Lots of salt in this dumpster fire of a thread on both sides.

For me, if my opponent wants to put their admiral on a 4 - 5 hit point ship that's combat ineffective and useless against accuracy rolls, then that's fine with me.

If that's their last ship and the commander makes a getaway, I'm fine with that too. That means I've still mostly tabled them.

I didn't realize that this was such a problem.

He didn't say that.

But this is a Star Wars game first and foremost. You're not going to see a Galaxy class starship, an ork filled rok or a Terran battlecruiser flying through the middle of the map.

This means the game needs to meet star wars themes, not Star trek, wh40k or StarCraft. So when rules are made they need to be fair and balanced, but also within theme.

No stop until mass Voidray.

.

This means the game needs to meet star wars themes, not Star trek, wh40k or StarCraft. So when rules are made they need to be fair and balanced, but also within theme.

.

This means the game needs to meet star wars themes, not Star trek, wh40k or StarCraft. So when rules are made they need to be fair and balanced, but also within theme.

Thing is, theme isn't what makes a game good, the mechanisms and gameplay are. No one will play your terrible game for the theme, but a lot of players of combinatorial games exist.

Theme AND mechanics make a game great. I've played many games that were shoddy from a mechanics standpoint because I loved the theme.

.

This means the game needs to meet star wars themes, not Star trek, wh40k or StarCraft. So when rules are made they need to be fair and balanced, but also within theme.

Thing is, theme isn't what makes a game good, the mechanisms and gameplay are. No one will play your terrible game for the theme, but a lot of players of combinatorial games exist.

Theme AND mechanics make a game great. I've played many games that were shoddy from a mechanics standpoint because I loved the theme.

And neither theme NOR mechanics are mutually exclusive!

So why should the entire game be changed so about half the community is happy, while the other half is angry? Doing any of the changes suggested in this thread would alienate the people who like to play MSU lists. Multiple Small Units. That means no large ships, maybe 1 medium. Why should I have to put my commander on my most expensive ship making it a bigger target? Makes more sense to spread my points out so if I lose a ship, I can still come out with an 8-3 or 9-2.

When I go to play at a tournament, I go there to win. If you want thematic games, play at home with your friends where you agree on changing the rules. But forcing this stupid, selfish change will hurt the game.

Suck it up and deal with it.

Horribly circular logic. Why should the game remain the way it is just because half the community doesn't like it and half the community does? At least think before you post.

Question. Let's say, hypothetically, a FAQ update prevents commanders from being placed on flotillas. Would you "Suck it up and deal with it" or would you charge to the forums QQ'n over it?

Did you even understand anything I said? It's not circular logic.

If we let players decide how to balance the game, this game would be awful. As of right now, there are plenty of tools to kill flotillas. The problem is people don't want to drop 50 points to go kill a flotilla. But you have the option to deal with it. If FFG comes down with the banhammer and removes commanders from flotillas, this means the entire game will change. MSU lists will be hurt horribly. A large portion of lists will be nonviable because one portion of the community cried really really loud.

See the difference?

One is a soft change: add something that can kill flotillas. People don't like to do this and are complaining as a result.

The other is a hard change: remove commanders from flotillas. You are making people play differently, not because of a meta change started by players, but rather forced down on everyone.

I oppose players who think removing an aspect of the game is for the better. Most the time they are short sighted and misguided attempts to balance the game in their own vision. It pisses me off when people come off as "This game is broke because I think so and I am correct in my analysis of the game. Speak against me and you will always be wrong and I will hate your for it" and then drop their "brain child" on how to fix the game.

Maybe people should ask how to deal with flotillas instead of proposing a radical change to the game.

And if FFG does come down and say commanders are removed from flotillas, I will adapt. I accept the changes FFG makes as for the greater good of the game. They have far more insight and resources to understand the current state of the game.

Anything else I can answer?

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, CR90 MSU and eventually Corvette/MC30 and GSD//Raider MSU was still a thing, and flotillas.... weren't. So, I'm not sure the sky is falling "won't someone please think of the flotillas!" speech is all that solid.

A soft change could also be "Add +25 VP for a destroyed flagship" to make the GR75 lifeboat not just an exercise in eye-rolling when I'm lighting it up with an ISD or tooled up Liberty. After all, it's entirely and completely possible for me to be murdering a CR90 worth more frigging points than an Admiral in his space canoe.

