It could easily be more streamlined. Simply make refit points generate at the same time as resource points. I know the logic they applied is that all other benefits are useable for a turn so arrange the management phase to make that true of repair yards too.

But in early game, repair yards are hands down, no question the most valuable strategic benefit and it isn't even remotely close. Do they really need to make the management phase clunky just to ensure repair yards are the unquestioned master of benefits? Would you avoid them if there were a chance your opponent could take them back before you reaped the benefit?

Diplomats are garbage mostly. They're useable as very late game campaign point denial, but might as well not exist early to mid game.

Skilled spacers are no guarantee. They're only useful if you're defending a world that has standard objective cards. If you're behind on campaign points, playing on worlds with fixed objectives, defending a base, or defending a special assault they're unusable. If you have a stranglehold on spacers, the opposing team can mitigate their power or sidestep it entirely if they want.

Spynets are great, but there are 3 of them and they're only on worlds with low resource/campaign point value (average 3.7 resources, 0 campaign points per location).

Repair yards have an average resource value of 12 (not including the refit) and 1.5 campaign points. Also repair yards benefit every team member equally whereas every other benefit must be divided amongst players.

So is it really necessary to have an internal loop in one phase just to make sure the best benefit becomes the best-est-er? No.

They could've also sidestepped the wonkiness by allowing you to IMMEDIATELY build a base after a victory if you've got a spare 15 RP in your coffers. No looping phases, and the opportunity to reap immediate rewards if you set aside funds for investment.

From a narrative aspect, not being able to use repair yards until the following turn makes sense. Wouldn't a yard have to familiarize itself with ship schematics, acquire compatible machinery, and order parts to fix up a ravaged ship of the line? Imperials need triangle bits, and Rebs need lumpy bits, a constant changing of hands would lead to near constant parts shortages, no? "You're out of isosceles?! What! I've got deadlines dammit!"

Honestly I think spynet is the unmitigated best asset out there, and that Diplomats is far stronger early in the game than late, especially if you double up. Especially for rebel players they can keep your outposts alive, or reserve juicy targets for when your side has the advantage.

But spynet? Simply amazing to redeploy that way in a game where deployment and subsequent movement so heavily factor into who wins. Repair ten points free? Save 120pts with better deployment and extra strategic options.

Repair yards allows you to rebuild a single cheap squadron per player. Its great, but it wont keep you afloat when you get tabled. It wont win you the actual game- though yes, what it keeps healthy might, perhaps.

And again, the way it is happens to be as streamlined as you can get to achieve a consistent effect. If it was otherwise people would complain that it was inconsistent. As a designer you cant win.

Diplomats can only be placed in unoccupied locations so they can't protect outposts. Early game it's often a case of preventing someone from going to a location, but there are plenty of others they'll go to instead. Late campaign, as resource and campaign point rich planets are grabbed up, they can prevent your opponents from grabbing the few that remain. But they don't help you win, they just slow the bleeding.

But you're overlooking the value of repair yards coinciding with a resource and campaign rich planet. If you're nabbing spynets, you're only getting spynets and essentially nothing else. You're not moving closer to victory, you're hoping the ability to reposition one ship per team moves you closer to victory. Repair yards are not based on hope, they're known value targets. They offer you refit that can't be stopped, mitigated, planned around, or misused.

This is literally the only game I can think of that has circumstantial mini-loop in the resource gathering phase. If you think that's as streamlined as it could possibly be, you need to take a step back. Repair yards could do anything they wanted them to. It's not like management came down and told them what benefit repair yards granted and they had to design the game around it. If your desired effect creates weird timing loops, maybe rethink the effect. That's all I'm saying.

9 hours ago, Sekac said:

I stand thoroughly corrected. Turns out checking the rulebook pre-rant makes you look like less of an ass (am I allowed to say that word Disney?! Huh, AM I?!!) *edit* yes, I am

But that only raises another question. Why have an unnamed "one who chooses" role and have have initiative and first player be synonymous? Seems an unnecessary pitfall to create for the lazy, such as yours truly.

2 keywords that mean one thing and 0 that mean the other is on odd way to assign key words.

