I think the simplest fix is to take the rule FFG already uses in IA to address this exact problem:

If the opponent has more remaining activations than you, you can pass.

That lessens activation pressure (the n+1 activation has less value to a list) and greatly increases the value of large ships (because you can always delay to go last, so they don't get as horribly outmaneuvered). I think this would need to be playtested, but is likely to be a positive change for meta flexibility and the game.

I don't think that's a good idea. Demolisher is strong enough as it is. First player would just keep passing until they had last activation. Having lots of activations is a fleet build choice, you give up fancy expensive stuff, it's a trade off. Personally I don't see any problems with the activation game as it stands.

if you are going to pass, you cannot have last activation since you have to act when you have as many activations as the opponent. The person with more activations ALWAYS has last activation, they just don't get the last 4 activations if they have 4 more two point officers.

I think this is not a good idea because it also hurts MSU lists and for some of the reasons already stated above. The reason people want this is because the amount of lists running 2-3+ flotillas are increasing and its getting annoying since it makes it almost impossible to table your opponent and punish them for taking weak ships. People are also starting to just put their admiral on a life boat and that flotilla just goofs off in the corner doing absolutely nothing! My solution for this is simple: make flotillas not count towards whether or not a player is considered tabled. If they bring 3 flotillas and 2 actual ships and lose those 2 actual ships they are tabled.

If that is an issue for you bring a small flotilla hunter like a CR90 or a Raider. They can hunt down that annoying flotilla that is running or force it to stay with the fleet where it is in danger. Hell, Rogue now let's you take Squadrons far away from the fleet and they can chase down that Flag Ship flotilla. Punish them for putting their Commander on a weak ship.

You're right, that is a valid strategy, but just know you're sinking at least as many points as that flotilla+commander costs and you still have a very low chance of killing it. Though I have had great and satisfying success with a CR90B with engine techs (now that I think about it, Quantum Storm is probably the best flotilla killer out there). But sending a raider or a rogue squadron or two will fail because of scatter and who doesn't bring Bright Hope?

I'm fine with flotillas but it gets really boring making a list and knowing you have to waste points on flotilla activations or face a disadvantage against the vast majority of lists. I think the reason for all this dissent is just people getting used to a shift in the meta. It happens with every game.

Again I think you are all thinking about this wrong. From what I've read over the last few days you guys want to run a two ship with no squadrons

Uh what? I never said that at all.

There might be an actual argument but I don't think there has been enough time or data to say that the rules need to be changed and change is hard to swallow.

That said these forums are not as vicious as the GW related forums or blogs where players would go through the five stages of greaving at every release.

But again I wasn't pointing out so much players like yourself but more the overall tone of the multiple threads about where the game is sitting.

Well, im pretty interested what people will say after they fought against 5-6 gozanti-lambda-119pt lists... Prepare for hidd and seek championships.

I think we should be careful with Armada not to let the game go too far this way, or put differently, how would you feel about worlds in two years where nobody brings a large ship in the entire field, barring maybe one or two jokers at the very bottom?

Then I'll officially give-a-crap in 2 years time.

Assuming that FFG does nothing in the meantime to evolve the game further.

Which I inherently doubt.

Again, we have another post that doesn't want discourse or discussion in the classic sense. It has made its conclusion known in its title,. and thus it demands agreement.

I care not for it. The Title, the Subject, or the contents of said post. I hate this Negativity crap.

Negativity? The dude has genuine concern (opinion) that the game could head in an undesirable direction, and gives input on how to address it instead of just complaining...and its interpreted by you as negativity?

You'll give a crap in two years you say? You care not for people voicing opinions with good and less than good ideas formed from extensive game play?

IA activation would be perfect for Armada. 3'x3' Table would be fine by me. And anything else that can speed up play and take up less of a footprint. All these are my opinions formed from extensive game play and roady-like event attendance.

Furthermore, a lot of the new stuff allows very non-Star Wars behavior to be adopted. Example? Sure! The Commander on a Flotilla deployed far and away from the battle to cheesily metagame the rules.

I love the idea of space battles and Armada delivered it. BUT!...When the rules allow you to implement things that are not about fighting a space battle but instead about doohickey dodgeball mechanics...the excitement deflates. but hey man, don't let my comments drive your opinion. They are only formed from decades of experiencing these things happening to many games I've previously played.

