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.

Agreed, I just like the conversation and enjoy both sides of it, when both sides are presented logically and not with "that's the way it is, deal with it" undertone. From a "realistic" perspective, I agree that it's moronic to have an Admiral on a flotilla by himself in a corner. To pretend otherwise is just good old fashioned denial.....so I offer my two cents in a fashion that would cause a fleet to behave more like a fleet and less like a collection of individual units.

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?

Obviously, I agree...but as I've stated, I see both sides of the debate. At least with the lambda, you're effecting the battlefield and not cowering in a corner, pretending not to exist, while magically buffing the rest of the "fleet" you're not associated with outside of being a drain on it's points.

As someone who routinely runs three GR-75s (it's my fave ship, and I love flying it in Epic X-Wing as well), I too think Admirals should not be able to command from flotillas.

Making them activate during the Squadron Phase would make them entirely unplayable, though, and that'd be a shame. I can see why people don't like lifeboat flotillas (and I don't care for it either), but I love flotillas supporting fleets with cards like Repair Crews, Slicing Tools, Comms Net, or Bomber Command Center, all cards I've seen used to solid effect. And this is certainly true to the films, at least regarding the Rebel Fleet: We see lots of support GR-75s at Scarif, Hoth, and Endor.


It'd be kind of nice if Commander's range of effect was determined by the Command Value of their flagship (to represent the quality and amount of visualization and communication equipment available on their ship). For instance, Command 1 flagships affect all ships/squads within Close Range, Command 2 at Medium Range, and Command 3 at Long Range. The trouble with this, though, is that the Combat Ranges aren't linear (so Command 2 is a smaller boost from Command 3), and that the majority of Commander Abilities would not work in this new system. It makes sense for Commanders like Vader, Screed, and Mothma as they help to coordinate their ships. Someone like Motti would be a lot less thematic though, like if he moves Speed 3 and then, before his injured friend can move up next to him again that friendly ship instead explodes because his damage exceeds his printed hull.

Alternatively, you could have a rule where at the start of each ship phase players place "Commander Tokens" on a number of friendly ships equal to their flagships Command Value. Commander Effects could then only apply to friendly ships that have a Command Token that round (so a large ship could give it's Commander Effect to three ships, a small ship only one). This one would be fun for Team Armada or the CC Final Assaults, because you could allow ships to have Commander Tokens from multiple Commanders without totally breaking fleets which would happen if all two or three Commander effects benefited all friendly ships.


Either way, these aren't the current rules, so it's all pie-in-the-sky second edition talk.

As someone who routinely runs three GR-75s (it's my fave ship, and I love flying it in Epic X-Wing as well), I too think Admirals should not be able to command from flotillas.

Making them activate during the Squadron Phase would make them entirely unplayable, though, and that'd be a shame. I can see why people don't like lifeboat flotillas (and I don't care for it either), but I love flotillas supporting fleets with cards like Repair Crews, Slicing Tools, Comms Net, or Bomber Command Center, all cards I've seen used to solid effect. And this is certainly true to the films, at least regarding the Rebel Fleet: We see lots of support GR-75s at Scarif, Hoth, and Endor.

It'd be kind of nice if Commander's range of effect was determined by the Command Value of their flagship (to represent the quality and amount of visualization and communication equipment available on their ship). For instance, Command 1 flagships affect all ships/squads within Close Range, Command 2 at Medium Range, and Command 3 at Long Range. The trouble with this, though, is that the Combat Ranges aren't linear (so Command 2 is a smaller boost from Command 3), and that the majority of Commander Abilities would not work in this new system. It makes sense for Commanders like Vader, Screed, and Mothma as they help to coordinate their ships. Someone like Motti would be a lot less thematic though, like if he moves Speed 3 and then, before his injured friend can move up next to him again that friendly ship instead explodes because his damage exceeds his printed hull.

