1 hour ago, CDAT said:

So my question is as you are the resident rule lawyer, why does player 2 need an advantage? As you said that it does not say it anyplace, most cards do give one to the second player, but I would say that at least to me and how I play my fleets not all cards are really and advantage to the second player.

Because of the inherent Mechanic of the game.

Note, this is purely from the game design perspective. You seem to want Rules Quotes, but there is no rules quotes... Because its not a Rule. Its a Game Design Feature.

Since you Shoot, and then move, you - as first player - are able to get the first set of damage in. Since damage doesn't happen simultaniously at the end phase, and you can remove an enemy piece before it gets a chance to activate - it is an inherent part of the IGO-UGO format. Double-so when your ability to effect the enemy happens before your maneuver.

This inherently allows player one to Damage his opponent first (as he is able to move into situations where the enemy can be shot before moving), and dictate the other initiative of the game.

Now, if you set yourself up to not use the advantage you're given? That's entirely up to you - that is why some objectives don't suit some fleet types... You as second player must select the advantage for yourself ... Just because you choose to ignore the advantage you're given, doesn't mean the advantage doesn't exist... The Objectives mechanically place an advantage to 2nd player, because it balances out the inherent advantage to palyer one, in a game design perspective.

This is also why the "No objective, kill them all deathmatch" game switches who has Initiative every turn... In doing so, it says "There is no balancing factor for player 2, as there is no objective, so instead, the player 1 advantage will alternate between players to balance the game."

Now, that's not to say you can't play Asymetrically... But to state that there is an objective, a mandatory objective, that deliberately removes the advantage of second player, wether they want it or not, as its is mandatory in some cases, giving more advantage to player one... Is patently not only poor game design, but a fairness-trap.

It would be like assuming on a Base Defense Mission, the offensive player decides to control the Planetary Ion Cannon.

It'd be cool.

But it wouldn't be fair.

And games are, unless explicitly stated, designed around at least a modicum of fairness.

On this, I can submit little proof - because generally speaking, aspects of game design are protected information for games companies.

I don't work for FFG, and I've got no experience officially testing for FFG.

But I have worked in game design in the past. So I am not entirely without pedigree.

But I would be willing to bet a year's proceeds of my painting business that my statements above on the Game Design of Armada are true. That the Objectives inherently benefit the second player more than the first player (not to say they can't also provide a benefit to the first, but in all cases the Benefit to the Second Player is greater ), because it offsets the inherent game design feature given by the Shoot-Then-Move, IGO-UGO system.

To assume otherwise, is to unbalance a balanced system. I'm not saying you can't, but I'm not advising people to deliberately play an unfair game without them going into it eyes wide open.

1 hour ago, CDAT said:

I agree that just because being player two is normally has an advantage, does not mean that it always does, or that the way you build you fleet has no bearing on it. If I remember correctly they have already said that sometimes how you build your fleet will negate the advantage you get. Take for example the mission card advanced gunnery, if your objective ship has either a gunnery team or slaved turrets you get no advantage from the card, and could even say that it was giving you a negative effect.

Those examples aren't negative effects, they're just the absence of an advantage.

I think the distinction, though, is that with the list objectives, you build those into your list, so if you have a bad fleet/objective matchup, that's entirely on you. Nebula Outskirts, not being the player's choice, could be abused by an opponent. Interpreting it to reduce dials to zero pretty much absolutely excludes taking a list heavy on command-1 ships in a 1v1 or 2v2 game, because your opponent can abuse the objective to your extreme disadvantage.

1v1, if the player with the small ships ever gets ahead, all the other guy has to do is keep declaring assaults on a system with NO, and not building bases there. Boom, virtually guaranteed CP every time.

2v2, it forces the player with the small ships to be the attacker every time his team is ahead, because if he's not, the opponent's attacker can go to NO and hose him.

Conversely, all of the other location objectives give a direct, obvious advantage to P2 because, objectives aside, P2 is a distinct disadvantage in Armada. That's what the objectives are for .

All that said, there's definitely no rules support for it until they FAQ or errata it, so if you want to play your campaign with your interpretation, go for it. I have no skin in that game.

1 hour ago, CDAT said:

I agree that just because being player two is normally has an advantage, does not mean that it always does, or that the way you build you fleet has no bearing on it. If I remember correctly they have already said that sometimes how you build your fleet will negate the advantage you get. Take for example the mission card advanced gunnery, if your objective ship has either a gunnery team or slaved turrets you get no advantage from the card, and could even say that it was giving you a negative effect.

