Mechanically my main issue with range restrictions on admiral's is that it really hurts high mobility fleets which I think is a bad thing.

This is my main beef with the idea. It actually limits fleets well beyond just flotilla camping.

Imagine a mission like Station Assault where your opponent puts the stations literally on opposite sides of the board (Which Caldias likes to do). You HAVE to split your fleet to go for them both.

Limiting admiral ranges would just lead to the best tactic always being formation flying. It locks down commanders who may gain benefit from ships being more spread out, like Mothma corvettes, or Sato.

Honestly if it weren't for Japanese Fighter/Bombers our Admirals probably would have been on smaller ships off the battle lines most of the time. But situations and the dangers of being on a smaller vessel dictated they be on more secure ships. So if you keep that in mind the Fluff reasons become clear cut. Yes Commanders can fly on smaller ships and if you don't punish your opponent for using Lifeboats then they will continue to use them. Take that Lifeboat out several times and they will hesitate ever doing it again. That's how real life Commanders learned their lessons.

I've come to think of Admiral abilities being as much about the focus of between battle training as their actual presence. Ackbar drilling with broadsides, Ozzel drilling with the throttle, etc.

That the ability is lost is as much about morale/panic leading to abandoning their training as anything.

H9 turbolasers.....

*mikedrop*

I've come to think of Admiral abilities being as much about the focus of between battle training as their actual presence. Ackbar drilling with broadsides, Ozzel drilling with the throttle, etc.

That the ability is lost is as much about morale/panic leading to abandoning their training as anything.

That could even explain Dodonna's asteroid bonus. He has a bunch of spies/saboteurs that weaken the opposing fleet and make them susceptible to crits.

Rieekan drills using damage control to keep ships fighting to the bitter end.

Regarding Flotillas... H9s can be a hard counter to their defensive stratgies. H9s aren't bad for ships that have them in always locking down other defense tokens as well. If I knew I'm going up against massed flotillas I'd be encouraged to take them, especially if there are no other Turbolasers I'd like more. It's just I have more cause for enemy fighters...

No, my problem with Flotillas is how they enable cheap activation passes. For 18 points the Rebels can continue to skip their "turn" until optimal strike time, where they unleash their best shot. It could be an MC80 opening up to an MC30 starting its run to Yavaris moving with Flight Coordination Teams and a flight commander then double-tapping their bombers. Rebel ships are cheaper as a whole, and they use smaller ships, making this easier when stacked against the Empire.

That has my concern, more than Admiral sedans, because it creates an uphill struggle for bigger ships that cannot activate properly when they want to. I'd like to see that addressed somehow.

That has been addressed. First, the flotillas have a cost. 18 points is a lot to pay for activation padding. When the customs community (before Wave 3 was announced) considered an admiral who existed purely as an activation pass, we priced him at 20 points, and some still felt that was too expensive. Second, they are balanced further by utter lack of armament and marginal survivability past Scatter. They represent no threat other than enabling other ships and squadrons. Third, as the Clonisher proved, activation padding is perfectly available without flotillas to make it easier. The arrival of the Arquitens and Pelta in Wave 5 further cement this, as each side has more and more cheap ship options. Can you get the ridiculous activation advantage of a flotilla spam? No. Do those fleets suffer the disadvantages here? Even more so. Fourth, all flotillas must always activate, so that is not necessarily an advantage in tightly flown fleets whose opponent ruins their maneuver plan.

Fifth and finally, while the Empire generally has more expensive combatants than its Rebel equivalents, that is not something unique to flotillas. That has always been true across the board since Wave 1. The Empire offsets this by the fact those smaller Rebel ships are far less durable than the Imperial warships, which are heavily armed and equipped for bruising closing battles the Rebels have trouble facing (plus squadron balance, plus fleet synergies etc etc). In short, it's part of game balance. I for one main Imperials and have absolutely no issue with that I spend more "per ship" because I get more ship in my ship for my investment in my estimation, and I can fly and fight in that playstyle. To be completely honest this sounds like you are someone whose tactical mindset prefers Rebel strategies. If I am wrong, Arquitens.