Alternatively, you could have a rule where at the start of each ship phase players place "Commander Tokens" on a number of friendly ships equal to their flagships Command Value. Commander Effects could then only apply to friendly ships that have a Command Token that round (so a large ship could give it's Commander Effect to three ships, a small ship only one). This one would be fun for Team Armada or the CC Final Assaults, because you could allow ships to have Commander Tokens from multiple Commanders without totally breaking fleets which would happen if all two or three Commander effects benefited all friendly ships.

Either way, these aren't the current rules, so it's all pie-in-the-sky second edition talk.

The range idea is a good one, well thought out and presented. Problem is, I see the counter-argument that it's too restrictive. How long would a full speed gladiator with engine techs take to get out of range of Screed? One could argue if you flew your little Screed lifeboat better it wouldn't happen, blah blah blah.

The solution isn't to ban fleet admirals from flotillas, either. I think it's viable to spread out the points and giving your Admiral scatter and evasion is also outstanding.

Maybe an errata that states flotillas cannot utilize upgrades unless within range x of another non-flotilla ship?

I dunno.

As someone who routinely runs three GR-75s (it's my fave ship, and I love flying it in Epic X-Wing as well), I too think Admirals should not be able to command from flotillas.

Making them activate during the Squadron Phase would make them entirely unplayable, though, and that'd be a shame. I can see why people don't like lifeboat flotillas (and I don't care for it either), but I love flotillas supporting fleets with cards like Repair Crews, Slicing Tools, Comms Net, or Bomber Command Center, all cards I've seen used to solid effect. And this is certainly true to the films, at least regarding the Rebel Fleet: We see lots of support GR-75s at Scarif, Hoth, and Endor.

It'd be kind of nice if Commander's range of effect was determined by the Command Value of their flagship (to represent the quality and amount of visualization and communication equipment available on their ship). For instance, Command 1 flagships affect all ships/squads within Close Range, Command 2 at Medium Range, and Command 3 at Long Range. The trouble with this, though, is that the Combat Ranges aren't linear (so Command 2 is a smaller boost from Command 3), and that the majority of Commander Abilities would not work in this new system. It makes sense for Commanders like Vader, Screed, and Mothma as they help to coordinate their ships. Someone like Motti would be a lot less thematic though, like if he moves Speed 3 and then, before his injured friend can move up next to him again that friendly ship instead explodes because his damage exceeds his printed hull.

Alternatively, you could have a rule where at the start of each ship phase players place "Commander Tokens" on a number of friendly ships equal to their flagships Command Value. Commander Effects could then only apply to friendly ships that have a Command Token that round (so a large ship could give it's Commander Effect to three ships, a small ship only one). This one would be fun for Team Armada or the CC Final Assaults, because you could allow ships to have Commander Tokens from multiple Commanders without totally breaking fleets which would happen if all two or three Commander effects benefited all friendly ships.

Either way, these aren't the current rules, so it's all pie-in-the-sky second edition talk.

So I think these are really cool ideas, but as you said its second edition stuff.

As others have stated, commanders were specifically designed to be global effects that affect the entire play area. Trying to change that goes back to the age old issue that people have here about someone coming in and thinking that they should make changes to foundational rules for this game simply to appease a perceived issue that rules wise is simply not a problem. The broad implications of these kinds of changes are immense. Swarm fleets would disappear if they were required to huddle up, or if only 1 of the ships in the fleet could get their commander benefit. Commanders would be obscenely overcosted were these things to change. Frankly, if either of the above 'ideas' were implemented, I would almost always use Dodonna and Ozzel in my fleets, because they are the cheapest. Plus, seeing as how Dodonna isn't a benefit to his fleet, but rather a detriment to the opposition, this plus his low cost would make him head and shoulders the best Admiral in the game.

Is the idea of an Admiral commanding from a small ship hiding in the back of a fleet a bit unrealistic? Maybe. But then again, so is the Force. It seems that most of the folks who want to change this are not asking for it because they think it's unrealistic, it's because they are having trouble figuring out a way to deal with it.

