I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

I always do that when I TO: post a "Tourney FAQ" on the Facebook event.

It seems to have caught on with other TOs as well.

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

If anything all players at the official tournament should have somewhat of a say.

Before the tourney begins, the judge looks at all the lists to see if there are any that have RLBs. Those players and others can have an opportunity to be heard on their stance, and the presiding judge makes a ruling. That's all that's required really (until the FAQ).

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

If anything all players at the official tournament should have somewhat of a say.

Before the tourney begins, the judge looks at all the lists to see if there are any that have RLBs. Those players and others can have an opportunity to be heard on their stance, and the presiding judge makes a ruling. That's all that's required really (until the FAQ).

You accept when you enter a tournament that the Marshal can, has, or will make a Ruling.

You may present beforehand, of course - but the Marshal's say is final.

The Marshal does not have to hear arguments, listen to suggestions, or do anything other than make a decision.

That is the level of trust that is placed in the Marshal.

If you do not accept that, you do not accept the tournament rules, and are thus, exempt from playing in said tournament.

End of Story. (As far as the Tournament Guidelines are concerned).

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

If anything all players at the official tournament should have somewhat of a say.

Before the tourney begins, the judge looks at all the lists to see if there are any that have RLBs. Those players and others can have an opportunity to be heard on their stance, and the presiding judge makes a ruling. That's all that's required really (until the FAQ).

A good TO would probably take input on a disputed ruling like that, unless he's already familiar with the issue ahead of time in which case he should be promulgating rulings like that up front. But he's not required to: the TO has final say in any kind of rules dispute.

That said, it is also incumbent upon you as a player to be sure the TO is aware of potential issues that may arise with respect to your fleet and clarify them up front. If I'm going to play in a tourney during the dark times between a wave's release and the relevant FAQ, I always provide the TO a list of open questions for their consideration ahead of time. Prevents issues, lets people adjust list builds before showing up with something that doesn't work like they thought it would.

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

If anything all players at the official tournament should have somewhat of a say.

Before the tourney begins, the judge looks at all the lists to see if there are any that have RLBs. Those players and others can have an opportunity to be heard on their stance, and the presiding judge makes a ruling. That's all that's required really (until the FAQ).

You accept when you enter a tournament that the Marshal can, has, or will make a Ruling.

You may present beforehand, of course - but the Marshal's say is final.

The Marshal does not have to hear arguments, listen to suggestions, or do anything other than make a decision.

That is the level of trust that is placed in the Marshal.

If you do not accept that, you do not accept the tournament rules, and are thus, exempt from playing in said tournament.

End of Story. (As far as the Tournament Guidelines are concerned).

Yet there is nothing from prohibiting a marshal from "hear[ing] arguments, [or] listen[ing] to suggestions.." I used the word should specifically because I believe letting the players have a say is aspirational.

Like Ard said, a good Marshal will likely field suggestions or arguments before making a ruling if he or she hasn't already made one.

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.

Yea a few months ago someone thought it would be a good idea to make a "council" of players to come up with their own FAQ while we waited for FFG. Then players were nominated and voted for. Rumor is the people that got voted for caught a lot of hate mail from angry players so it never took off.

If anything all players at the official tournament should have somewhat of a say.

Before the tourney begins, the judge looks at all the lists to see if there are any that have RLBs. Those players and others can have an opportunity to be heard on their stance, and the presiding judge makes a ruling. That's all that's required really (until the FAQ).

You accept when you enter a tournament that the Marshal can, has, or will make a Ruling.

You may present beforehand, of course - but the Marshal's say is final.

The Marshal does not have to hear arguments, listen to suggestions, or do anything other than make a decision.

That is the level of trust that is placed in the Marshal.

If you do not accept that, you do not accept the tournament rules, and are thus, exempt from playing in said tournament.

End of Story. (As far as the Tournament Guidelines are concerned).

Yet there is nothing from prohibiting a marshal from "hear[ing] arguments, [or] listen[ing] to suggestions.." I used the word should specifically because I believe letting the players have a say is aspirational.

Like Ard said, a good Marshal will likely field suggestions or arguments before making a ruling if he or she hasn't already made one.

But in the end, how is that different from the marshal just making the decision beforehand>?

I mean, to put the personal touch on it:



Coming up, I am going to be the Official One-Point Delegated Judge for a Major Tournament.

Do I need to canvass everyone beforehand?

Should I even attempt to?