I answered this in the other "CC game is broke thread" when you brought it up.

Quote

I think the attacker should be given first player. This way both sides can build to 500 points without worrying about a bid. And it means you can have a different set of objectives for the base defense. It also creates the dynamic of the losing team being able to rebound back on the points. Can you imagine what it would be like to always have Demo being first player and facing it with a scarred fleet? And how do you build to 500 points? Let's say you are Imps and I'm Rebels. We both do a 5 ship list with 1 large and you have Demo and I have Admo, and we have an equal number of squads. Do we do a stand off with our lists to always get 1st player? Will either of us ever buy upgrades? Is it worth spending 20 points in upgrades when your opponent can spend 15 AND get 1st player? This is why the attacker gets 1st player. There is no game of chicken.

You never responded to it so I figured I made point.

No where in there do you explain why "initiative" and "first player" mean the same thing yet there is no way to express "the one who spent the least amount of points is the one who chooses who has initiative (or 'is first player' since those terms could be used interchangeably)" concisely.

It read then just as it reads now, a defense of why the attacker should automatically be first player, which I agree with. Am I misunderstanding your point?

It's just the redundancy of terms on one hand and no terms at all on the other hand, might make someone (incorrectly) assume that initiative and first player meant different things, and that initiative would refer to the person who decides who first and second player are.

In X-wing, spending low is referred to as an "initiative bid" colloquially, so I guess I assumed that an initiative bid in Armada would be the same sort of thing, but its clearly not. It's just a redundant term.

As you say, "Initiative" is both a colloquial term, and a hard and fast game term. You can get confused, but at least there's only one specific in-game meaning for it.

" Attack " is used as two different distinct meanings, both game terms... That one really bugs me.

Just now, Sekac said:

No where in there do you explain why "initiative" and "first player" mean the same thing yet there is no way to express "the one who spent the least amount of points is the one who chooses who has initiative (or 'is first player' since those terms could be used interchangeably)" concisely.

It read then just as it reads now, a defense of why the attacker should automatically be first player, which I agree with. Am I misunderstanding your point?

It's just the redundancy of terms on one hand and no terms at all on the other hand, might make someone (incorrectly) assume that initiative and first player meant different things, and that initiative would refer to the person who decides who first and second player are.

In X-wing, spending low is referred to as an "initiative bid" colloquially, so I guess I assumed that an initiative bid in Armada would be the same sort of thing, but its clearly not. It's just a redundant term.

So what do you want to know? Because I have no clue what you're trying to ask anymore.

34 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So what do you want to know? Because I have no clue what you're trying to ask anymore.

First player=one with initiative

One with initiative=first player

Yet...

"The person who spends the least amount of points decides who has initiative" =[nothing] There is no term that expresses this idea.

The mistake that I, and others, have made is thinking:

"The person who spends the least amount of points gets to decide who goes first"=one with initiative

And...

First Player=The person chosen by the player with initiative.

But that isn't how the game works. I realize that now. It's just an easy assumption to make because why have 2 key words to express one idea, and 0 to express another.

When I first read the CC rules, I thought the attacker would choose (not saying I thought they should ). When I saw the ruling, I thought FFG contradicted themselves, but they didn't. The mistake was mine, I fell into a logical pitfall by assuming FFG wouldn't write their core book with redundant, interchangeable terms.

If I bothered to look before criticizing I wouldn't have made that complaint, I'd have made the one that I'm making now:

Having redundant terms is a breeding ground for confusion, so don't do it!

2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

I fell into a logical pitfall by assuming FFG wouldn't write their core book with redundant, interchangeable terms.

Yep. They did. " Attack " is the proof for that.

(It means both the cycle through the attack flowchart - measuring range, rolling dice, etc, as well as the two things that a Ship can do each turn before performing its maneuver - and becomes double-redundant when one "Attack" results in multiple "attacks" against squadrons that are counted as one "attack", but each are individual "attacks"...)

14 minutes ago, Sekac said:

First player=one with initiative

One with initiative=first player

Yet...

