I only want to say one thing here and its about the 8 YT-2400s. It creates a haves and have nots meta in squadrons regarding who has the money to really blow on it. Its not like having two or 3 sets of fighters or 3 of the same kind of ship because those are still fairly limited in what can come on and the base squadrons aren't particularly good or bad. Again, I am all for using the rules to the fullest extent during tournaments but using such builds in a more casual setting with more casual players, unless it has already been laid out that you are testing a fleet, can be like bringing a gun to a knife fight or at least a sword to a knife fight. Can you see what I am getting at?

No, yeah, I get what you're getting at. I just don't agree with it. I don't want to get too far off topic here, so I'll just throw the one-post response out there and be done.

</snip>

If people want to see things change in Armada I want to see their reasons why and both sides need to stop being such asses about it. Ultimately people should play how they want to and those who don't like it are free to make comment on it and try to build fleets and metas that counter the things they don't like.

Absolutely agree here.

Yeah, it looks like some people are talking about casual games and WAAC games. This can all be avoided if we make ourselves known ahead of time. It sounds like your a WAAC player, and refuse casual play. Thats fine: if we're the only two people who show up on armada night, it looks like we would both be out of a game.

From the original poster (actually, I don't think its the original post, but someone else who got onto this tangent): I think we need to do better of segregating our play groups into Casual and WAAC.

As far as the casual play: think really hard if you're using more than double the component limitation's (read, expansion pack's) amount of a particular thing, and don't try to do things that aren't really there in the movies (why are the support ships and the admiral all the way on the other side of the fight? Is he a deserter or a coward?)

For Tournament play: find the most efficient things you can, and take as much of it as you can.

I like to think we don't have the latter factor in our community, and I know we don't have the former.

I know none of our local player base is the sort of person who pulls out a DeMSU or CR90 ram-fest list to introduce the game to new players, or to relentlessly bash an opponent who they know isn't very skilled or is just there to push Star Destroyers around the table. I guess if you have this problem in your community, you should address it there.

But that's a problem that no amount of rules-changing is going to fix, so I take exception when people come in here clamoring for rules changes because somebody was mean to them in a game or played hard against a new player.

Pirates of the Spanish Main featured the limitation that a ship could only hold a total number of points of crew (upgrades) on the ship equal to or less than the cost of the ship.

I could see something like that for Armada (but I don't think it's at all necessary).

The only thing that bothers me a bit is that flotillas block ISD/Home One. That probably breaks my immersion more than anything else.

This post is explicitly directed to Undeadguy:

I usually read these forums on my cellphone, this makes some posts blend together. Unfortunately, this led to my mistaking a post from Nakeddex, who said that he did not like a single aspect of star wars, as a post from Undeadguy!

For this mistake, and for using this (incorrect) argument against him, I do wish to apologize.

This post is explicitly directed to Undeadguy:

I usually read these forums on my cellphone, this makes some posts blend together. Unfortunately, this led to my mistaking a post from Nakeddex, who said that he did not like a single aspect of star wars, as a post from Undeadguy!

For this mistake, and for using this (incorrect) argument against him, I do wish to apologize.

No problem. All is forgiven.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is that flotillas block ISD/Home One. That probably breaks my immersion more than anything else.

It would be neat if large bases could destroy flotillas when they overlap. Now the lifeboats really need to run

.... are we really talking about segregating playgroups, now?

Like... as a solution?

I don't want those filthy casual players drinking from my water fountain

But really, this is a horrible way to solve this issue. I tend to think everyone here plays seriously and builds tournament lists because people who want to play casual tend to say they don't like the competitive scene.

Segregating the community is a horrible idea. We may not all agree with each others opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to put the competitive people in one place, and casual players in another. There is a lot of cross over between them. I enjoy tournaments, but I consider CC a casual format, but everyone I play with is also competitive.

I like to make eccentric casual lists, but once I find one that works I try to make it competitive. So where would I get placed?

I don't fit into either group. I've never played in a tournament and have only gotten to play against a few people but I still build lists as if I was intending to take them to a tournament. My group and I play a lot of games against each other and we're all pretty competitive with each other. I've run lifeboat flotillas and YT-2400 spams before. I don't see anything unsporting about either one. If my opponent wants to use a perfectly legal tactic that I have trouble dealing with I say go for it it'll force me to learn to deal with it thereby making me a better player both casually and if I ever do enter a tournament.

This thread is getting to some unwelcomed, unwarranted, and unpleasant territory. Why on Earth does marginalization need to play a role within the Armada community?