I certainly didn't ge tmy point across in my frustration...

The problem I have is that these are presented as issues, as problems...

Its a matter of wording...

I'd much prefer to actually have a discussion, where the mindset of the present is not initially decided upon and such...

Present a Hypothesis, so it can be tested, and come to a Conclusion.

Don't present a Conclusion when it hasn't been tested.

That's all.

I've been trying to stay out of these threads, because I would prefer a discussion or a discourse... And I feel that, because the presenters mind has already been made up, there's no point to commenting.

That's Negativity.

Its certainly Negativity when someone comes to the forums excited to look things up, and is presented on the front page, to 6 Forum Thread Titles that are 'Why X is Broken'... 'Why X is ruining the Game..." ... "How FFG Screwed Up..." etc, etc, etc, etc.

That's a certain amount of Negativity.

And its killing me.

Clearly, by how I worded my above comment.

Its killing me.

Well, im pretty interested what people will say after they fought against 5-6 gozanti-lambda-119pt lists... Prepare for hidd and seek championships.

Regionals data (correct me if I'm wrong here) shows you need MORE than 8 points a game to win or advance to the cut. I don't see how you could do that with a hide and seek fleet.

I certainly didn't ge tmy point across in my frustration...

The problem I have is that these are presented as issues, as problems...

Its a matter of wording...

I'd much prefer to actually have a discussion, where the mindset of the present is not initially decided upon and such...

Present a Hypothesis, so it can be tested, and come to a Conclusion.

Don't present a Conclusion when it hasn't been tested.

That's all.

I've been trying to stay out of these threads, because I would prefer a discussion or a discourse... And I feel that, because the presenters mind has already been made up, there's no point to commenting.

That's Negativity.

Its certainly Negativity when someone comes to the forums excited to look things up, and is presented on the front page, to 6 Forum Thread Titles that are 'Why X is Broken'... 'Why X is ruining the Game..." ... "How FFG Screwed Up..." etc, etc, etc, etc.

That's a certain amount of Negativity.

And its killing me.

Clearly, by how I worded my above comment.

Its killing me.

I only see a grand total of 3 threads on the front page that have this "Negativity" and even in those threads there are some thoughtful posts. There is some discourse in these threads.

Well, im pretty interested what people will say after they fought against 5-6 gozanti-lambda-119pt lists... Prepare for hidd and seek championships.

Regionals data (correct me if I'm wrong here) shows you need MORE than 8 points a game to win or advance to the cut. I don't see how you could do that with a hide and seek fleet.

I certainly didn't ge tmy point across in my frustration...

The problem I have is that these are presented as issues, as problems...

Its a matter of wording...

I'd much prefer to actually have a discussion, where the mindset of the present is not initially decided upon and such...

Present a Hypothesis, so it can be tested, and come to a Conclusion.

Don't present a Conclusion when it hasn't been tested.

That's all.

I've been trying to stay out of these threads, because I would prefer a discussion or a discourse... And I feel that, because the presenters mind has already been made up, there's no point to commenting.

That's Negativity.

Its certainly Negativity when someone comes to the forums excited to look things up, and is presented on the front page, to 6 Forum Thread Titles that are 'Why X is Broken'... 'Why X is ruining the Game..." ... "How FFG Screwed Up..." etc, etc, etc, etc.

That's a certain amount of Negativity.

And its killing me.

Clearly, by how I worded my above comment.

Its killing me.

Wow, sorry Dras but you're being overly dramatic here. I know you love Armada a lot, but come on, let some criticism take place without throwing accusations of negativity okay? You're being just as closed to discussion as the ones (like me) you're accusing of being closed to discussion.

Do I like Armada? Heck yes I do, I'll even have a game going tonight with a whisky tasting going on at the same time. Do I feel the game is perfect? No, and I feel like there's a stuff here and there that could be better. If I hated the game I wouldn't spend that much time and money building lists and whatnot. I wouldn't bother bringing the whole shebang to my parents this Chritmas so I can show the game to my brother.

Now, maybe I should have started with a better presentation of what I felt was wrong with the game, but remember, I was on my cellphone, in a mall, waiting for my girlfriend to get her coffee. I posted something that came to mind and that I did not want to forget. Still, I feel personally (read: it's my opinion) that flotillas cost too little and do too much in the game. The Pelta and Interdictor have a higher base cost because of the upgrades they could get, but flotillas got none of that penalty, in my opinion. But, I think we all know that their cost won't change.