Hell, half the Admirals effects can be attributed to prior fleetwide training, and the death of the Admiral demoralizes their troops bad enough that such training breaks down, rather than them micromanaging everything whilst on the battlefield.

You know it just accrued to me how Luke got that shot off. Dodonna was the Commander back at the command center and he allowed Luke to choose the Critical Effect.

IF Vader jumped in a cargo ship and ran out of range to watch the battle from afar, do you think his forces would remain so tightly drilled or do you think morale would suffer at the sight of their leaders cowardice?

It can be argued that this already happens,

Its a terminology difference though - "Out of Range" versus "Leave the BattleField"

If he leaves the battlefield - that certainly happens. He's fled the area, and his C&C Breaks down.

But while he remains on the Battlefield, his effect remains...

I guess it depends on what side of the discussion you side on. From my perspective, skirting the edge of the map, well out of range of everything (including your own fleet), you're effectively left the battlefield.

IF Vader jumped in a cargo ship and ran out of range to watch the battle from afar, do you think his forces would remain so tightly drilled or do you think morale would suffer at the sight of their leaders cowardice?

It can be argued that this already happens,

Its a terminology difference though - "Out of Range" versus "Leave the BattleField"

If he leaves the battlefield - that certainly happens. He's fled the area, and his C&C Breaks down.

But while he remains on the Battlefield, his effect remains...

I guess it depends on what side of the discussion you side on. From my perspective, skirting the edge of the map, well out of range of everything (including your own fleet), you're effectively left the battlefield.

And rules tend to be black and white in their application - I mean, that's why they're rules and not suggestions.

So we have to define, by some measure, border, or effect, how far is too far.

And then accept that even a fraction of a millimeter closer than that line, is "Close enough".

At the moment, that "line" is the Edge of the Battlefield - where not only the Admiral stops having an effect, but any leaving ship is considered destroyed for the purposes of the battle involved - even though its probably still close enough to have an effect in a lot of cases...

So that becomes the next question

how far is too far, of course, in your opinion?

One cost of the lifeboat strategy that I see is that it costs a prime deployment.

If you want to drop it outside the battle, you have to deploy it late or last, which is the deployment that I like to use for my heavy hitters.

If you drop the lifeboat early, then I just set my fleet up where it can get to the lifeboat.

But I don't see many lifeboats, so I don't have much experience fighting them. Usually, my opponents put their flotillas as trailers or flankers to use slicers, commsnet, or BCC.

I've felt this before. Do I use Sato as deployment advantage but give away where he will be? Or do I give up deployment advantage for Paragon?

I think this decision is what makes this balanced.

Somewhat agree to that last point until you factor in the relative cost of ignoring the flotilla, which swings it back towards imbalance.

Well if you choose to ignore it, then how can you count that into it being imbalanced? Basically it's your 400 point fleet vs my 350. Flotillas are amazing at killing squads and draw fire or can be used for obstruction of blocking.

I suppose if you go strictly by the math, you can make a case for imbalance. But there is so much that goes into this game it is hard to qualify or quantify imbalance. But you say "The skinny of it is, if flotillas weren't a problem/issue/point of contention, they wouldn't come up all the time." and I don't know where this is coming from. How many threads have been made discussing the problem of flotillas?

As of right now 3 I can think of off the top of my head. 2 made by you, and 1 by StarKiller.

And according to Schimmty's data, 83% of Rebel players bring at least 1 flotilla, and 71% of Imps bring at least 1 Gozanti. You can find the spreadsheet here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jHYRewqhbVX6HSaWHNAPHTtPxW2uAaVTzYMq5D0-0pg/edit#gid=1737564488

So where is the issue here? If everyone (83% and 71%) of people use flotillas, why do they need to be nerfed? You wrote out a very long argument, but I don't see a ton of people that support this idea, which again, is implied by "they wouldn't come up all the time"

On another note, I don't think the commanders have any game breaking mechanic because they help the whole fleet. You can only have 1, and they cost quite a bit. Making them range only would mean FFG would have to rewrite some of them, Motti and Rieekan, and would ahve to change the cost. Not to mention it would completely change how the game was played. Seems like dropping a nuke when we need a scalpal for this life boat sugject you want to change.