Like, sheesh, just change the tile to "Casuals Matter" vs "All Players Matter" already.

This thread is getting to some unwelcomed, unwarranted, and unpleasant territory. Why on Earth does marginalization need to play a role within the Armada community?

Like, sheesh, just change the tile to "Casuals Matter" vs "All Players Matter" already.

I guess it's really no different than your last comment in the Common Core Math thread.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is that flotillas block ISD/Home One. That probably breaks my immersion more than anything else.

It would be neat if large bases could destroy flotillas when they overlap. Now the lifeboats really need to run

I know you are saying that somewhat in jest but I actually like the idea hahaha. Plus after Rouge One it would be somewhat canonical too since we see a GR-75 eat it hard against the prow of the Devastator.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is that flotillas block ISD/Home One. That probably breaks my immersion more than anything else.

It would be neat if large bases could destroy flotillas when they overlap. Now the lifeboats really need to run

I know you are saying that somewhat in jest but I actually like the idea hahaha. Plus after Rouge One it would be somewhat canonical too since we see a GR-75 eat it hard against the prow of the Devastator.

I do think the ramming rules are sub par but I don't see a good, easy alternative. A large ship ramming a flotilla and destroying it would be fine by me so long as the ship still gets to move forward. It's the getting stuck in place that really hurts.

My proposal for changes to ramming are as such:
Models ramming the same size = 1 damage card to both ships (e.g. ISD ramming a Home One)

Models ramming 1 size larger = 2 damage cards to smaller ship, 1 damage to larger ship (e.g. Victory ramming a ISD)

Models ramming 2 size larger = 3 damage cards to smaller ship, 1 damage to larger ship (e.g. CR90 ramming a ISD)

Easy to remember rules that is lore consistent and makes more sense. Flotillas running into the ISD will simply blow up and the ISD won't take damage because of flotilla rules.

This was my idea from a while back.

Here is my idea on how to discourage ramming and encourage better flying.

When you overlap another ship, you take damage based on how fast your speed is minus the number of joints you were able to fully move. When you overlap, instead of being placed at the next joint down, you slide along the maneuver tool until the bases touch like what is done in X-Wing.

Damage is based off speed and how many joint you pass. So if you are moving speed 3, and can pass the first 2 joints and overlap on the third, you take 1 damage. If you are moving speed 2 and cannot move past the first joint, you take 2 damage but get to slide up so next round you can hopefully jump over the ship. Your opponent only takes 1 damage ever unless another source says otherwise.

By doing this, it tries to get rid of the "I'm stuck forever because I can't speed up" dilemma because you do get that extra bump forward. It also discourages those pesky Rieekan fleets from trying to block your ships at high speed because they can potentially deal 3 damage to themselves, and only 1 damage to you.

I think any rule that encourages ramming is going to be bad for the game because why would you use skill to line up shots when you can kamikaze your way to victory.

Just wanted to discuss having 8 YT-2400s here. As a prime offender I bought 3 packs of R&V, traded a few odds and ends for other YT-2400s, and bought 4 on eBay for $5 each. I didn't exactly break the bank to get to 8!

Further, I would hope anyone who's played me or watched my streams would not lump me into a WAAC kind of dude! But, I get that my Cracken fleet could be frustrating to fly against in some situations

Looks like it's time for an excerpt from a very old guide written with console fighting games in mind.

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned

Just wanted to discuss having 8 YT-2400s here. As a prime offender I bought 3 packs of R&V, traded a few odds and ends for other YT-2400s, and bought 4 on eBay for $5 each. I didn't exactly break the bank to get to 8!

Further, I would hope anyone who's played me or watched my streams would not lump me into a WAAC kind of dude! But, I get that my Cracken fleet could be frustrating to fly against in some situations

As a prime offender of the CR90B/SW-7 fleet, this is pretty much how I got mine. Batch order when they were on sale for $5 a pop on Amazon, and traded vigorously for all those SW-7's, and suddenly I'm flying a $350 fleet that I paid around $100 for, all told.

Similarly, though, I stopped bringing it a while ago because I recognized how un-fun it was to play against. But apparently I'm a **** or something for playing it. You, too. Sup, ****-bro?

.... are we really talking about segregating playgroups, now?

Like... as a solution?

I don't want those filthy casual players drinking from my water fountain

But really, this is a horrible way to solve this issue. I tend to think everyone here plays seriously and builds tournament lists because people who want to play casual tend to say they don't like the competitive scene.