"The person who spends the least amount of points decides who has initiative" =[nothing] There is no term that expresses this idea.

The mistake that I, and others, have made is thinking:

"The person who spends the least amount of points gets to decide who goes first"=one with initiative

And...

First Player=The person chosen by the player with initiative.

But that isn't how the game works. I realize that now. It's just an easy assumption to make because why have 2 key words to express one idea, and 0 to express another.

When I first read the CC rules, I thought the attacker would choose (not saying I thought they should ). When I saw the ruling, I thought FFG contradicted themselves, but they didn't. The mistake was mine, I fell into a logical pitfall by assuming FFG wouldn't write their core book with redundant, interchangeable terms.

If I bothered to look before criticizing I wouldn't have made that complaint, I'd have made the one that I'm making now:

Having redundant terms is a breeding ground for confusion, so don't do it!

So here is an example of where initiative does not mean first player.

Unlimited Rounds

• Players who want to play a death match to the bitter end can use this rule. The game does not end after the sixth round; instead, the game ends only when all of one player’s ships are destroyed. Do not use objectives when playing with this rule, but place obstacles as normal. In addition, at the end of each round, the player with initiative gives initiative to his opponent by passing the initiative token to that player.

I would imagine they created the 2 terms as being separate entities, but there has not been anything else that distinguishes them apart. You are right, every game I have played the first player is the one with initiative. But FFG may release something in the future that relies on who has initiative, where as most of the game is based on 1st/2nd player interactions.

They could have made 1st player always has initiative, but that means they would limit the design space they had created for future expansions/campaigns. They have done this before when they called out large ships in the core set rules, but that was before wave 2.

26 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yep. They did. " Attack " is the proof for that.

(It means both the cycle through the attack flowchart - measuring range, rolling dice, etc, as well as the two things that a Ship can do each turn before performing its maneuver - and becomes double-redundant when one "Attack" results in multiple "attacks" against squadrons that are counted as one "attack", but each are individual "attacks"...)

I don't know if I agree with this. The rule book is pretty clear about how to make attacks. In regards to squads, you make 1 attack but can declare multiple squads as defenders.

Declare Additional Squadron Target: If the attacker is a ship and the defender was a squadron, the attacker can declare another enemy squadron as a defender and repeat steps 2 through 6. The new defender must be inside the firing arc and at attack range of the same attacking hull zone. Each enemy squadron can be targeted only once per attack.

Attack is defined as the entire process and each part has it's own vocab so there is no redundancy. What is the second type of attack or definition of it?

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I don't know if I agree with this. The rule book is pretty clear about how to make attacks. In regards to squads, you make 1 attack but can declare multiple squads as defenders.

Declare Additional Squadron Target: If the attacker is a ship and the defender was a squadron, the attacker can declare another enemy squadron as a defender and repeat steps 2 through 6. The new defender must be inside the firing arc and at attack range of the same attacking hull zone. Each enemy squadron can be targeted only once per attack.

Attack is defined as the entire process and each part has it's own vocab so there is no redundancy. What is the second type of attack or definition of it?

'Tis a careful Distinction - Under that definition, If declaring a new defender wasn't a new attack , then spending 2 Shields form Dominator would allow you to add 2 dice to each and every squadron attack from that arc. Because its not a new attack, its a new defender, right ?

Issue would have been solved by stating that a ship gets two Salvos a Turn, and each salvo comprises on an Anti-Ship Attack, or Anti-Squadron Attacks against all Squadrons in Arc.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

'Tis a careful Distinction - Under that definition, If declaring a new defender wasn't a new attack , then spending 2 Shields form Dominator would allow you to add 2 dice to each and every squadron attack from that arc. Because its not a new attack, its a new defender, right ?

Issue would have been solved by stating that a ship gets two Salvos a Turn, and each salvo comprises on an Anti-Ship Attack, or Anti-Squadron Attacks against all Squadrons in Arc.

I don't see why you can't do that. You can OE every anti-squad attack on Raiders. You can add dice via Kallus for each anti-squad attack. You can use Toryn on every anti-squad attack.