This is the first time I've breached this topic. Your memory is faulty. Excluding this thread, it's been 3 times in two weeks. As I stated not only in this post but in the previous one as well, I have no problem with flotillas in their current state. I enjjojy discussion and for this reason I did my best to put forth a thought provoking argument for a few reasons.

1) I enjoy the debate and the discussion of strategy.

2) To illustrate the problem in the last thread, which has now revealed itself multiple times.

3) I like to know what other people think and how they arrived at that conclusion.

Needless to say, in regards to that third entry, it's difficult when all people want to do is insult everyone having a discussion while dictating why their point of view is right.

The same debates were had about other ships and they weren't changed. For someone's opinion to simply be "that's the way it is and this is a waste of time because FFG and the community doesn't care" illustrates a tragic inability to think of a decent response.

If you ever take a debate class, you'll be faced with making a solid argument for a position you do not believe in. Debate is healthy....insult laden responses and attempts to argue, derail the conversation, or generally be rude and disruptive is not.

IF Vader jumped in a cargo ship and ran out of range to watch the battle from afar, do you think his forces would remain so tightly drilled or do you think morale would suffer at the sight of their leaders cowardice?

It can be argued that this already happens,

Its a terminology difference though - "Out of Range" versus "Leave the BattleField"

If he leaves the battlefield - that certainly happens. He's fled the area, and his C&C Breaks down.

But while he remains on the Battlefield, his effect remains...

I guess it depends on what side of the discussion you side on. From my perspective, skirting the edge of the map, well out of range of everything (including your own fleet), you're effectively left the battlefield.

And rules tend to be black and white in their application - I mean, that's why they're rules and not suggestions.

So we have to define, by some measure, border, or effect, how far is too far.

And then accept that even a fraction of a millimeter closer than that line, is "Close enough".

At the moment, that "line" is the Edge of the Battlefield - where not only the Admiral stops having an effect, but any leaving ship is considered destroyed for the purposes of the battle involved - even though its probably still close enough to have an effect in a lot of cases...

So that becomes the next question

how far is too far, of course, in your opinion?

IF Vader jumped in a cargo ship and ran out of range to watch the battle from afar, do you think his forces would remain so tightly drilled or do you think morale would suffer at the sight of their leaders cowardice?

It can be argued that this already happens,

Its a terminology difference though - "Out of Range" versus "Leave the BattleField"

If he leaves the battlefield - that certainly happens. He's fled the area, and his C&C Breaks down.

But while he remains on the Battlefield, his effect remains...

I guess it depends on what side of the discussion you side on. From my perspective, skirting the edge of the map, well out of range of everything (including your own fleet), you're effectively left the battlefield.

And rules tend to be black and white in their application - I mean, that's why they're rules and not suggestions.

So we have to define, by some measure, border, or effect, how far is too far.

And then accept that even a fraction of a millimeter closer than that line, is "Close enough".

At the moment, that "line" is the Edge of the Battlefield - where not only the Admiral stops having an effect, but any leaving ship is considered destroyed for the purposes of the battle involved - even though its probably still close enough to have an effect in a lot of cases...

So that becomes the next question

how far is too far, of course, in your opinion?

Again I reiterate I have trouble accepting Admirals effect everything from anywhere just because, when there are established rules and mechanics in place that dictate range and distance in regards to effecting other ships, squadrons, environment, or the battlefield. When flotillas are added to the mix, it further serves to go against their own already established rules and interactions.

One could simply respond the Admiral is the exception because he's the Admiral but that would require that officers in the military are seen the same way. From first hand experience, I can say this is simply not the case. Thematic Star Wars aside, is this not something of a military simulation?