Fair point. Sometimes when it comes to specific cards or rules (and we're full of question for both wave 5 and CC itself), its hard to come to satisfy everyone until we get a ruling. On the other hand, someone with a good sense both for rules, a fine parsing of the English language, and a sense of just how games are designed, such as Dras, tends to have good instincts on the nature of the game itself. That you'd be forced to set no dials and give it up the benefit entirely seems baffling. And although the information may be protected and unavailable for direction citation, the architecture of the game is still available to us and can be ascertained as knowledge in much the same way studying physics is possible. Or perhaps studying literature would be a better point of comparison. It isn't that any interpretation goes, its that the average human being tends to mean their words within a fairly consistent range of meanings in fairly specific contexts, and although a couple of interpretations might be permissible, others just aren't, because they don't work within the architecture of how meaning works. The same can be said about the rules, although we don't have a directly published dissertation from FFG themselves on how they intended the rules to work, we know some basic principles that constrain meaning (e.g. fairness), and we know from having played hundreds of games across the entire community how games of this sort tend to be constructed, and we have a pretty detailed roadmap based on what we've currently got in the rules. It isn't like we're starting from ground zero there.

Sometimes the best you can do is an argument from probability.

7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Because of the inherent Mechanic of the game.

Note, this is purely from the game design perspective. You seem to want Rules Quotes, but there is no rules quotes... Because its not a Rule. Its a Game Design Feature.

Since you Shoot, and then move, you - as first player - are able to get the first set of damage in. Since damage doesn't happen simultaniously at the end phase, and you can remove an enemy piece before it gets a chance to activate - it is an inherent part of the IGO-UGO format. Double-so when your ability to effect the enemy happens before your maneuver.

This inherently allows player one to Damage his opponent first (as he is able to move into situations where the enemy can be shot before moving), and dictate the other initiative of the game.

Now, if you set yourself up to not use the advantage you're given? That's entirely up to you - that is why some objectives don't suit some fleet types... You as second player must select the advantage for yourself ... Just because you choose to ignore the advantage you're given, doesn't mean the advantage doesn't exist... The Objectives mechanically place an advantage to 2nd player, because it balances out the inherent advantage to palyer one, in a game design perspective.

This is also why the "No objective, kill them all deathmatch" game switches who has Initiative every turn... In doing so, it says "There is no balancing factor for player 2, as there is no objective, so instead, the player 1 advantage will alternate between players to balance the game."

Now, that's not to say you can't play Asymetrically... But to state that there is an objective, a mandatory objective, that deliberately removes the advantage of second player, wether they want it or not, as its is mandatory in some cases, giving more advantage to player one... Is patently not only poor game design, but a fairness-trap.

It would be like assuming on a Base Defense Mission, the offensive player decides to control the Planetary Ion Cannon.

It'd be cool.

But it wouldn't be fair.

And games are, unless explicitly stated, designed around at least a modicum of fairness.

I am not really asking for a rule as I know that there is not one. I guess what I am saying is that as it is only a disadvantage based on how the player two builds his/her fleet I think it like the Riken Zombie never scar is part of how the campaign was designed to be played. So I do not see it as being unfair in the least, if you know that they are out there and still build your fleet so that you will be in trouble than I see that on the player, no more or less fair than any other mission. I also do not see it breaking the game because you do not have a dial to show that you moved, I think that is a non-issue but that may just be me.

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Those examples aren't negative effects, they're just the absence of an advantage.

I think the distinction, though, is that with the list objectives, you build those into your list, so if you have a bad fleet/objective matchup, that's entirely on you. Nebula Outskirts, not being the player's choice, could be abused by an opponent. Interpreting it to reduce dials to zero pretty much absolutely excludes taking a list heavy on command-1 ships in a 1v1 or 2v2 game, because your opponent can abuse the objective to your extreme disadvantage.

1v1, if the player with the small ships ever gets ahead, all the other guy has to do is keep declaring assaults on a system with NO, and not building bases there. Boom, virtually guaranteed CP every time.

2v2, it forces the player with the small ships to be the attacker every time his team is ahead, because if he's not, the opponent's attacker can go to NO and hose him.

