I want to propose 2 rules changes:

1. Flotillas can't be the Flagship of the fleet.

2. Flotillas activate in the squadron phase.

I dont like the trend of flotilla stacking in order to gain advantage through a couple of cheap nonsense activations. It does just not feel right.

They have enough utility even if they activate after all ships have activated.

Also, having a flotilla as the designated flagship is nonsense.

What do you think?

3. Make H9 Turbolasers a Thing ™

I could see the flagship one being a thing but not keen on the squadron phase bit

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/238981-anyone-else-sick-of-lifeboat-flotillas/page-1

Look how well this went over last time.

*shrug*

Could be an interesting house rule if you want to mix up the viable fleet builds in your play group. But then you might as well ban them altogether.

H9's were pretty good on MC30's long before flotilla's...

I think this is relevant as well.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/240218-please-use-evidence/

Now if you are looking for house rules, that's fine. I'd be glad to help with that. But if you are looking for a global rule change, well, that's a problem.

You could solve half the problems by FFG publishing an update that states fleet Admiral abilities apply at close-long range. It would at least prevent the most absurd flotillas (corner dwelling cowards) from happening. As far as flotillas for activations go...If they have 2, that's nearly a Raider. Either ignore them or kill them.

I don't care what the meta says, quality of activations is just as important as quantity of activtions.

I want to propose 2 rules changes:

1. Flotillas can't be the Flagship of the fleet.

2. Flotillas activate in the squadron phase.

I dont like the trend of flotilla stacking in order to gain advantage through a couple of cheap nonsense activations. It does just not feel right.

They have enough utility even if they activate after all ships have activated.

Also, having a flotilla as the designated flagship is nonsense.

What do you think?

1) Soft no

2) No ******* way. This doesn't just enable bomber lists...it helps a good fighter screen be highly effective as opposed to glorified plative armour for a ship. So again **** no.

It would have got very bad in Wave 3/4 if that meta lasted for 6 months because Rebel float were a lot of top tier lists globally but now Wave 5/CC saves it.

I don't play Rebels but I have suffered the CR90B Float Flagship killer. Maybe a Rebel else can put something up?

As an Imp you have so many options to kill floatillas/squadrons that it isn't an issue. (Jedeon/Marek, Jonus/Ship, Rhymer, ISD battery, Raiders, Arquitens)

All factions have equal access to H9 and other acc generation -edit-thanks snipafist and token remoal aka: Intel Officer. I have lost more floatillas to this than H9.

3. Make H9 Turbolasers a Thing ™

This is my preferred solution to flotilla problems as well and it doesn't even require house rules!

Seriously, anything that generates Accuracy results reliably (and honorable mention goes to Intel Officer as well) eats flotillas for breakfast and is still pretty good against most other ships, so it's not a big imposition. If all the effort I see on these forums crying about flotillas was used towards actually killing the darn things then we'd be in a better place.

I think this is relevant as well.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/240218-please-use-evidence/

Now if you are looking for house rules, that's fine. I'd be glad to help with that. But if you are looking for a global rule change, well, that's a problem.

Why? Why can't he express desire for a global rule change? Isn't that exactly what people say to do instead of complain? The only response to a request for redress of grievances is "shut up and just do a house change"?

I find such responses dismissive. I think that kikaze's arguments are good and the post is great. Nevertheless, the a priori stance of "this is the way it is so you can't want something different or think that something else might be better" is offputting.

Now, all this said, I don't think you meant to be that way. I like your posts and I like you. I am probably responding more to the numerous posts by a number of posters that reflect this attitude.

Rock on!

I disagree.

I think this is relevant as well.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/240218-please-use-evidence/

Now if you are looking for house rules, that's fine. I'd be glad to help with that. But if you are looking for a global rule change, well, that's a problem.

Why? Why can't he express desire for a global rule change? Isn't that exactly what people say to do instead of complain? The only response to a request for redress of grievances is "shut up and just do a house change"?

I find such responses dismissive. I think that kikaze's arguments are good and the post is great. Nevertheless, the a priori stance of "this is the way it is so you can't want something different or think that something else might be better" is offputting.

Now, all this said, I don't think you meant to be that way. I like your posts and I like you. I am probably responding more to the numerous posts by a number of posters that reflect this attitude.

Rock on!

This is not really the place to "propose a rules change", though, is it? By all means, we can discuss a hypothetical rules change and its potential consequences. Maybe gauge support for it. But if your goal is to make the rules actually change (as apparent from the OP's choice of words) your options are essentially:

a) Contact FFG with a reasoned* proposal; and/or

b) Wait and hope; and/or

c) House rules.

*: "I don't like it", "it doesn't feel right" or "nonsense" don't really qualify.

I think this is relevant as well.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/240218-please-use-evidence/

Now if you are looking for house rules, that's fine. I'd be glad to help with that. But if you are looking for a global rule change, well, that's a problem.

Why? Why can't he express desire for a global rule change? Isn't that exactly what people say to do instead of complain? The only response to a request for redress of grievances is "shut up and just do a house change"?

I find such responses dismissive. I think that kikaze's arguments are good and the post is great. Nevertheless, the a priori stance of "this is the way it is so you can't want something different or think that something else might be better" is offputting.

Now, all this said, I don't think you meant to be that way. I like your posts and I like you. I am probably responding more to the numerous posts by a number of posters that reflect this attitude.

Rock on!