If somebody wants to put 10% or more of their entire fleet cost in a corner hiding, I say great. I'll send over a hunter for an easy kill, or I'll just win the main engagement with more of my fleet there to do the job.

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."

The thing is that the game works just fine the way it is now in terms of fairness and competition. The only real argument the anti-flotilla people bring is "some element of flotillas makes me sad because of some notion I have about how the game should be played." I don't care one bit if something makes you sad if it doesn't have some kind of concrete data backing it up. We aren't seeing flotilla lifeboats being a huge problem in competitive events. We aren't seeing flotilla and squadron spam taking numerous Regional tournaments by storm. The burden of proof is on the ones who want to change the rules of the game we all play to prove that there is a legitimate problem that needs addressing. When and if that is actually accomplished, then we can talk about what kind of solutions would be appropriate. There's no impetus for everyone to effect some kind of change simply because some people have a sad.

If people want to house rule something they're free to do whatever they like. Heck, they're welcome to report on what kinds of things changed in their community due to whatever house rule they used; that would be interesting. The problem lately is posters aren't asking for opinions about house rules they'll use privately. They're requesting our consent in changing the base rules of the game and we don't much care for that when that drastic of a move feels unwarranted.

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.

It's not likely that the pro-flotilla people are overly aggressive, it's probably just that the most omnipresent members of the community are all pro-flotilla and they are tired of seeing this whining all the time .

I don't find your solution particularly necessary. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

First, I really don't care about changing it. It's fine. Whatever. You do you (in tiny boats). And I agree that, if it's not screwing the game up, it's not a big deal

That said, I think there has to be some degree of concession to thematics, even within the competitive scene. I don't think lifeboats are that offensive, but if some future thing is completely fine mechanically , but runs completely against the Star Wars universe and theme... that would be a very real problem with the game.

But I think it would have to be pretty extreme. Bending things in ways that we just don't see in the movies/books/comics/whatever isn't enough. It would have to be something completely universe-shattering, where the theme has just been dumped in a hole.

Lifeboats don't do that. "Oh No Squadrons" is the exact opposite of that (it's more thematic than not).

I don't really feel that the official rules of the game need to go out of their way to restrict players as a means of making the game more thematic to the source. If you want to keep things thematic, use house rules in your local community.

I also don't necessarily think it's non-thematic for a military leader to lead from the rear. Mon Mothma wasn't seen in the movies leading from the front. Dodonna didn't jump in an X-wing and take on the Death Star.

I still don't understand why people spend more time talking about changing rules to fit their game style instead of talking about how to change their game play to fit the rules? I have seen this discussion in several threads this month and the samething has been said over and over. Why did this thread get started in the first place? Because the responses in the prior threads didn't match to what you wanted?

Now I have tried to be reasonable in all my responses and I think I have made some good points. (Not saying I'm the smartest player by any means but I think my points were well founded and supported.) But why should I have to state everything I have already said all over again? Are you just trying to wear out the community into agreeing with you?

So for the final time the Flotillas are not that big of a change and if you wanted to deal with them it's not hard to design a list that can defeat them easily. But it sounds like you have a local Meta problem and you are unwilling to change your play style to the issue. That's your problem to solve and a good player should love that challenge. Step up your game before asking the developers to change the rules, especially since there is not even close to a consensus that the Flotillas are too strong, and just labeling people "pro-Flotillas" doesn't make your point more valid either. That's a political pundit strategy to win an argument but here we should use logical discussions instead of trying to bully people.

So, have you tried hunting down Flotillas with Rogue Squadrons or other tools like them? Have you used Flotillas yourself as a counter to their's for activation advantage? Which Commanders are they bringing that's makes it so hard for you to win that you Have to take them out to win a game? You also realize you do not have to kill every ship to win so if they are splitting their fleet by sending their flag ship into a corner to hide that is about 50 points of their fleet out of the battle still so that should give you some advantage because the Flotillas' real points are its hidden cost for its special upgrades it can take.