Conversely, all of the other location objectives give a direct, obvious advantage to P2 because, objectives aside, P2 is a distinct disadvantage in Armada. That's what the objectives are for .

All that said, there's definitely no rules support for it until they FAQ or errata it, so if you want to play your campaign with your interpretation, go for it. I have no skin in that game.

I would say that spending points on a gunnery team and then being told that even though the card says that you can attack the same ship twice from the same hull zone, because you spent points on an upgrade card you can not do that is a disadvantage. As for you 1V1 and 2V2 I do not see the issue, as I said above if the player only wants to have small ships and knows that the Nebula is out there they are taking the risk that the other player will pick it. I see several ways to not have this issue, first have some (up to all) of your ships not be single command ships. Second, if you are so worried about it put one of your starting bases there, then you will not be using the Nebula mission but the base defense. Third, you can be the attacker, now your single command ships are double. Fourth, play you single command ships just with out any command dials (yes this will make it harder, but I still do not see it unplayable). Now I understand that these may not fit you play style, but (and it may just be me) I do not see any of them being undoable or even really unfair, as it does not matter what faction you play both have single command ships, so both can be affected. Some of this may also be based on the fact that I am not sold on the "fact" that first player is at a huge advantage, and that player 2 is at a "distinct disadvantage"

3 hours ago, CDAT said:

Some of this may also be based on the fact that I am not sold on the "fact" that first player is at a huge advantage, and that player 2 is at a "distinct disadvantage"

Yeah, I guess if you don't accept that premise there's not really common ground for a discussion. To me, that seems pretty axiomatic, and borne out by experience: it was a discussion we had back and forth at length around here during W0 and W1, but the community has very definitely settled on P1 being advantageous in the absence of objectives.

But if your experience is different, that's no less legitimate than mine.

Because player one has initiative, an advantage, and he did not have to bid to aquire it. That's it, nothing more.

If being player one was not an advantage, we would not have been seeing so many Demolisher is OP threads, nor sub 30pt initiative bids to ensure first/last activation.

Nor would Rieekan be so popular, as he effectively negates the penalty of being player two, and suffering an alpha strike that removes a ship or a load of squadrons.

The fact that you couldn't resolve commands dials and escape to hyperspace is not a disadvantage. It is an automatic defeat.

Ion Canon (the base one) put the first player in a big disadvantaged position but the nebula outskirt would be simply insane and has no sense at all.

I bet Dras is right. If you want to play this objective just as worded good luck.

This objective will never be used on a tournament. And for your game at home, you can do whatever you want.

If you want to play it by the wording, go for it. No one stopping you from doing it.

We will make the rule that it is reduced by one, to a minimum of one.

5 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

The fact that you couldn't resolve commands dials and escape to hyperspace is not a disadvantage. It is an automatic defeat.

Ion Canon (the base one) put the first player in a big disadvantaged position but the nebula outskirt would be simply insane and has no sense at all.

I bet Dras is right. If you want to play this objective just as worded good luck.

My money is on Dras being 100% correct. FFG has issues at times with their writing of cards and books, but they are pretty consistent with their intent of the games. Aside from choosing the wrong upgrade/ship for an objective; objectives are the second players advantage to combat the first players turn advantage.

8 hours ago, Cusm said:

My money is on Dras being 100% correct. FFG has issues at times with their writing of cards and books, but they are pretty consistent with their intent of the games. Aside from choosing the wrong upgrade/ship for an objective; objectives are the second players advantage to combat the first players turn advantage.

I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am just saying that I think it is a case of people wanting to use as you call it "wrong upgrade/ship" or as the saying goes they want to have their cake and eat it too.

11 hours ago, CDAT said:

I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am just saying that I think it is a case of people wanting to use as you call it "wrong upgrade/ship" or as the saying goes they want to have their cake and eat it too.

From the RRG p11 "Ship Activation"

After a ship activates, place its revealed command dial faceup on its ship card to track that it has activated.

It is not an habit, it is a rule. Would the objective modify it? Maybe. If the objectives does then...

After a ship activate, I cannot place any revealed command dial on its ship card to track that it has activated as the ship has not command dials.

Do we have another way ALLOWED BY THE RULES to track the activation of the ship? No.

I cannot quote the CC rules but I am sure that you have to discard the top command dial in order to escape to hyperspace. No dials no escape.

There are ways to provide commands to ships with out dials through tokens.

