs, this is the Alamo City Fleet Command Official Unofficial Temporary FAQ:

1) Is Jamming Field toggleable?

No.

2) Does G8 allow you to shut down the Engine Tech maneuver if you don't spend it on the regular maneuver?

Yes

3) Do multiple BCCs stack to give multiple offensive rerolls?

Yes

4) Do multiple Targeting Scramblers stack to give multiple defensive rerolls?

Yes

5) If you have Madine and Nav Team, does one nav token give you +2 yaw AND +/- 1 speed?

No, Maine duplicates the effects of Nav Team

6) If you have Tagge and Devastator, do tokens still count toward the bonus dice for Devastator if they have since been recovered with Tagge?

No

7) Does Slicer Tools force the target to reveal its current dial to the opponent before it's changed?

No

8) At what precise point do you have to declare that you're using G8? Becomes significant when the opponent is deciding whether to spend a banked nav token--does the target ship get the opportunity to spend the token after the G8 is used? Does the G8er get the opportunity to trigger G8 after the token is used? Who declares the end of the Determine Course Step?

G8 must trigger immediately before the Determine Course Step begins--ie, declare it immediately when the opponent goes into his movement--meaning a nav command can respond to G8, but G8 cannot respond to a nav command.

9) Fire Control Team... just... everything about it.

The default crit was meant to stack with XX-9; XX-9 stacks with APT; face-down ACM damage is not dealt faceup by either the default crit or XX-9; and you only need one crit icon to proc two effects, as long as it's the right color for all crit effects you want to trigger.

Discussion references here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/230127-world-cup-qualifier-rule-and-signup-thread/?p=2415256

I forgot about the g8 thing. That one actually comes up alot

That's a great start, and I will use those links. But I was thinking to expand both arguments on them so people can draw their own conclusion until the FAQ hits.

This is a good idea, if only to help new players find the information they need. However I'm not sure calling it a committee is right - they're not meeting to deliberate rules per se.

They're more of a team that collects and codifies rules questions, and their possible answers. One person could do it but sharing the workload will help ease the burden and slow the rate of burnout.

This is a good idea, if only to help new players find the information they need. However I'm not sure calling it a committee is right - they're not meeting to deliberate rules per se.

They're more of a team that collects and codifies rules questions, and their possible answers. One person could do it but sharing the workload will help ease the burden and slow the rate of burnout.

I like this better as an idea, rather than to argue how a rule should be.

Also I'm not sure I like the idea of investing popularity/power into certain peoples on this forum. I'm seeing a little too much ego and snide unfriendliness at times.

I also vote no confidence.

That's a great start, and I will use those links. But I was thinking to expand both arguments on them so people can draw their own conclusion until the FAQ hits.

I somewhat disagree. There will be individual threads for these debates to discuss the merit of the rulings. The FAQ could optionally link back to those threads and/or provide a rational for the decision. But the FAQ should make a definitave call in order to help players have consistency.

I don't need to agree with the community ruling in order to get the benefit of everyone playing the same way.

People can obviously choose to have a different interpretation, but they should do so with full knowledge that the community is playing a certain way,

That's a great start, and I will use those links. But I was thinking to expand both arguments on them so people can draw their own conclusion until the FAQ hits.

I somewhat disagree. There will be individual threads for these debates to discuss the merit of the rulings. The FAQ could optionally link back to those threads and/or provide a rational for the decision. But the FAQ should make a definitave call in order to help players have consistency.

I don't need to agree with the community ruling in order to get the benefit of everyone playing the same way.

People can obviously choose to have a different interpretation, but they should do so with full knowledge that the community is playing a certain way,

You misunderstand. There will be no interpretation on my part of how the cards interact. I will simply be posting the question, the links to the discussion, and summarize the major points on both sides. I will actually need help from both sides so I can give a gather the points they want incorporated into their argument.

For example, if I could get a brief statement on your view of Jamming Field, that would be great. And then I will pose the other side. Once the reader goes over that, they can go to the link for further details, or simply pick the interaction that they like more.

Once the FAQ hits, all of this becomes irrelevant, but it will help form the skeleton for the next wave, so I can get on top of it quicker.

You are more than welcome to help with this.

While I am also eager to get an FAQ, I think they are probably considering the balance of things VERY carefully, as this is an opportunity for them to decide if a) Demolisher needs fixing and b) how to fix it. With most of the premier events over and done, with Worlds remaining, they also have time to make sure the make the right calls, which is more important to me than x number of days since they are allowed to release a FAQ.

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Why would it? FFG already ruled on it.

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Yes. Unquestionably. It was a terrible call in the first place.

#beertalking

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Why would it? FFG already ruled on it.

To be fair, FFG already ruled on it before they changed their minds to the current ruling, so "we already have a ruling" hasn't proven to be an indicator of no future reversals.

And for what it's worth I would absolutely support a reversal on the current ruling. XI7s are still extremely prevalent and some kind of soft counter to them would be appreciated. Plus it would make that defensive retrofit slot on ships at least a bit more competitive than the "ECMs, duh" slot it currently is.

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Why would it? FFG already ruled on it.

Because AP has a cost and is more limited compared to XI-7s. I mean you need to have shields and spend a redirect for it. Plus it costs the defensive slot (Unless your using an Assault Cruiser). Compared to XI-7s which just cost a turbo laser slot.

Should the XI-7/Advanced Projectors decision change?

Why would it? FFG already ruled on it.

Because AP has a cost and is more limited compared to XI-7s. I mean you need to have shields and spend a redirect for it. Plus it costs the defensive slot (Unless your using an Assault Cruiser). Compared to XI-7s which just cost a turbo laser

Right. So why are you asking that here?

I doubt they would re-rule on that, but things like Jamming Field and whether or not Demolisher needs some light tweaks (engine techs, shooting after or before) are heavy decisions not to be taken lightly.