When I feel I can rightly claim that I have already done my research and discussion and are quite prepared to make a call?

And is it wrong to assume, and to feel, that I have done my research by coming here, online, and reading the Rules Discussions and Threads (Both in Rules, and in the Main Forum - urgh) and formulating my own opinion?

I mean, to put the personal touch on it:

Coming up, I am going to be the Official One-Point Delegated Judge for a Major Tournament.

Do I need to canvass everyone beforehand?

Should I even attempt to?

When I feel I can rightly claim that I have already done my research and discussion and are quite prepared to make a call?

And is it wrong to assume, and to feel, that I have done my research by coming here, online, and reading the Rules Discussions and Threads (Both in Rules, and in the Main Forum - urgh) and formulating my own opinion?

Nice.

All I can say is that each judge has his or her own approach, but that I am the type of person who would engage a judge and/or marshal to voice my stance. A judge may prepared to make a certain ruling, but then hear a new argument, and change his or her own mind if they haven't made that ruling yet (sort of how things work in real life). If I think it's an argument worth presenting, then I'm going to go out of my way to make it, even if you, or any other judge decides not to "canvass" or whatever method a judge/marshal employs.

If you already have a predetermined ruling in mind then that's okay, but I'd least field the conversation. What is the worst that could happen?

If you already have a predetermined ruling in mind then that's okay, but I'd least field the conversation. What is the worst that could happen?

From Personal Experience>?

I get no less than six people who approach me with heated words.

2 of them who shout in my face.

And one who physically threw a punch when I stated that I disagreed with him, and that if he was intending to cheat by ignoring the ruling that I was intending to make, that I would eject him from the tournament as per the tournament regulations.

And that's the face-to-faces.

It doesn't account for the Forum and Facebook Hate Mail.

If you already have a predetermined ruling in mind then that's okay, but I'd least field the conversation. What is the worst that could happen?

From Personal Experience>?

I get no less than six people who approach me with heated words.

2 of them who shout in my face.

And one who physically threw a punch when I stated that I disagreed with him, and that if he was intending to cheat by ignoring the ruling that I was intending to make, that I would eject him from the tournament as per the tournament regulations.

And that's the face-to-faces.

It doesn't account for the Forum and Facebook Hate Mail.

Sorry to hear that.

If you already have a predetermined ruling in mind then that's okay, but I'd least field the conversation. What is the worst that could happen?

From Personal Experience>?

I get no less than six people who approach me with heated words.

2 of them who shout in my face.

And one who physically threw a punch when I stated that I disagreed with him, and that if he was intending to cheat by ignoring the ruling that I was intending to make, that I would eject him from the tournament as per the tournament regulations.

And that's the face-to-faces.

It doesn't account for the Forum and Facebook Hate Mail.

Who dares to stand against the will of Dras? SUCH MEN EXIST TO SERVE AS A WARNING TO OTHERS.

For reals though I've never understood the hate you get on the forums. You seem to give a lot of care and concern to your reading of the rules and you seem to always want to be as fair and judicious as possible. We've got a dumpster fire post about squadrons on the front page and yet Dras is the one getting hate mail. Life's not fair.

My only issue with any TO or whoever making a decision for a tournament on something that isn't faq'd is that they themselves shouldn't also be playing in that tournament. And people should know ahead of time what the ruling is prior to showing up. Unless they are allowed to change their list last minute.

My only issue with any TO or whoever making a decision for a tournament on something that isn't faq'd is that they themselves shouldn't also be playing in that tournament. And people should know ahead of time what the ruling is prior to showing up. Unless they are allowed to change their list last minute.

Don't worry. Hothgary Regionals, Greg's only playing if there's uneven numbers, and he'll probably be borrowing my spare Imps to do it...

I mean, Judge/Marshals can only play at the Lower levels, anyway... As soon as you start hitting the Upper Tiers of Competition, you can't do both. (As I am sure you are well aware, but I state only for general information purposes )

I get no less than six people who approach me with heated words.

2 of them who shout in my face.

And one who physically threw a punch when I stated that I disagreed with him, and that if he was intending to cheat by ignoring the ruling that I was intending to make, that I would eject him from the tournament as per the tournament regulations.

I have never seen anything even remotely resembling this in a year and a half of playing Armada regularly. In Texas.

Y'all Canadians got a hell of a smokescreen going with the whole politeness thing. Or you just confuse Armada and hockey etiquette.