But even that's not the primary basis of my grumbling. I'm not complaining because it's somehow OP, or that I haven't figured out the intricacies of 'getting an accuracy result', it's that it feels wrong to have an admiral there in the first place. Flotillas good, admirals on flotillas... weird. We know commanders are on shuttles, we see that a lot, usually headed to their command ship. But when was the last time that a fleet commander in the Star Wars universe chose a GR75 or Gozanti over... well, anything? We see fleet commanders on light cruisers, we see them on corvettes, we see them on frigates, and we see them on Star Destroyers, they're almost always on the biggest, baddest ships around. What we don't see is them piddling around in the back on a freight car when the big ships are on screen.

I don't want to remove options, but I'm all for tweaking the incentives.

Flotillas make MSU more viable and even better than before. I don't see a reason to nerf it.

And the fluff argument does nothing for me. Arguing it's not Star Wars because Dodonna is on a flotilla is not a good reason for FFG to go ahead and strip commanders from flotillas. The mechanics are what make the game so good. Ever try to play WotC star ship battles or whatever their Star Wars game was? It was awful. but had the Star Wars skin.

My draw to this game was Star Wars because WotC failed in their game. What made it so good for me is the card game/miniature combination. I love customizing my ships instead of having a generic ship. I love the maneuver tool as well. It feels good to have a system that allows for drifting ships and what not. This is why I enjoy this game.

So hearing the argument "It's not Star Wars unless you play the way I want" is a poor one. Give people the option to do what ever they want with their fleet. That's another reason why I love this game. There is no unstoppable build.

I do think an objective that gives bonus points to flagships is a good way to dissuade people from dropping commanders on a flotilla. Have it replace Most Wanted because flotillas abuse that one. If I had to create that objective, it would be "At the end of the game, each players flagship scores an additional 25/50/75 if the ship is large/medium/small respectively." Have it replace Most Wanted. Now you have a very aggressive red objective, that you benefit from if you think "it's Star Wars enough" to have your commander on a large ship. And your opponent will likely pick from the other 2 objectives, which you can punish them with. Hyperspace Assault, Solar Corona, and Superior Positions means you can get in position to kill their life boat if you so desire. If you decide not to, that's on you.

I think implementing a rule that grants more points to the flagship is way to get in trouble with scoring. That might actually drive more people to life boating, because you are moving 50 points away from your large ship.

But even that's not the primary basis of my grumbling. I'm not complaining because it's somehow OP, or that I haven't figured out the intricacies of 'getting an accuracy result', it's that it feels wrong to have an admiral there in the first place. Flotillas good, admirals on flotillas... weird. We know commanders are on shuttles, we see that a lot, usually headed to their command ship. But when was the last time that a fleet commander in the Star Wars universe chose a GR75 or Gozanti over... well, anything? We see fleet commanders on light cruisers, we see them on corvettes, we see them on frigates, and we see them on Star Destroyers, they're almost always on the biggest, baddest ships around. What we don't see is them piddling around in the back on a freight car when the big ships are on screen.

But if you are going to go to the level to dictate that "An Admiral can't be on xx", where does it stop?

What would it take to "Justify" it? A Single piece of Lore entry where "command" was on a GR75? Do I have to define "Command"... Because I can point out a bit in rebels, seemingly, we have an engagement where:

1) Rebel Command was on a GR75 Transport (with the subordinates being A-Wings)

2) Imperial Command was seemingly with TIE Interceptors despite the presence of an Arquitens.

Because that would set some interesting precedences...

That's the problem I have with people saying "But its just not in the LORE"... There's a ton of stuff in Armada that's not in the Lore. Doesn't mean it won't ever be in the Lore. Doesn't meant he Lore is the be all and end all.

For me, Star Wars: Armada is a Game, and the Game is a Means to a Story. This can be accentuated even further in Campaigns (Especially when someone has the dedication such as Vykes to throw something like Cecknell forward)... But it can also be "game-ified" in the Tournament Sense.

In Short: I don't want Players dictating to me what I can and can't play. As a Veteran of the Australian 40K Tournament Composition Panel, I have PTSD over that...

I want an Authority to be dicating to me what I can and can't play.

That Authority can be FFG via the Rules (Ohey, the rules allow it.)