I still have seen no evidence to form the conclusion that Flotillas are causing a problem. I do see that members of the player base would like maybe some additional tools to use as counters? If that's the case I'm thinking that there are really two major difficulties, that players who seek these changes, are trying to over come. The flotillas being too far away, and the Flotillas being too hard to hit with salvo style weapons. Because let's be honest we want to make more options in the game, not fewer, so we don't want to start saying you CAN'T DO XYZ, until we have concluded there's no other real way to get players the tools needed to get over these hurdles to enjoyment of the game.

If we could phrase the conversation in that regard, there might be some very easy routes to explore that meet the criteria of more options not less, and targeted toward the hurdles, and still giving us strategic avenues to victory with play and counter-play for both players.

I'll open. Suggestions have working titles only. I cannot stress enough that these are concepts with very little thought put behind them. These are conversation starters only.

Graviton Lasers: When attacking with battery armament, you may change one blue die as follows: large: crit, medium: hit, small: accuracy

Officer/ Assassin: during deployment your opponent must deploy their flagship with their earliest opportunity.

Defense objective/ Warlord: setup: when deploying fleets each player must deploy their flagship beyond range 5 of all edges.

Special rule: when a flagship scores a hit on a ship assign an objective token to is owner. Objective tokens=10pts

Seems fine to me to command a battle from a safe position. There's ways to take care of lifeboats and trying to change rules to remove a viable and balanced strategy just seems weak. As I said before, I'm sure wave 6 will introduce a new superpower that ends chariots.

Again I reiterate I have trouble accepting Admirals effect everything from anywhere just because, when there are established rules and mechanics in place that dictate range and distance in regards to effecting other ships, squadrons, environment, or the battlefield. When flotillas are added to the mix, it further serves to go against their own already established rules and interactions.

One could simply respond the Admiral is the exception because he's the Admiral but that would require that officers in the military are seen the same way. From first hand experience, I can say this is simply not the case. Thematic Star Wars aside, is this not something of a military simulation?

I will note that you didn't answer my question. Instead, asking questions of your own - which I will do my best to answer here, and hope you do so in kind

You say "Just Because"... Why do you say that?

I've said in a previous thread that I consider anywhere the Admiral to be, to be the place where he has set up his (or hers) dedicated C&C operation - because CNC is normally where they would be - wherever that is, in a Traditional Military Sense.

That may be on the biggest ship of the fleet. That may be on the fastest ship of the fleet. That may be on a set of dedicated Heavily Modified Medium Transports that now pack a who bunch of EM Warfare Gear instead of Cargo Capacity.

In fact, it may be easier to Do that... To shoehorn C&C into dedicated cargo modules, instead of trying to modify a Ship that may not be equipped to perform the function in the first place - especially in the case of being from a Race that the ship was not designed to accommodate... (Looking at you, MonCalamari... You segregational bastards! )

If you can't accept the Admiral "Just Because", then ask some parallel follow up questions...

Why is Intel Distance 1?

Why is Jamming Field 1-3?

Why are Tractor Beams 1-5 while Jamming Field is 1-3 ?

If Tractor Beams are power based, why do they have the same range while mounted on an ISD, VSD, Gladiator or Flotilla ? Should Power not scale down almost logarithmically with Range to power, allowing you to effect larger ships at shorter ranges and such?

We either must accept that everything is "just because" at that point. Because that is it. The rules say so, for whatever balance purposes the designers designed...

I mean, a right proper Jamming Field should exist over the entire battlefield too - and it should be omnidirectional and non-screening, which means it effects you as much as it effects the enemy. If it scrambles fighter control systems, it should scramble ship systems - Unless you have a single piece thats strong enough to overcome the jamming. Then there's no jamming. As you overcome it....

Theme (and consequently, realism) is fine for framing your rules, but they cannot be the definition of your rules, if you still want a fair, balanced, and ultimately, enjoyable game.

And my First Hand Experience has the Commanders of Squadrons only ever flying Desks ... But desks don't shoot like X-Wings

I still have seen no evidence to form the conclusion that Flotillas are causing a problem. I do see that members of the player base would like maybe some additional tools to use as counters? If that's the case I'm thinking that there are really two major difficulties, that players who seek these changes, are trying to over come. The flotillas being too far away, and the Flotillas being too hard to hit with salvo style weapons. Because let's be honest we want to make more options in the game, not fewer, so we don't want to start saying you CAN'T DO XYZ, until we have concluded there's no other real way to get players the tools needed to get over these hurdles to enjoyment of the game.