Wasn't my usual group. Was one of my first groups. But even then, I stuck it out - and the Hothgary group now is a good group of People.


its also not unique to Armada.

So Dras- how would you interpret the card right now if you had to as a TO?

So Dras- how would you interpret the card right now if you had to as a TO?

Thats not fair on him

... is it unfair to ask how one who frequently acts as a TO would rule as a TO? That's cool if so- I just wanted to hear his thought process.

... I didn't want to.

Because, as I said, I was intending on attempting to take Rapid Launch Bays in either argued configuration to the Hothgary Regionals, and I didn't want to be biasing the TO of the Regional (who does ask my opinion) on which was it was, beforehand... Kind of hoping that we either got an FAQ before the Day, or at least, some other guidance came first.

BUT .

I have to, now. As I have been asked to Judge an upcoming comp, and a ruling was specifically asked for as soon as possible...

So, here is me pouring my heart out on interactions and thoughts...

There are two schools of thought, and each of them revolve around the words "instead" and "activation".

The first interpretation of the card is as follows:

I Spend my Squadron Command.
Instead of doing anything activating that squadron, I place the Squadron within Distance 1.

This Squadron is placed Unactivated, and does nothing, other than being placed.

As a further caveat, the Squadron that was just placed, cannot move this (ship) activation .

The second interpretation is as follows:
Instead of doing a regular squadron command, where I pick a squadron and move and shoot it,
I place a set aside squadron. This counts as its activation and its movement. It is allowed to shoot immediately , but counts as activated.

Both interpretations are not only legal in the fact that they do not contradict any other specific rules or FAQs, but they are both plausable in both rules interactions, and indeed, in power applications of the game.

From this point, I'll just refer to them as Purple and Orange as above, as to not inherently bias anything (First/Second, Red/Blue, Green/Red)... Its a small thing, but its part of my thought process, and that is what is asked for.

Purple allows you to fully deploy a set of squadrons, but those squadrons are limited in what they can actually do, other than grant awesome positioning...

They cannot be shunted along with FCTs (which is the other primary method of gaining awesome positioning with Squadrons), but with a secondary Ship to activate them, they gain their full Movement + Shooting capabilities... This has the potential to seriously extend a squadrons threat range, but requires the "multiple moving parts" aspect to work correctly... Squadrons have to be placed, they have to sit through an enemy activation, and then, and only then, can they actually accomplish anything... But what they could be accomplishing is quite powerful, being that they may be subject to other effects, such as Flight Controllers, or the coveted Yavaris. On the Imperial side, this would include additional movement from Corruptor or Vector or such, as well as the Flight Controllers or other such bonuses.

Orange does not just present an awesome positioning ability, but a dedicated first-strike method. It does involve having a suitably equipped ship in position before activating the ship (or judicious application of the Flight Commander upgrade Card)... Because the squadrons are placed down, are immedaitely activated and immediately finish their activation by shooting... The Positioning of the Squadrons is not all that restricted, barring a heavily impacted battlefield or judicious use of enemy CAP... But without the Enemy preparing and placing things in your way (or even if you do and just have one of those be an Intel Ship), you potentially slam damage directly onto an enemy that has already been weakened by Shooting, or in preparation for your shooting...

Now, after looking at the Theoretical applications of both of them, let us see how "Bad" things could be. IE, let us try to break the game or Upgrade with its application...

Under the Orange Ruling:

The Imperial-I Star Destroyer comes immediately to mind with first-strike capability. The Squadron Command Value is used, so the Rapid Launch Bays would stack with the bonus provided by Expanded Hangar Bays (as Rapid Launch is not a Modification)... This is further added to with Flight Commander for the Crew Upgrade Slot.

The Imperial is going to Shoot its Front Arc (which, in itself, as we know, can be quite devestating to enemy Shields)... Then it can move, getting closer or still attempting to stand off... Then the Flight Commander allows you to place down Major Rhymer and 4 Bombers.

Major Rhymer and the bombers has quite the preferential range, and adds 5 Medium Range Black Dice (effectively) to the Imperials Firepower.

How does this differ from the ISD just giving the Squadron Command in the first place?

Unless the enemy is completlely swarming the ISD, you can utilise Rhymer and his Range advantage to be placed in such a way as to not be engaged - and guarantee their firing capability... A Single A-Wing thrown forward is not going to be able to lock them down - they're going to be able to place and shoot...