Or that Authority can be someone else, if we're working on a homebrew system. If I were to join the Ceknell Campaign and Vykes said "No Admirals on Transports", then I'd adhere to it...

But until one or the other things happens... No.

And honestly, its insulting for "One Side" or the "Other" to claim Justice, Righteousness or anything else, when no-one here has any direct influence over FFG, and FFG as a parent company is loathe to fix or modify anything that isn't outrageously broken in their eyes.

There already is a soft patch. Commanders are worth at least 20, and up to 38 points to whatever ship they are assigned to. That means that yes, the cheapest Admiral on the cheapest flotilla is going to be less expensive than a naked CR90B, but that is a case of prioritizing. If you have a 50+ point ship flying at the edges of the map buffing the rest of their fleet, you should be able to choose if you want to spend 50ish points to bring it down, or focus your effort on the things that are actually involved in the major combat.

I'm really liking the idea of something that can be tasked with flotilla hunting to go wild on enemy "flagships" that are patrolling a corner of the map, but can do double duty if it doesn't see a flotilla.

Got another fun one for you. Jonus and a Raider 1 w/ Ordnance Experts / APT (or a Raider 2)

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

The question is mostly irrelevant, and here, is framed offensively.

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

The question is mostly irrelevant, and here, is framed offensively.

Agreed. Is it something you CAN do? Yes.

Is it something that you SHOULD do if you have a Large (or sometimes a Medium) based ship to stick your Commander on? No.

Is it a very viable and somewhat necessary tactic for a swarm list? Yes.

And taking commanders off flotillas won't kill MSU's, they'll just be on a slightly bigger ship. Hell, the composition of an MSU fleet doesn't even have to change, just the positioning of one single upgrade card: the admiral. Likewise, not my problem.

Sure, we all love the game for one thing or another, but this isn't saying that the game is bad. The notion of an admiral in a fleet game on the cheapest in the game because it works on tournament economics and has a single really reaaaaaally good defense token, doesn't feel right. It's not hard to kill a flotilla, it's not even difficult to essentially neuter it (we've had intel officers since Wave 1, so even if you can't guarantee the accuracy result, getting rid of its defenses is pretty easy with tools we're already familiar with). There's certainly a good toolset and a lot of ships that can deal with them. I dislike that the usage of admirals on flotilla flagships is spurred on for very gamey reasons: it's inexpensive so you don't lose a ton of points when its gone, and because they can immediately 'leave' the battle and take a very small percentage of the effective force with them.

See, objectives like that! That works... I mean it feels a little odd to me that it would go like that in numbers (by gut, as a method I think it's great), but I'm fine with it because crikey, I'd take an objective like that in the current environment (Like I said, when I'm at a tournament, guess where my Admiral is? Because that's a tournament, and I freely admit it. Doesn't mean I have to like it). The points thing for flagships does promote them staying alive: so if the +X VP thing was a thing, I'd expect that the commanders might be on ships like the MC80 Assault tooled up for the defense, Admonition, Int's, or ISD-II's with Damage Control Officers. Something that is hard to make die in the usual ways.

Here's a bit of a question, and a serious ones for me: which admirals are the ones most often taken in lifeboats? From what I've seen and experienced, it's usually the cheap ones or those that get big benefits from small ships: Ozzel, Dodonna, Cracken, Madine (sometimes), Mothma and maybe Tagge. Ackbar no, Tarkin no, Motti noooo, Iblis no, Konstantine no, Vader no. Maybe it's just me, but those just seem like the biggest proportion of the offenders.

Drazzy, you're now on 'the list': slippery slope fallacy, 2 point deduction, 10 yard penalty. No, I've never heard of the word 'command': please, do explain it to poor plebeian meesa -laughs- . Give it to me as part of the show in a fleet, not in a single ship task force, and yeah... I'm actually a lot more happy with it. Seriously, it's not hard to make me happy. Drazzy, straight up: can you honestly say that it doesn't strike you as odd that a fleet commander, in a group as large as is what's presented in Star Wars Armada, is on a cargo flotilla instead of on a dedicated command vessel when the dedicated command vessel is also physically present?

-laughs- as a vet of the 40K/WFB scene I already have PTSD over the rule-writers having control over what I can and can't play. It seems to change with the season, so I'm also used to the notion of 'the quick fix'.