Dominator: "While attacking at close-medium range, you may spend up to 2 shields from any of your hull zones to add the same number of blue dice to your attack pool."

If you choose to use an anti-squad attack, you are still in the "while attacking" thing and you can add your 2 dice for each attack. It doesn't say it is limited to a single attack, and it is not breaking the rules:

A “while” effect can be resolved during the specified event and cannot occur again during that instance of the event.

If you are right, than a lot of people have been playing the game wrong, including myself.

Declaring an anti-squadron attack counts as a single attack in regards to how many attacks a ship can make. However, the "while attacking" phrase does not designate a specific timing, much like Solar Corona or IO does. Because of this, you are able to use upgrades with "while attacking" on each anti-squad attack:

An effect that modifies attack dice can only be resolved during the “Resolve Attacks Effects” step of an attack unless another timing is specified.

Declaring another squad as a defender for the attack is creating another event to trigger "while attacking".

I can understand your argument stating the entire anti-squad attack counts a single event, and thus you can only use "while attacking" effects once for the entire duration of the attack. However, the FAQ has this to say:

“Treat each repetition of steps 2 through 6 as a new attack for the purposes of resolving card effects.”

So, an anti-squad attack counts as a single attack, but you declare multiple defenders, and treat each of those as a new attack. You can Dominate your way to victory and burn up all your shields if you want.

It's kinda crazy at work so I hope all this makes sense.

My point relates to the last lines you typed there.

If they'd declared the first definition a Salvo, and the second Definition an Attack... They they wouldn't have had to Caveat what attack means (treat them as new attacks) in the FAQ, as they would have already been different........

On 2/28/2017 at 11:00 AM, Undeadguy said:

So here is an example of where initiative does not mean first player.

Unlimited Rounds

• Players who want to play a death match to the bitter end can use this rule. The game does not end after the sixth round; instead, the game ends only when all of one player’s ships are destroyed. Do not use objectives when playing with this rule, but place obstacles as normal. In addition, at the end of each round, the player with initiative gives initiative to his opponent by passing the initiative token to that player.

I would imagine they created the 2 terms as being separate entities, but there has not been anything else that distinguishes them apart. You are right, every game I have played the first player is the one with initiative. But FFG may release something in the future that relies on who has initiative, where as most of the game is based on 1st/2nd player interactions.

They could have made 1st player always has initiative, but that means they would limit the design space they had created for future expansions/campaigns. They have done this before when they called out large ships in the core set rules, but that was before wave 2.

Um, I'm sorry but this is not true. Initiative 'most certainly' means first player. I quoted a couple of things from the RRG in my previous post, but here is the obvious one that I actually missed at the time.

Page 6, under First Player: The first player is the player with initiative.

I'd call that pretty conclusive. Even in your Unlimited Rounds quote, at the end of the round you are passing the initiative token to the other player, thereby giving them initiative and making them first player next round.

I get what everyone is saying about the Attacks thing, and how that can be confusing, but a quick reread of the rules makes Initiaitve and First Player pretty simple.

4 hours ago, Xindell said:

Um, I'm sorry but this is not true. Initiative 'most certainly' means first player. I quoted a couple of things from the RRG in my previous post, but here is the obvious one that I actually missed at the time.

Page 6, under First Player: The first player is the player with initiative.

I'd call that pretty conclusive. Even in your Unlimited Rounds quote, at the end of the round you are passing the initiative token to the other player, thereby giving them initiative and making them first player next round.

I get what everyone is saying about the Attacks thing, and how that can be confusing, but a quick reread of the rules makes Initiaitve and First Player pretty simple.

Ehh. Not too big of a deal.

8 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Ehh. Not too big of a deal.

Agreed, it's really not. I just found it odd/amusing that so many people were confused about the Campaign stating the attacker always has initiative, and what that meant for first/second player. Open your RRG's people!

I think you guys read way to hard on Reiken. No where does he say his ability prevents Ship from being destroyed, he simply changes how you handle a destroyed ship. Therefore the ships were destroyed and even if the escape via hyperspace they're still scared.