- Coms Net wouldn't work as it must go on a command 1 ship

- Tantive IV wouldn't work as it must go on a command 1 ship

- Antilles wouldn't work as it must go on a commands 1 ship

- Garm Bel Iblis would work but we would have 2 rounds and that's all.

- Tarkin would work.

- Aresko would work but you must need at least 1 command 2/3 ship.

It is not that the objective would be hard for some fleet builds. It literally **** whatever 1 command ship almost any fleet had. Those 1 command ship would be useless unless you have Tarkin, Aresko or Garm Bel and with big limitations and they cannot jump to hyperspace.

I think it is more than a disadvantage.

15 hours ago, CDAT said:

I am not saying that he is right or wrong, I am just saying that I think it is a case of people wanting to use as you call it "wrong upgrade/ship" or as the saying goes they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Perhaps, but let's look at what happens to the ships of the second player in the two alternative interpretations of the rule.

Command 3 ships? Need to set only 2 dials. Result: An advantage.

Command 2 ships? Need to set only 1 dial. Result: An advantage.

Command 1 ships?

Either Need to set 0 dials. Result: Crippled!

OR Need to set 1 dial. Result: Neither advantage nor disadvantage.

Which do you think is more likely to be the intended effect?

12 hours ago, RobertK said:

Perhaps, but let's look at what happens to the ships of the second player in the two alternative interpretations of the rule.

Command 3 ships? Need to set only 2 dials. Result: An advantage.

Command 2 ships? Need to set only 1 dial. Result: An advantage.

Command 1 ships?

Either Need to set 0 dials. Result: Crippled!

OR Need to set 1 dial. Result: Neither advantage nor disadvantage.

Which do you think is more likely to be the intended effect?

As I think I have said before I do not think that having zero dials cripples the ship, I do understand that it makes it more difficult but I still think this is a case of you picked the wrong ship for this situation, not that the mission is broken. If you take other ships then it works just fine.

I will concede that by RAW, they have 0 command.

But RAI is obvious in my mind. If small ships were supposed to be disabled that way, why is it only the 2nd players that are? If the objective called out all small ships have 0 command. And then 1st players other ships get +1 and 2nd players other ships get -1, then OK. This is clearly simply supposed to be that the 2nd player has a command dial advantage for their ships because the nebula is their home turf (just like how the Asteroids objective works to their advantage).

How do you activate a ship without a command dial when the first step of activating a ship is to reveal the top command dial?

If there's a ship you can't activate then the Ship Phase will never end since it ends when all ships have been activated.

1 hour ago, Wedge1126 said:

How do you activate a ship without a command dial when the first step of activating a ship is to reveal the top command dial?

If there's a ship you can't activate then the Ship Phase will never end since it ends when all ships have been activated.

You can already do this.
Any ship with command 1 and skilled first officer has the ability to not be able to reveal a dial.

And in this this case you just skip the reveal.

If it would end in a "loop" as you say, you can easy construct a loop this way, and stop all games when you are going to lose.

49 minutes ago, Tokra said:

You can already do this.
Any ship with command 1 and skilled first officer has the ability to not be able to reveal a dial.

And in this this case you just skip the reveal.

If it would end in a "loop" as you say, you can easy construct a loop this way, and stop all games when you are going to lose.

I hadn't thought of the case with Skilled First Officer. Is there an official ruling for it?

Seems like both of these cases needs a FAQ or errata.

1 hour ago, Wedge1126 said:

I hadn't thought of the case with Skilled First Officer. Is there an official ruling for it?

Seems like both of these cases needs a FAQ or errata.

I don't think it's ever come up because there is zero reason to put SFO on a command 1 ship...

In a meta where slicer tools is prevalent and you use a flotilla to activate your key squads maybe?

What good does SFO do you there? Even an engineering is better than no command at all.

2 hours ago, homedrone said:

In a meta where slicer tools is prevalent and you use a flotilla to activate your key squads maybe?

You don't get a new command.

You just discard your top one.

So pointless.

Ah yes. I was thinking of it like Support Officer.

Ok.. you are playing CC and you know you are going to attack at a Nebula objective location.. and you are in a meta where slicer tools is prevalent and you use a flotilla to activate your key squads..

I'll see myself out.

The upcoming FAQ will confirm a minimum of 1 dial .

The total number of command dials that must be assigned to each of the second player’s ships during each Command Phase is decreased by 1 to a minimum of 1.