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

The question is mostly irrelevant, and here, is framed offensively.

And yet, telling people that's the way it is and to suck it up isn't. The hypocrisy is beautiful. Obviously not you specifically. Maybe not take things so personally. If you can't scroll through this post and see the aggression of the pro-flotilla argument then we're not reading the same posts.

I think you should be able to take commanders on a squadron.

Gold One reporting in.

Maaaaybe one day Eggy, maaaaybe one day. Actually there is one interesting little equivalency from the CC campaign where a squadron is worth the same as a ship: Hyperlane Raid. Squadrons can be assigned objective tokens if they can't be assigned to ships. It's not overall command, but it's the start of the glorious fighter revolution 2.0

Only in ships with a passenger seat. Tarkin isn't going to sully himself with actually piloting anything.

I wish I didn't have to take a commander sometimes.

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

The question is mostly irrelevant, and here, is framed offensively.

And yet, telling people that's the way it is and to suck it up isn't. The hypocrisy is beautiful. Obviously not you specifically. Maybe not take things so personally. If you can't scroll through this post and see the aggression of the pro-flotilla argument then we're not reading the same posts.

I was referencing mostly "forums full of autistic screeching"

But its okay.

If we get Palpatine, I demand he is on the Death Star. I saw him commanding it. It's canon and must be adhered by fanatically, to the point where I may get banned from the forums.

I wish I didn't have to take a commander sometimes.

Ugh, don't I know it. Take the flagship, give my opponent a few extra points for killing it, but let me use those last 20-ish points to do something.

As for Grand Papa Palpy... I seem to recall him on the ISD Majestic and then the Eclipse, I guess... I mean he got abducted and later only seemed to stay on moon sized space stations, so yeah, lesson learned.

I merely pointed out that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the pro-flotilla side of this debate. I asked a simple question...if FFG states flotillas get treated more like squadrons than ships (since they are more like squadrons than ships) and therefore can no longer have commanders attached to them, would the pro-flotilla community stand by their statement of "that's the way it is, suck it up" or would they take to the forums full of autistic screeching like some are now in defense of the tactic.

I don't care either way. As mentioned, my 61 points are worth killing their 50-60 points.

The question is mostly irrelevant, and here, is framed offensively.

And yet, telling people that's the way it is and to suck it up isn't. The hypocrisy is beautiful. Obviously not you specifically. Maybe not take things so personally. If you can't scroll through this post and see the aggression of the pro-flotilla argument then we're not reading the same posts.

If you got a problem, call me out. Your passive aggressive is weak.

Or report me. But then again, I'm not the one using derogatory terms.

Were those sports references?

I didn't get them, Vykes

But to answer:

No, I don't feel it odd. But that's my background talking... In my background, in my history, in my training, no, the commander should not dedicate themselves to the front in the dedicated command and control vessel - the C&C system is a relay at best, to the back line.

So yes, I do admit that in the majority of the time, I do indeed see that the Commander or Admiral appears to lead form the front in the Star Wars as presented.

But that doesn't stop my brain from saying "THAT IS STUPID" any more than others see the Commander on a Flotilla as stupid.

The assumption for me:

This is not just a Transport.

The GR75 Medium Transport with Bomber Command and Commander Sato isn't just two little dinky ships

This is a dedicated flotilla of medium transport ships (as contrased to Light Freighters), which are ostensibly networked and C&Cd in order to accommodate not only a Coordination center for my Bomber Wings, increasing their effectiveness, but having enough room and electronics capacity left over in order to accommodate the fleet commander.

That is fluffy and lore based to me.

I mean, Dodonna was apparently in Bomber Command on Yavin if we're going by the image on the card itself... If that level of command and control can be placed in a small fleet of heavily modified transport vessels, then... Yes. I have absolutely NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER in having Commander Sato leaning over that Bomber Command Board.

I wish I didn't have to take a commander sometimes.

Ugh, don't I know it. Take the flagship, give my opponent a few extra points for killing it, but let me use those last 20-ish points to do something.

As for Grand Papa Palpy... I seem to recall him on the ISD Majestic and then the Eclipse, I guess... I mean he got abducted and later only seemed to stay on moon sized space stations, so yeah, lesson learned.

Sounds like new titles for the ISD and an SSD incoming.