27 minutes ago, Xindell said:

Agreed, it's really not. I just found it odd/amusing that so many people were confused about the Campaign stating the attacker always has initiative, and what that meant for first/second player. Open your RRG's people!

To be fair, I was looking for a statement where first people did not mean initiative. I was biased and did not search the entire book haha

19 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I think you guys read way to hard on Reiken. No where does he say his ability prevents Ship from being destroyed, he simply changes how you handle a destroyed ship. Therefore the ships were destroyed and even if the escape via hyperspace they're still scared.

Uh oh! The worms are escaping the can!

Staying out of it this time!

The blood choose who is the king (first player). The king sits on the throne (initiative token).

The king (first player) is the guy whith the crown (initiative).

The crown (initiative) determines who will govern (act first). Whoever governs (acts first) is the king (first player) and sits on the throne (initiative token).

The king (first player) retains the crown (initiative) for his entire life.

Are the king, the throne and the crown the same thing? No. Does it matter? Probably not.

18 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I think you guys read way to hard on Reiken. No where does he say his ability prevents Ship from being destroyed, he simply changes how you handle a destroyed ship. Therefore the ships were destroyed and even if the escape via hyperspace they're still scared.

I disagree. Rieekan says:

"When a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase."

And Hyperspace Retreat says:

"During the fourth and fifth rounds, when a ship activates and reveals a command dial, it may immediately declare a retreat and discard the dial. If that ship remains in the play area at the start of the Status Phase, remove that ship from the play area. It will count as destroyed when determining score, but does NOT become scarred after the battle has been resolved (see "Tracking Fleet Condition" on page 9).

So Rieekan zombies a ship. It is considered destroyed, and at the end of the status phase, it gets removed. Hyperspace Retreat prevents scarring, and it happens at the beginning of the Status Phase.

So even if a ship is destroyed, you can retreat and not be scarred.

Scarred Ship and Squadrons: Each ship or squadron that was destroyed during the battle becomes scarred. The player who controls a ship or squadron that has been scarred records this on his fleet roster and assigns that ship a ship or squadron scar ID token.

I understand how you came to your conclusion, but I see one flaw in it. Rieekan says destroyed ships are treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase. I know I;m being redundant, but it's important. Rieekan doesn't say "The ship is destroyed but is treated as if it were not destroyed", much like HR says "It will count as destroyed when determining score, but does NOT become scarred after the battle".

Rieekan is an NSA ability. Treated as not destroyed, period. So you HR and prevent being scarred, because the Scarred Ship and Squadrons rule never takes place.

41 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

I think you guys read way to hard on Reiken. No where does he say his ability prevents Ship from being destroyed, he simply changes how you handle a destroyed ship. Therefore the ships were destroyed and even if the escape via hyperspace they're still scared.

I realized something similar but I don't know the english wording of scarred.

I my cc rulebook (the Spanish one) says:

Every ship or squadrons destroyed during the battle became scarred.

Are the ships destroyed during the battle? If yes they will be scarred. The ship must be destroyed in order to trigger Riekan. If they jumped or not doesn't matter at this point.

The thing that prevented me for playing Riekan without his bonus in the CC is that the requirement for not being scarred when escaping to hyperspace is to remain on the table, not to avoid destruction.

So we end on

1. the ship was destroyed during the battle so scarred

2. The ship remain on the table at the beginning of the status phase so it won't become scarred.

As long as the hyperspace jump is an exception to the default scarred rule I think it has preference so Riekan would work.

Also, here is the FAQ:

Ships and squadrons affected by this ability are destroyed at the end of the Status Phase regardless of the number of damage cards or hull points they have at that time. These ships or squadrons are removed before resolving any “end of round” or “end of game” effects.

Ships and squadrons affected by this ability are treated as undestroyed until the end of the Status Phase for all purposes (attacking, defending, resolving card abilities, etc). These ships and squadrons can suffer additional damage from resolving effects such as Ruthless Strategists.

Treated as undestroyed for all purposes. I'd assume this extends into the rules as well, which means it can interact with HR.

You just quoted a passage that says they're destroyed before the end of the game so I have no idea what you're arguing here.