My issue is we are players. We each have our own perceived notion on how the game should be played, and with each expansion it gets more complex. Some people here play casual, others like myself like to play competitive. But when someone comes in and says we need to fix a problem because they have an issue and it needs to be forced onto everyone else, it tends to tick me off. Why do I need to be forced to play by new rules because someone else can't deal with the new meta changes? And that's what this post is. A proposal to change the rules for flotillas.

Some people think these posts are meaningless. But I think there is some merit to these issues. And I also think FFG pays attention to what the players want and need. And if everyone got on the band wagon to change flotillas, FFG might actually do something. People wanted something to deal with Intel and we got 2 squad packs and CC which has a ton of tools to do just that. And Flechette Torps. Is it possible that is simply coincidence? Yes, but I'd like to believe FFG realized they screwed up and the players didn't enjoy always playing with Intel because it was "that good". People complained about Demo, and we got flotillas which really sapped the activation advantage away from DeMSU. Coincidence again? Hard to say.

So yes, I tend to be dismissive when someone thinks life boats are crazy OP or we need to get rid of flotillas. There are plenty of tools available to deal with flotillas and they are not hard to kill.

Edit: I also don't think there is statistical data to prove flotillas are game breaking as these people make them out to be. I'll admit 3 flotillas for padding an MC80 is annoying, but at what point are you prevented from kill the flotillas?

I disagree.

I also disagree.

I like the current strategy choice. "Do I put my admiral on this little thing or on my beefy ships?"

There are numerous ways to kill them. My personal favorite is a Glad with Engine Techs. Two turns is all that needs.

Things that make it VERY risky to do the admiral lifeboat thing:

A Glad2 with Jonus

MC30s with H9s

ANY ISD

Playing anyone that out deploys you.

I don't like seeing the fleet commander on a flotilla either. It is cheesy. It's legal cheesy, but so was punching someone into a corner in Street Fighter, and we all hated that.

I'd be fine with a rules change restricting Commanders to a non-flotilla but, the squadron phase activation would kill their use as a carrier so it's a no on that change.

"Incoming fire Lord Vader! Your orders?"

*breathes*..."Scatter"

Guys are there so many ways to take one out!!!!! H9s, sensor teams, jonus, home one etc.

All I hear when I read these threads is, "I can't reliably destroy a flotilla with my fleet and I don't want to have to change it so we need a nerf!"

Harsh I know but if you're not bringing a flotilla hunter in one form or another at this point. I can't help you.

People can't agree on this one way or the other. Everyone is not going to get behind a change because there are two different opinion. If this is the case rather than fighting the same argument again and again can we trust FFG one way or the other?

I want to propose 2 rules changes:

1. Flotillas can't be the Flagship of the fleet.

2. Flotillas activate in the squadron phase.

I dont like the trend of flotilla stacking in order to gain advantage through a couple of cheap nonsense activations. It does just not feel right.

They have enough utility even if they activate after all ships have activated.

Also, having a flotilla as the designated flagship is nonsense.

What do you think?

I think no, but I have a counter proposal:

Let's never have a thread on this topic ever again

If people pitch up with a pile of flotillas rather than capital ships, that's points invested in small ships rather than big ones. Yes, it gives them some advantage in terms of activations, but it also gives you some fairly lightweight ships to blow up. There are plenty of options for doing so, even more with the latest waves out, so it's a case of destroying enough of them to dissuade a regular opponent from relying on them.

And lifeboat flotillas are annoying, particularly if your opponent sits it in a corner, but again there are options for dealing with that too. You can mob it with fighters: the Empire in particular has some great choices (Decimators? Defenders? Firesprays?), and the Rebels have some cool options too (Hera with some bombers, or a few Lancers, spring to mind). Equally, design a flotilla hunter; Raiders in particular have the speed and the dice to make a flotilla cry. All of which I feel are justifiable investments to take out their admiral, and if they reinforce it with fighters, that's just more defences out of the way of your main fleet. Once again, a heavy loss may be enough to make them rethink their tactics.

All of which is to say, no I don't think we need a rule change. It may not be the most noble tactic, but it's an acceptable one, and the best way to discourage it is to find a counter, not outlaw it.

People can't agree on this one way or the other. Everyone is not going to get behind a change because there are two different opinion. If this is the case rather than fighting the same argument again and again can we trust FFG one way or the other?

My problem is that people who are pro-flotilla have a high frequency of behaving like overly aggressive, over caffeinated, elitist, angst filled teenagers instead of carrying on a debate about it, offering suggestions for possible compromises or counter points.

What cracks me up is when they take the stance of "you can't kill it and don't want to change" without realizing that without being able to defend it beyond "it's legal" it's essentially the same stance from the other perspective. "You can't be effective without it and don't want to change."

It truly is mind boggling.

I reiterate my solution.....Admiral abilities do not apply outside of range 5....just like everything else in the game. At least then the flotilla would be a part of the fleet.

I personally like the idea of admiral ability only works in range 5 sounds interesting

Except that the game is already a little to bunched up

Eh Admirals are designed and costed to be global effects, I think such a nerf is a drastic over-reaction creating a great deal more issues than it solves.

If its actually an issue, I would say just adding an errata that admirals may not be placed on flotillas is the cleanest way to fix it. But I've yet to read/experience anything that leads me to believe this is an issue that should be handled via a rule change. Better, IMO, to create upgrades in future expansions that incentivize placing your admirals elsewhere.

I'm going to go ahead and add that having a Gozanti floating around in the backfield giving squad orders through a Lambda is just awesome. I don't think it is cheesy, and it really forces the opposition to decide what to deal with: The brawlers or the squad pushers?