Segregating the community is a horrible idea. We may not all agree with each others opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to put the competitive people in one place, and casual players in another. There is a lot of cross over between them. I enjoy tournaments, but I consider CC a casual format, but everyone I play with is also competitive.

I like to make eccentric casual lists, but once I find one that works I try to make it competitive. So where would I get placed?

If you can make a casual list, you can play in the casual scene, if you can make a competitive list, you can play in the competitive scene. You're only segregated if you CANNOT or WILL NOT play to the appropriate level. If you will ALWAYS play as WAAC and cannot control yourself... don't play in the casual event. If there is one WAAC player who cannot play to the communities level, you will harm the community.

CC can be a casual format, or a competitive format. I'm in two campaigns with this right now, one of which is competitively bent, and one which is casual.

In the competitive CC, we are all running rather competitive lists, and we're all tournament players. Its a good time.

However, we have one person in the casual CC that came from a Warmahordes background and is running the TRCR90 and YT2400 swarm against newbs who have the starter box, an ISD, and want to run all the bounty hunters. Everyone has rather "fluffy" and balanced lists, except for this guy who has won at list building. This group is for casual players who are new to the game. He's a nice guy, but I doubt the two newbies he tabled will continue with the game. And its entirely his fault for not recognizing the situation (even after I told him to tone it down).

.... are we really talking about segregating playgroups, now?

Like... as a solution?

I don't want those filthy casual players drinking from my water fountain

But really, this is a horrible way to solve this issue. I tend to think everyone here plays seriously and builds tournament lists because people who want to play casual tend to say they don't like the competitive scene.

Segregating the community is a horrible idea. We may not all agree with each others opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to put the competitive people in one place, and casual players in another. There is a lot of cross over between them. I enjoy tournaments, but I consider CC a casual format, but everyone I play with is also competitive.

I like to make eccentric casual lists, but once I find one that works I try to make it competitive. So where would I get placed?

If you can make a casual list, you can play in the casual scene, if you can make a competitive list, you can play in the competitive scene. You're only segregated if you CANNOT or WILL NOT play to the appropriate level. If you will ALWAYS play as WAAC and cannot control yourself... don't play in the casual event. If there is one WAAC player who cannot play to the communities level, you will harm the community.

CC can be a casual format, or a competitive format. I'm in two campaigns with this right now, one of which is competitively bent, and one which is casual.

In the competitive CC, we are all running rather competitive lists, and we're all tournament players. Its a good time.

However, we have one person in the casual CC that came from a Warmahordes background and is running the TRCR90 and YT2400 swarm against newbs who have the starter box, an ISD, and want to run all the bounty hunters. Everyone has rather "fluffy" and balanced lists, except for this guy who has won at list building. This group is for casual players who are new to the game. He's a nice guy, but I doubt the two newbies he tabled will continue with the game. And its entirely his fault for not recognizing the situation (even after I told him to tone it down).

And who is going to define the variables of "Casual" and "Competitive".

Who gets that Authority?

.... are we really talking about segregating playgroups, now?

Like... as a solution?

I don't want those filthy casual players drinking from my water fountain

But really, this is a horrible way to solve this issue. I tend to think everyone here plays seriously and builds tournament lists because people who want to play casual tend to say they don't like the competitive scene.

Segregating the community is a horrible idea. We may not all agree with each others opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to put the competitive people in one place, and casual players in another. There is a lot of cross over between them. I enjoy tournaments, but I consider CC a casual format, but everyone I play with is also competitive.

I like to make eccentric casual lists, but once I find one that works I try to make it competitive. So where would I get placed?

If you can make a casual list, you can play in the casual scene, if you can make a competitive list, you can play in the competitive scene. You're only segregated if you CANNOT or WILL NOT play to the appropriate level. If you will ALWAYS play as WAAC and cannot control yourself... don't play in the casual event. If there is one WAAC player who cannot play to the communities level, you will harm the community.

CC can be a casual format, or a competitive format. I'm in two campaigns with this right now, one of which is competitively bent, and one which is casual.

In the competitive CC, we are all running rather competitive lists, and we're all tournament players. Its a good time.

However, we have one person in the casual CC that came from a Warmahordes background and is running the TRCR90 and YT2400 swarm against newbs who have the starter box, an ISD, and want to run all the bounty hunters. Everyone has rather "fluffy" and balanced lists, except for this guy who has won at list building. This group is for casual players who are new to the game. He's a nice guy, but I doubt the two newbies he tabled will continue with the game. And its entirely his fault for not recognizing the situation (even after I told him to tone it down).