If we could phrase the conversation in that regard, there might be some very easy routes to explore that meet the criteria of more options not less, and targeted toward the hurdles, and still giving us strategic avenues to victory with play and counter-play for both players.

I'll open. Suggestions have working titles only. I cannot stress enough that these are concepts with very little thought put behind them. These are conversation starters only.

Graviton Lasers: When attacking with battery armament, you may change one blue die as follows: large: crit, medium: hit, small: accuracy

Officer/ Assassin: during deployment your opponent must deploy their flagship with their earliest opportunity.

Defense objective/ Warlord: setup: when deploying fleets each player must deploy their flagship beyond range 5 of all edges.

Special rule: when a flagship scores a hit on a ship assign an objective token to is owner. Objective tokens=10pts

I like the idea of a size-based turbolaser upgrade card. I imagine it would be a pretty high-priced one, maybe even a modification...or the first of it's kind to require and fill two slots?

I think for your Officer/Assassin entry that something like an officer slotted Intelligence Operative would be more fitting. Maybe to simulate previous knowledge of the fleet?

The Warlord objective would go a long way towards correcting this problem but it would also significantly displace the flagship(s). Objectives are hard to balance on the fly but I do like the flagship points value. Perhaps First Player victory points are scored by every damage card (both face up and face down) are scored by their flagship and worth (2); Second Player Victory points are scored by every damage card (both face up and face down) are scored by every ship in their fleet and worth (1)?

Seems fine to me to command a battle from a safe position. There's ways to take care of lifeboats and trying to change rules to remove a viable and balanced strategy just seems weak. As I said before, I'm sure wave 6 will introduce a new superpower that ends chariots.

Should have stopped at that first sentence. That's fine and all that was required.

This thread wasn't necessarily started to change rules to remove anything. If you'd read the entire post, especially the end, this might be apparent, it might now. Posting in this fashion might seem weak to you, but that is an irrelevant comment in the spirit in which the post was created. I could just as easily say that sticking a commander in a lifeboat is just down right cowardly....also an opinion....also irrelevant to the spirit of this post.

We agree on Wave 6 introducing some form of counter but I think FFG has set up the community to buy anti-squadron based ships or to introduce a new campaign that provides new bases for existing ships that specialize in anti-squadron armaments.

You say "Just Because"... Why do you say that? Even while using the tactic, it just doesn't feel like it fits. Because of this, I started to evaluate why and that is when I realized that in order to overcome what is effectively an 18 point ship with a mapwide buff, it required a disproportionate amount of resources in order to efficiently kill it in time to return to the battle. To this end, the point of letting it be until you have an "already paid for" asset available to pursue alluded me because I'm a very linear thinker. It was a point made by someone in this thread and has been added to the OP to reflect it's use as a solution. The counter-argument to that is that it is a very situational scenario.

I've said in a previous thread that I consider anywhere the Admiral to be, to be the place where he has set up his (or hers) dedicated C&C operation - because CNC is normally where they would be - wherever that is, in a Traditional Military Sense.

That may be on the biggest ship of the fleet. That may be on the fastest ship of the fleet. That may be on a set of dedicated Heavily Modified Medium Transports that now pack a who bunch of EM Warfare Gear instead of Cargo Capacity.

In fact, it may be easier to Do that... To shoehorn C&C into dedicated cargo modules, instead of trying to modify a Ship that may not be equipped to perform the function in the first place - especially in the case of being from a Race that the ship was not designed to accommodate... (Looking at you, MonCalamari... You segregational bastards! ) But again, by this logic (as well as some of the following points), bomber command center should be "global" along with slicer tools, repair crews, and whatever else you choose....including squadron commands.

If you can't accept the Admiral "Just Because", then ask some parallel follow up questions...