I also tell you from experience that a high number of activation is a huge bonus. My 5 activation list completely annihilated a 3 activation list simply by delaying my heavy hitters by activating the flotillas in the back first. I know a lot of people play that way and I'm not a 100% sure that that's what the devs intended.

A lot of people say that Armada is balanced and that all lists can be competitive. But, I honestly feel like a quality list (by this I mean a list with little activations and a lot of upgrades) will be beaten by a quantity list 8 times out of 10.

Now, if you think I'm wrong, stop accusing me of negativity and please come with your own arguments and I'll swear we'll have a civil discussion.

I think the issue is is that players got use to the wave 2 of playing where you built two VSD's to kill ships and forced your opponents to have to come to you so they could earn some points and the. Just manhandled them when they got in range. Well the game has changed since then and the mechanics now punishes lists like those and I say good. The games were the Imperial player started in the corner at speed zero for the first round then at speed one forcing you to engage the. In the front arc was lame and very boring. There was no Tactics involved and relied on the muscles of the VSD.

Today you have to think of Tactics because the new releases forces you to think on your feet (hell I get my butt handed to me often when I play) and that is good. Movement, Activations, Squadron Commands are all just as important as how many dice you throw and that is very good for the game overall.

Embrace the game mechanics and you will be much happier than trying to relive the boring early days of Armada.

My personal complaint with Flotillas is that people are doing what you described....just with Flotillas surrounded by a cloud of fighters.

At this point, I'm willing to state that I am far too heavily invested, I have made mistakes with getting my own points across, I have offended people I have not intended to offend.

For that, I most humbly apologise.

Furthermore, I will detach myself from the "emotional" exhudes of the game and the forums, and deal strictly with rules for the time being.

At this point, I'm willing to state that I am far too heavily invested, I have made mistakes with getting my own points across, I have offended people I have not intended to offend.

For that, I most humbly apologise.

Furthermore, I will detach myself from the "emotional" exhudes of the game and the forums, and deal strictly with rules for the time being.

don't worry about it, I still think you're a good dude and have the game success at heart. Maybe we all need a break from the forums xD

I wonder how wave 5 will step up the meta?

Wave 4 has <3 days before like a snow globe it all gets a massive shake up.

I am not convinced that Flotillas will survive unscathed in the change up.

I wonder how wave 5 will step up the meta?

Wave 4 has <3 days before like a snow globe it all gets a massive shake up.

I am not convinced that Flotillas will survive unscathed in the change up.

Maybe! It would be reasonable to wait a few weeks post wave 5

I would suggest longer, usually the first few weeks we see the obvious ships, upgrades and commanders bubble up and many threads of this card or ship is broken. You pretty much have to wait that out and see what happens as players go deeper into the cards and the combinations.

For me as a Rebel player the ability to toss black or blue dice at long range is making parts of the wave 4 meta look weaker. Don't APT missiles at red dice range scare the little boys? I would also point out that these black dice don't care (as much) if they are second player.

In 6 weeks things will not be anywhere near the same.

The ability to pass an activation... That would make an excellent Admiral ability for that blue skinned dude in the white uniform!

Aside from that, I'm with Dras. I see activation advantage to be a non issue for Armada. It is an untested premise, based only on individual players ability to adapt to an evolving game. Ackbar anyone?

Don't recuse yourself from all but the rules forum Dras. Your input in various topics was instrumental in my enjoyment and longevity of several discussions.

The ability to pass an activation... That would make an excellent Admiral ability for that blue skinned dude in the white uniform!

I kinda like that.

I've said this before but I really think Armada and wargames in general would benefit from moving away from designing around an emphasis on alpha strikes.

What that means in practice is simultaneous activations, I.E, you get your shots even if you are shot at (Riekan would need a different bonus!) but there is a better solution which I mention at the bottom of this post.

For me it makes sense from a game design perspective and also from a common sense perspective for ships to exchange fire and for squadrons to dogfight simultaneously. It's a representation of a battle where units are engaging each other, those moments where a ship is destroyed before it gets to shoot back, even if it's in a great position, I find very jarring and nonsensical.

I do like that it in some ways enables smaller ships to out-activation larger ships and get shots off without receiving return fire, representing a lightning fast strike.