On the Rebel side, naturally, you're looking at B-Wings... A Carrier with B-Wings that can Dump their dice in your face at close range... With Judicious applicaitns of B-Wings, Norra and Toryn Farr on your carrier, you can deal ladels of dice into the enemy's face and drop almost anything's shields...

A singular fun application is using Quantum Storm with a Banked Nav Token and a Squadron Command

The Purple Side's applications of the above are a little different - because in order to be able to actually shoot those squadrons this turn, and gain anything other than positioning, we're going to have to rely on something else. Now, there are numerous someting elses, and they are including (but not limited to)

The Rogue Rule.

Another Ship being within Distance to give a Command.

Having a Relay Squadron being one or more of the Squadrons you Deploy, and then relying on another Ship.

Getting lucky and still having a Target nearby in the Squadron Phase.

The potential for getting, say, B-Wings up the Table unmolested, past a fighter screen, and then being able to activate them with Yavaris is **** tempting , but starts to put things in the "many moving parts" category.

So now, given the two examples of relative power (and ease of use for that power), I look at the Upgrade itself.

It is in a moderately contested slot (The Offensive Retrofit) which most often sees Boosted Comms or Expanded Hangar bays. With the specific exception of the ISD-I it crowds out either of those upgrades. The price point of those upgrades is 4 and 5 respectively, with the Rapid Launch Bays being a 6.

In order to gain full effectiveness, there is multiple Officers that could be placed in its slot to assist... Without flight commander, you have to respect the order of operations for the command, in which you Reveal (and do) a Squadron Command before shooting and maneuvering... Which requires a good deal of forethought and foresight.

When we also compare "relative power" of other upgrades, we can see what the upgrade bands tend to be...

1-3 point upgrades are either eminently disposable, eminently unreliable, or a small benefit that could be leveraged in a timely manner.

4-8 point upgrades are quite staples... We're looking at numerous Turbolaser Upgrades, Officers providing bubble benefits, positioning bonuses and such...

Then we have some upgrades up in the 9-10 point, which on the face of things, could be eminently game breaking , or at least revolutionary ... We see Demolisher up there, of course, but looking at non-uniques , we're looking at things like Quad Turbolaser Turrets (which themselves, are providing benefits that flow on to objective choices and such), and high-return officers such as Adar Tallon or Rear Admiral Chiraneu...

So, in final thoughts:

If it were Cheaper, I'd immedaitely consider Purple.

If it were more Expensive, I'd immediately consider Orange.

In the middle, its a toss up.

So, given the bit of a toss up, I look at which will have a greater effect on the game ...

I am a great component of synergy , and firmly believe that the Designers intend for you to get greater rewards, the more moving parts you can successfully manage... Failing to manage the moving parts, or having a canny enemy disrupt them, is the valuable counter to the game design...

Game design rarely wants to immediately reward the point and click mentality, if you want to remain balanced in the long term - because the more point an clicks you introduce, the more simplistic overall balance and variety becomes.

Given that insight into games design in my former life,

I am liable to agree that Purple is more intended of the two...

The unfortunate part of it is, we also have additional effects and ramifications that need to be settled... Ergo, what happens when a Ship is Destroyed with those Set aside squadrons? How do we know what activation colour to have squadrons on?

There is only one place we can even hint at answers for that, and again, as a secondary (similar but non-related) source, is the Hyperspace Assault FAQ...

Given that, it gives some favourable answers to the Purple rules concept as well... As that dictates that squadrons off board are placed with their activation slider matching the turn counter (but, as a difference, this is a strict placement rather than a deployment )

I Spend my Squadron Command.
Instead of doing anything activating that squadron, I place the Squadron within Distance 1.

This Squadron is placed Unactivated, and does nothing, other than being placed. Its Activation Slider is set to match the Turn Colour.

As a further caveat, the Squadron that was just placed, cannot move this (ship) activation by means such as Fighter Coordination Team, or any other future further upgrade that grants immediate distance moves.

Once the Deploying Ship has finished its activation, the restriction of moving is removed, and the Squadron is Free to act as per normal, given the game state at that point...

People are, of course, Free to Disagree with my assessment. But as a TO, that is not only the decision I have come to, but how I have come to it... I hope that demonstrates a little as to the thought pattern I go through. I do give a lot of thought to the decisions I make. Theres not just what I want and hope to happen, and I don't argue from that precedent... I do my best to remain impartial, and look ahead into what I consider is best for the game ... Of course, that is inherently biased for me, as I enjoy the game design concept of Synergistic Rewards.

snip

Thank you for a well reasoned and thoughtful analysis.