Why is Intel Distance 1? The size of a snubfighter might dictate the size of the required sensor package which would dictate the size of the field. Same response to jamming field.

Why is Jamming Field 1-3?

Why are Tractor Beams 1-5 while Jamming Field is 1-3 ? Tractor beams are near-projectile-like beam "weapons" that serve a utility role whereas Jamming fields effect a large area and would therefore draw more power.

If Tractor Beams are power based, why do they have the same range while mounted on an ISD, VSD, Gladiator or Flotilla ? Should Power not scale down almost logarithmically with Range to power, allowing you to effect larger ships at shorter ranges and such? Could be explained by the power draw, not necessarily being power based. Outside of game mechanics, larger ships also had more tractor beam banks, as well as weapons, and engines. Rather than sacrifice, say, tractor beams for more weapons on a VSD, it's a better fit for the ships role to reduce everything proportionally across the board....weapons, tractor beams, shields, engines, etc...

We either must accept that everything is "just because" at that point. Because that is it. The rules say so, for whatever balance purposes the designers designed...You can accept "just because" within a fictional universe but when you start applying exceptions to items that mechanically operate similarly to mechanics and rules thoroughly and repetitively established elsewhere, it's healthy to question. How many rules revisions has WH40k seen since it's inception? Armada is only a couple years old. Sure Armada has a fraction of the amount of factions, but it still has an innate complexity that might require revision as time goes on. Of those 70% plus tournament fleets that run flotillas, it would be interesting to know how many were lifeboats and in what percentage lifeboats were seen. Why? Becuase how hard were people raging over Demolisher percentages? I know a few bloggers that have not been very helpful in these discussions wrote Demolisher hating articles a year or more ago.....

I mean, a right proper Jamming Field should exist over the entire battlefield too - and it should be omnidirectional and non-screening, which means it effects you as much as it effects the enemy. If it scrambles fighter control systems, it should scramble ship systems - Unless you have a single piece thats strong enough to overcome the jamming. Then there's no jamming. As you overcome it....If we're playing what ifs, then a right proper Imperial Fleet should have 3 ISDs, 4 VSDs, an Interdictor, 3 Gladiators and a host of Gozanti's...but that's not how it works.

Theme (and consequently, realism) is fine for framing your rules, but they cannot be the definition of your rules, if you still want a fair, balanced, and ultimately, enjoyable game. Exactly this. When framing the rules for flotillas, I think they failed to factor in them being used as a flagship because thematically (and in my opinion, logically) it does not make sense. Although it's easy to throw blind faith behind FFG and their design for flotilla/admiral interactions and impacts, all it would take is none of the testers thinkings about "hiding" in it. One could easily say it's easy to overlook when you're busy play testing all of the support abilities they came with, instead.

And my First Hand Experience has the Commanders of Squadrons only ever flying Desks ... But desks don't shoot like X-Wings Neither do M-16s.

one fast ship with a bomber or two on board kills Flotillas very quickly hell I've one shoted them in passing pin their scatter with an accuracy and pop their dead. takes 4 points of damage and if you ram them first and why not its only 3 points of damage. then you beat feet back to the battle from the rear. and the other guy has no more leader. I always bring at lease one fast ship and now that they can hall bombers they are awesome assassins.

one fast ship with a bomber or two on board kills Flotillas very quickly hell I've one shoted them in passing pin their scatter with an accuracy and pop their dead. takes 4 points of damage and if you ram them first and why not its only 3 points of damage. then you beat feet back to the battle from the rear. and the other guy has no more leader. I always bring at lease one fast ship and now that they can hall bombers they are awesome assassins.

Hrm, I think I'll add rapid launch bays to the OP. On a similar side note, Hyperspace Assault is also a bit on an unexpected "Oh" from your opponent. I think 90% of the time they expect that demolisher to come in behind their fleet.....then it comes in near the flotilla. Helluva way to waste an alpha strike but it's a trade off. You don't kill a threat but you debuff the entire Fleet.

The only ship on Empire that fits the bill is Raider. Not worth the 6 points for one squadron, maybe the dirty Rebs can have better luck.