Jockeying for alpha strikes, flank denial and general out-activation do add a layer of strategy but I think they also detract by dictating so much of the strategy on arbitrary elements. Especially in regards to the squadron phase where alpha strikes are hugely powerful and essential.

--

In the new RuneWars miniatures game soon to be released (also by FFG, seriously go check it out if you like fantasy rank-and-file!), units have a dial and actions are based on iniative, which essentially provides a trade off for activation-speed/power. It's a very elegant solution which retains strategic depth while mitigating the problems that alternate activations bring.

I don't think anyone is saying the game is broken, or needs fixing, but as someone who loves using MSU fleets, it does leverage a significant advantage over someone who brings a large ship. Flotillas helped mitigate this, but I do see the possibility in updating this game for the better in having a delay system. This would not only address the large advantage of having first/last activation (second player would always go last if he or she wanted to) but also help make large ships like ISDs in making it less of a liability. Right now, if I have enough activation advantage, I can all but guarantee you won't get a front arc, full dice shot out of the front of your 120 point ship, which turns it into a liability. It's not about the game being broken; it isn't. It's about getting all ships to be equally represented in top-tier competitions, and it looks like any large ship shooting out the front arc suffers, based on nothing but the data presented.

I can see the potential of the activation delay thing being good for Armada, but would also want it to be significantly play tested. I really don't want an initiative system like X-Wing or Rune Wars as that has way too many variables to implement, and is unnecessary. Activation delay would possibly be great, but again testing would be needed.

I am usually a MSU player and even I think activation delay would be a good thing. I would wonder how you would implement it once ships start getting killed though..and what if 1st player has the activation advantage...

I have bought IA but haven't played it yet...do they have a workaround for that?

I am usually a MSU player and even I think activation delay would be a good thing. I would wonder how you would implement it once ships start getting killed though..and what if 1st player has the activation advantage...

I have bought IA but haven't played it yet...do they have a workaround for that?

Wouldn't it just solve itself? Once the higher activation list drops below the lower, the passing rule swaps.

Yeah the way it works is if you have less activations than your opponent, you are allowed to force your opponent to keep activating until you have an even number of activations. I really only see this being important in the first half of the game, where those turns determine initial engagement. After that, most of the time people will want to activate things that have good attacks.

Lets see how the new Corellian objectives and other Wave 5 stuff impacts the second half of regionals.

But the point is sound that currently activation advantage is massive. Since wave 2 ive been running 4 ship minimum and I think I've only lost maybe one game to a 3 ship fleet. That's not me being a great player, because when I fight a 5 ship list I often get flogged.

On the other hand, it IS a tournament based game and in any such game some strategies are always going to be more optimal.

I'm not overly fussed either way if they experiment with something like this. Even if its only for one season or something.

I think the simplest fix is to take the rule FFG already uses in IA to address this exact problem:

If the opponent has more remaining activations than you, you can pass.

That lessens activation pressure (the n+1 activation has less value to a list) and greatly increases the value of large ships (because you can always delay to go last, so they don't get as horribly outmaneuvered). I think this would need to be playtested, but is likely to be a positive change for meta flexibility and the game.

I don't think that's a good idea. Demolisher is strong enough as it is. First player would just keep passing until they had last activation. Having lots of activations is a fleet build choice, you give up fancy expensive stuff, it's a trade off. Personally I don't see any problems with the activation game as it stands.

To be clear, the actual article on the topic was:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/7/24/new-orders-from-high-command/

And I am guilty of generalizing, but what it means is this: If I run ISD+VSD+Gozanti and my opponent runs CR90+CR90+CR90+GR-75+GR-75+GR-75, previously the activation stack would mean he could always activate 3 full ships after me if I was the second player, and 4 full ships after me if I was the first player. Put this on the board and play it yourself; this is an overwhelming advantage for the higher activation fleet and makes it very difficult to ever get your points out of an ISD (also leads to the dominant tactic being to turtle in the corner at speed 0, so someone can't fly past it, which is something else that has previously produced griping on these forums).

Now replay the same game with the IA rule. The player with more activations can always activate one ship after the ISD, but only one. I think you will find it a very different game, and large ships become the intimidating force they should be when they are >25% of a list (so if it's not causing >25% of the heartburn for you opponent, you probably wasted points).

Edit: I hope that makes more clear what I was talking about?