Right, so that is your local problem. Don't drag your baggage into the entire community and start telling us how we should be playing the game. When someone doesn't understand what they are doing is wrong, then you can tell them to chill out or how to fix the problem.

I think you are making an issue seem bigger than it actually is. Find those new guys and play against them with a tame fleet. Show them tips and tricks. Help them understand how to build fleets.

And who is going to define the variables of "Casual" and "Competitive".

Who gets that Authority?

Also:

"**** Me. I'm Padme in Episode II...."

I don't think the "casual"/"competitive" split is really that clear, or important, or difficult to deal with.

The only thing that really matters is expectations within a single group, whether that be private group of friends, or the community attending actual store events.

Violating those expectations in an intentionally disruptive way is just being a jerk. People should try not to be jerks.

Bringing a soul-crushingly-powerful list to a CC campaign being run with a couple of folks who only have starter + $50 collections is just mean. Less so if you're unaware of the situation beforehand, but I think it still falls on the more experienced/invested player to level the playing field.

And who is going to define the variables of "Casual" and "Competitive".

Who gets that Authority?

Also:

"**** Me. I'm Padme in Episode II...."

The Imperials have the authority. They have a Death Star to enforce it.

Just wanted to share that I don't think I've ever ran into an issue with FFG games in a competitive setting (local tournaments, store champs or reigonals) that people have ever been labeled as that guy.

I'm jumping back into GW's Age of Sigmar right now and within 2 days of exploratory research, there's so many instances of those kind of lists from those guys that I already miss this game.

This should speak volumes about the WAAC interpretation of this game's design in general vs. other competitors.

.... are we really talking about segregating playgroups, now?

Like... as a solution?

I don't want those filthy casual players drinking from my water fountain

But really, this is a horrible way to solve this issue. I tend to think everyone here plays seriously and builds tournament lists because people who want to play casual tend to say they don't like the competitive scene.

Segregating the community is a horrible idea. We may not all agree with each others opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to put the competitive people in one place, and casual players in another. There is a lot of cross over between them. I enjoy tournaments, but I consider CC a casual format, but everyone I play with is also competitive.

I like to make eccentric casual lists, but once I find one that works I try to make it competitive. So where would I get placed?

If you can make a casual list, you can play in the casual scene, if you can make a competitive list, you can play in the competitive scene. You're only segregated if you CANNOT or WILL NOT play to the appropriate level. If you will ALWAYS play as WAAC and cannot control yourself... don't play in the casual event. If there is one WAAC player who cannot play to the communities level, you will harm the community.

CC can be a casual format, or a competitive format. I'm in two campaigns with this right now, one of which is competitively bent, and one which is casual.

In the competitive CC, we are all running rather competitive lists, and we're all tournament players. Its a good time.

However, we have one person in the casual CC that came from a Warmahordes background and is running the TRCR90 and YT2400 swarm against newbs who have the starter box, an ISD, and want to run all the bounty hunters. Everyone has rather "fluffy" and balanced lists, except for this guy who has won at list building. This group is for casual players who are new to the game. He's a nice guy, but I doubt the two newbies he tabled will continue with the game. And its entirely his fault for not recognizing the situation (even after I told him to tone it down).

And who is going to define the variables of "Casual" and "Competitive".

Who gets that Authority?

Obviously Casual Players. Competitive players don't care about how competitive is the other. They just play the best way they can. And the line is put wherever the casual players wanted because as long as I can understand the issue is a question of feeling bothered by other players. Causal players will play with everyone the thought is not bothering them and for the competitive ones there is nothing they can do unless move on to the casual level demanded by the casual players OR don't play cause now the competitive player is the one who is being bothered. And we get it: segregation! XD

Just wanted to share that I don't think I've ever ran into an issue with FFG games in a competitive setting (local tournaments, store champs or reigonals) that people have ever been labeled as that guy.

I'm jumping back into GW's Age of Sigmar right now and within 2 days of exploratory research, there's so many instances of those kind of lists from those guys that I already miss this game.

This should speak volumes about the WAAC interpretation of this game's design in general vs. other competitors.

I agree with this. I'm very competitive but I still allow my opponent to fix mistakes, like forgetting to shoot at squads with flotillas before they move. I've been on the other end of this as well and I think this is what seperates competitive Armada players from other games.