So again, there is no over all belief that Flotillas are too strong, hell I would never put my Commander on one because I know my local community would find a way to take it out easily if I did as I have found my own ways to deal with it if it became a problem, which it isn't at all. If it were a real issue it would be prevalent in all areas and it would dominate the tournament games, it it doesn't. It would be considered an auto-include but it is not. So because of those reasons I disagree with your assessment and repeated requests to change the rules.

So please stop reposting this same topic over and over with the exact same rules change request because despite what people have been made to believe repeating something over and over does not make it true, you very well may believe it is but there has been enough evidence shown to you to prove otherwise. But you just ignore it. That doesn't help out how we feel towards your points when you ignore us and repeat the samething over and over while saying we're being immature about it.

Bring actual evidence in the tournament scene or even the campaign scene where this is an issue and we can have an actual discussion on what happened and how it could have been done differently. If it is found that the Flotillas are the factor that led to the win over and over than we can discuss how it is a problem. Then we can discuss what to do about it. That's five steps and you want to skip the first four and go straight to the fifth because we are supposed to believe you have the authority to say you already figured it out on your own? Does that make sense?

So start with actual proof and not anecdotal stories either.

Again, I don't think flotillas hit that mark (neither do, like, freighter swarms).

But saying "Theme is never going to be a good reason to change rules" is too much for me.

But saying "Theme on its own is never going to be a good reason to change rules" is too much for me.

^ Better?

Not really? And again, just... speaking hypothetically.

I don't even think FFG would really include anything really "out there" enough to be a bother. Any stupid thing you can think of, could probably make some sense in the SW universe. It's full of stupid things, especially when you reach out into the depths of the EU.

The worst I can imagine is adding dumb stuff , not dumb rules - and no amount of rules changes could fix it if they added Gungans-with-space-helmets riding giant-space-fish into battle.

I mean, its just...

I propose many rule changes.

... Generally, I do so in the context and location of the Rules Sub-Forum as it is...

But I do propose many rules changes.... Its just in response to a rules issue, rather than a perceptual, story, or theme related issue.

In some cases, I certainly believe the rules should be changed...

And I think that rules should be written with theme in mind, supporting said theme where possible... But preserving a solid gaming experience is the point of the rules of a game... At least, that's the point of rules in games design .

Theme is, generally, a heavy secondary to that.

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.

Is this people or a person? It sounds less like you're having problems with the game, and more like you're playing people who aren't particularly fun to play.

There's always going to be that guy at a tournament - be he flotilla lifeboat guy, or stupidly large Rhymerball guy, or whatever. A guy who's playing within the rules but not in the spirit of things. We had one dude who refused to engage his opponent in a regional, and that guy had driven up from London to Sheffield to be there. But if this is the same guy (or group of guys) you're playing on a weekly basis, then I can see why it would get supremely annoying. So maybe the answer isn't change the rule, but change the player?

I'm pretty fortunate with the guys I play against. They're keen to try out different things, new combos, and are pretty sporting - I've not seen a lifeboat flotilla once. We don't have house rules, but we often get to a point where we don't play whatever is the dominant combo, because it's boring for everyone.

I propose we keep rules as is.

Also because ffg won't do any change herein proposed.

So what's the point?

It seems that most of the folks who want to change this are not asking for it because they think it's unrealistic, it's because they are having trouble figuring out a way to deal with it.

Presumes to decide the reason for peoples concerns, comments, and discussion by merrily assigning bad play to them.

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."

The only real argument the anti-flotilla people bring is "some element of flotillas makes me sad because of some notion I have about how the game should be played." I don't care one bit if something makes you sad if it doesn't have some kind of concrete data backing it up. We aren't seeing flotilla lifeboats being a huge problem in competitive events.

Quotes me in order to more easily illustrate exactly what I meant.

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.

It's not likely that the pro-flotilla people are overly aggressive, it's probably just that the most omnipresent members of the community are all pro-flotilla and they are tired of seeing this whining all the time .

So whining about whining (hypocrisy at it's finest) or being a demeaning ****** in a conversation you find irrelevant (elitism) is the answer, then? How about "don't read it, not every thread requires your personal insights?"