While I believe everyone knows that I am on #teamorange, based on the wording on the card and everything else that you said, I agree that Purple is the way that it should be ruled until and unless an FAQ update establishes otherwise.

I lean pretty heavily towards orange here, under the reasoning the whole second paragraph, after the squadron trigger icon, is about the squadron. For the activation to be about the ship is entirely out of context, and while theoretically possible makes the least sense in terms of language. But hey, every has been over this three times already, so why not four .

I would also agree with the point cost assessment, except I think the 6 is high enough to support Orange as well.

The 'too many moving parts' get a bit reduced if a shuttle was dropped for purple, but that is a whole lot of points to make something go.

I honestly don't care either way. Both are reasonable. I have been considering the damage potential of one over the other...as well as how they will affect (meta power gaming (just for you IFF guys lol)). My thought process is below.

I think Orange doesn't really provide that much of an advantage over just flying them in normal anyways.. It is really just a super intel and no one can shoot at your squadrons until they drop this comes with the minus that you have to be in range when you finish your movement phase to drop them with flight commander or if you drop them earlier then you probably aren't in range unless you were just getting pummeled. (rhymer excepted but again can do this with normal sqn activation as well)

With regards to purple if it is your last ship that is dropping them anyways, then they will still get to shoot (during the squadron phase) later in the game at the same ship so long as it doesn't get to move after you did....then unfortunately this plays even more into the last activation (having more ships) battle...so I am not sure I want that to be the result.

For 6 points I look at something like gunnery teams a 7....basically allows you to double the potential for damage out one arc at different targets, this orange version of the rules doesn't really allow that much more damage (max 10 if 5 sqns from an ISD1 all roll either 2 blues or black hit crit)...which in theory they could do anyways from a normal sqn command.

So the overall gain of something like Orange happening (shooting right away)...vs something like purple happening (someone else having to activate them or waiting until sqn phase) isn't that really a big deal for me. Worse case scenario is an ISD1 dropping 5 bombers (of any type) on a ship...after it moves with Flight commander. .

So with that in mind, with regards to orange being the more immediate damage dealing scenario. This just means you might start keeping sqns without heavy, closer to their support ships so that when someone jumps on you to do something like this...they are probably overlapped...then you can place your sqns around their ship to make sure they are going to engage anything that he drops out his bays. Which I think you would do for either orange or purple scenario, since you are going to see it coming...(much like leaving a cloud of sqns for an MC 30 or Demo to jump into to protect a flank)

With regards to purple. The over complication of having to have a second ship jump with you after you move so that they can activate the sqns is overly complicated in my opinion. And for a non unique upgrade seems unlikely that FFG would require such an extreme level of synergy to make a card really work in Armada. Nothing else is that complicated. Although people sometimes try to make them that way.

The only reason I don't want this to be purple is I don't want to see a fight to have even higher ship activations (then there already is) so you can drop your sqns last and have them shoot unmolested in the sqn phase. Orange would give some life to 2 ship or 3 ship fleets again, since they would at least get their shot off. Although the fight for first activation would still be the same as it is now, (although I think the new objectives are going to affect that) the fight for ship activations wouldn't be as required.

Finally since this is a one time use card (unless you only drop 1 from a token) then 6 points to just carry them around for purple seems a bit expensive if we go the purple route.

Don't forget you also lose any deployments for any sqns you would keep off board until later. (another reason people might want more ships...sigh)

So in effect, I've argued myself into supporting Orange LOL....quicker death for ships (why I never minded demo either facing it or using it) and this is less likely to fuel the ship activation escalation. finally it would provide some love for smaller non flotilla fleets again.

PS I used red as I could barely see the orange on my screen. ha.

Dras, you magnificent b*st*rd.

After a post like that, I would've been sold with either outcome.

The devs must be reading this and going

"How the F*** did we get 12 pages of people arguing about something so simple?"

IMO whats the point of Rapid Launches then if Dras take on it (I use Dras's name because I remember him lol) is accurate? 6 points to drop upto 4 max squadrons to soak up some damage by engaging non intel'd bombers and not be able to attack with them? Seems pricey and something that will only be used for TIE fighters or Z95s.

I hope its the other POV, instead of activating a squadron thats on the board, you place a set aside sqn at distance 1 and then shoot if able.