I sincerely doubt that people walk around and interject themselves into every conversation they have an opinion about. How about we remember that this is the internet and not everyone cares about everyone elses opinions? I reiterate (once again since it apparently takes repetition in this community) I see both sides of the flotilla debate. I don't care about using them in a corner, I've built to deal with it if it's there or contribute otherwise if it is not.

As I've stated (again, repetition), I come down slightly on the flotilla = meh side purely because my personal point of view is that it's a moronic mechanic, tactic, and interaction....but I've accepted it and don't go running into every pro-flotilla thread proclaiming my opinion, either. Y'all should try that out sometime.

I still don't understand why people spend more time talking about changing rules to fit their game style instead of talking about how to change their game play to fit the rules?

And here is another example of someone so pompous they base their entire post on their perception of things they have no opinion about (unless you've actually played against anyone you're talking to, since you failed to identify the intended recipient). The joys of speaking in an open forum.

Again, I reiterate that if you're so pro-flotilla that you're willing to immediately assume anyone who talks about them in a way you don't agree with is bad, just don't post. There's no logical reason to act like an elitist on the internet because you don't agree.

Now here's some food for thought, since you pro-flotilla people can't resist being demeaning in these threads.....maybe these threads keep on coming up, not because others are bad but because you're wrong and your own perception of yourself and your opinion prevents you from truly entertaining that idea? Maybe it's just 10 people who love to get on these threads and act like they should be worshiped that are "screaming" down any meaningful conversation and turning everyone one of these threads into something other than what it was intended to be.

A place for discussion and ideas.

Are those not allowed anymore?

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.

Is this people or a person? It sounds less like you're having problems with the game, and more like you're playing people who aren't particularly fun to play.

There's always going to be that guy at a tournament - be he flotilla lifeboat guy, or stupidly large Rhymerball guy, or whatever. A guy who's playing within the rules but not in the spirit of things. We had one dude who refused to engage his opponent in a regional, and that guy had driven up from London to Sheffield to be there. But if this is the same guy (or group of guys) you're playing on a weekly basis, then I can see why it would get supremely annoying. So maybe the answer isn't change the rule, but change the player?

I'm pretty fortunate with the guys I play against. They're keen to try out different things, new combos, and are pretty sporting - I've not seen a lifeboat flotilla once. We don't have house rules, but we often get to a point where we don't play whatever is the dominant combo, because it's boring for everyone.

Problem is if Armada doesn't catch on in an area, it doesn't get played so you're kind of stuck with what you can find in that case. Regardless, that's not the problem but it's also a fact. Without FFG sending Armada (or IA) to big chain stores like they did X-Wing, this sad fact will never change.

I propose we keep rules as is.

Also because ffg won't do any change herein proposed.

So what's the point?

The point is why are people so unhappy others are having a discussion? What's wrong with floating ideas for rules that can be adopted as mutually agreeable rules or CC house rules, or just having a "what if" conversation without every loud mouthed ****** on the forums "chiming in" and shutting down a discussion that had nothing to do with them in the first place?

What happened to seeing a forum post's title and saying "nope, not for me, let's see what else is being talked about" and moving the hell on?

I truly love how every time this comes up, a certain collection of individuals in this community like to forcibly choke everyone with their self righteousness and tell them "at best it'll be a house rule" but they're so focused on giving others their opinion, they don't realize they're stopping friendly conversation between others just because they don't agree with the topic of conversation they weren't even having.

I mean, I know everywhere isn't America but come on....can't we all agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you don't like the TOPIC OF CONVERSATION, you're not required to chime in with your opinion?

Ok, this discussion has earned this.

If you want to insult every person who disagrees with you then I label you a Troll! Try not to get banned with your rage.

It seems that most of the folks who want to change this are not asking for it because they think it's unrealistic, it's because they are having trouble figuring out a way to deal with it.

Presumes to decide the reason for peoples concerns, comments, and discussion by merrily assigning bad play to them.

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."

The only real argument the anti-flotilla people bring is "some element of flotillas makes me sad because of some notion I have about how the game should be played." I don't care one bit if something makes you sad if it doesn't have some kind of concrete data backing it up. We aren't seeing flotilla lifeboats being a huge problem in competitive events.

Quotes me in order to more easily illustrate exactly what I meant.

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.

It's not likely that the pro-flotilla people are overly aggressive, it's probably just that the most omnipresent members of the community are all pro-flotilla and they are tired of seeing this whining all the time .

So whining about whining (hypocrisy at it's finest) or being a demeaning ****** in a conversation you find irrelevant (elitism) is the answer, then? How about "don't read it, not every thread requires your personal insights?"

I sincerely doubt that people walk around and interject themselves into every conversation they have an opinion about. How about we remember that this is the internet and not everyone cares about everyone elses opinions? I reiterate (once again since it apparently takes repetition in this community) I see both sides of the flotilla debate. I don't care about using them in a corner, I've built to deal with it if it's there or contribute otherwise if it is not.

As I've stated (again, repetition), I come down slightly on the flotilla = meh side purely because my personal point of view is that it's a moronic mechanic, tactic, and interaction....but I've accepted it and don't go running into every pro-flotilla thread proclaiming my opinion, either. Y'all should try that out sometime.

I still don't understand why people spend more time talking about changing rules to fit their game style instead of talking about how to change their game play to fit the rules?

And here is another example of someone so pompous they base their entire post on their perception of things they have no opinion about (unless you've actually played against anyone you're talking to, since you failed to identify the intended recipient). The joys of speaking in an open forum.

Again, I reiterate that if you're so pro-flotilla that you're willing to immediately assume anyone who talks about them in a way you don't agree with is bad, just don't post. There's no logical reason to act like an elitist on the internet because you don't agree.

Now here's some food for thought, since you pro-flotilla people can't resist being demeaning in these threads.....maybe these threads keep on coming up, not because others are bad but because you're wrong and your own perception of yourself and your opinion prevents you from truly entertaining that idea? Maybe it's just 10 people who love to get on these threads and act like they should be worshiped that are "screaming" down any meaningful conversation and turning everyone one of these threads into something other than what it was intended to be.

A place for discussion and ideas.

Are those not allowed anymore?

Wow talk about elitism. Just casually dismiss remarks like they aren't worthy of your time. Look how pompous you have become maybe you should go QQ now that several people disagree with you and you can't openly be offensive and name call people?

Seriously, you ask for a discussion and you get several answers that were not demeaning or aggressive, and you disregard them. So who's fault is it? The proletariat flotilla lovers? Or the fact you are unable to discuss any topic without acting like a total prick because someone we won't agree with you?

Why are you being so hostile to Green Knight now? You ask for a discussion. Is he not allowed to give advice?

I can totally be annoying, but at least I can respect the other people who decide to comment.

Theme is, generally, a heavy secondary to that.

Yeah, mostly. But I don't think you can just say "Well, theme doesn't matter if the rules are fine."

Again, a really hard time coming up with even potential examples, given the "wackiness" of the universe.

Uh. Like... Something gives you the means to fire your commander out of a cannon and at another ship. Some kind of upgrade or ability that is intended to be a kind of... ejecting ship parts out in some offensive fashion? But doesn't distinguish between crew- and non-crew upgrades?

Is "just theme" reason enough to justify a rules change to limit that to only non-crew upgrades, if it's mechanically just fine (assume it is, for discussion)?

I'm sure someone could justify even that, with the general nonsense of star wars. But that's the closest I could think of, at the moment.

.

Ok, this discussion has earned this.

If you want to insult every person who disagrees with you then I label you a Troll! Try not to get banned with your rage.

I'm not insulting every person who disagrees with me. I've actually talked back and forth plenty, not only in this thread but in others.

I insulted someone who acts like an elitist jerk unless he's talking with the "cool kids" 'round here.