Agree completely with PT106, while I think the idea of analysing the cost of countering a flotilla lifeboat is valid your method of not incorporating the cost of the admiral is flawed.

As PT says, the cost should be compared on the basis of the total lifeboat cost against the counter. Honestly if anything I think the bump should work the other way, you're killing a flotilla worth anywhere between 38-60 odd points but that's also at the same time negating fleet wide bonuses (as in it should be a positive per-ship addition to killing the lifeboat, not dividing its cost across the fleet).

I think comparing the lifeboat to the counters using the cheapest admiral is also flawed. If Dodonna and Ozzel were omnipresent in the meta than maybe this would be valid but realistically the cost of the lifeboat can vary considerably.

Just as an aside re: admiral powers conferring fleet wide, I actually don't think it's that hard of a logical, thematic jump. I always saw it as the manifestation of a multitude of small things they did that impacted their fleets in those specific ways. Training crews, specialised officers, specific upgrades to ships instituted under their leadership. Maybe Vader's crews are trained to push the ships to beyond their operational stress limits to maximise firepower, or Ackbar installs turbolaser reroutes that divert forward and rear firepower to the sides etc, etc.

Fair points, all. Not to be dismissive, I still have trouble rationalizing vastly separated admirals hanging out in unarmed craft. It just seems to be that it would be more balanced to have some kind of mechanic that required a ship in the fleet to...I dont know... be with the fleet.

IF Vader jumped in a cargo ship and ran out of range to watch the battle from afar, do you think his forces would remain so tightly drilled or do you think morale would suffer at the sight of their leaders cowardice?

I'm glad you're able to concede that PT and Captain Weather were making a good point about including an Admiral's cost in the counter of a lifeboat. It really does make a difference to add their points in there in determining the efficiency of life boat hunters. As PT said, if I can send a 60 point ship to kill a 40-50 point life boat that has zero chance of hurting me back, that is a tactical trade I will take anytime.

And I can concede that I too have found a cognitive dissonance in the Admiral effect being the only effect in the game that is not restricted by range. Rather than wanting to change the rule though I took the approach of thinking about the admiral effect as something different. I mean if al of the upgrades that represent on table effects have range limits, then maybe the admiral's ability represents something different.

I stated above, and some others agreed, that the admiral effect may represent between battle training and drills rather than anything going on on the table. Training would certainly not be range limited. That also settled for me the dissonance in why some admirals can order their ships to turn harder, but others can't. It's not that they don't want to turn harder, it's more that they spend their training time focused on other drills. What do you think of this idea?

Now, none of that can make you like the idea of a lifeboat. I'm not fond of it, but I don't discount it either. Previous to flotillas I've run my admiral in everything from a CR-90 to an MC-80.

I think it is a valid, but risky tactic. Probably not one I would use personally, but it doesn't break the game for me either.

How did we even get this far with this debate...I sit at a bar stool and actively question this.

One could simple say admirals only effect ships of the flagship size one size up and smaller. So ackbar on a floatilla can only wffect cr90s, motti on a floatilla would pnly effect small and floatilla ships only. So to get the most effectively from the admiral you need to pop him on a medoum or large base.

Thats a pretty argumentative post, however I think some of these arguments operate on a wrong set of assumptions. Lets start with the first one: how to calculate cost imbalance.

Because an Admiral can apply his effect regardless of range to any ship, the lifeboat flotilla is effectively an 18-23 points investment. The Admiral is not factored into this because he's not a factor in the tactic of placing a cheap unit in a corner.

Thats a wrong assumption. One of the reasons of placing Admiral in a cheap unit is to spread the points across the fleet, so the loss of any ship is recoverable points-wise and there is no point sink that will be a primary attack target. So once admiral is on the flotilla it becomes a 50-60 points that can be gained from killing it (and it can be killed by a 44-points raider). So the whole talk about points imbalance doesn't really make sense from my perspective - as we're now talking about sending 50-60 points ship to kill 50-60 points and survive (as there is no chance for flotilla to kill it.

Now lets talk about flotilla killers (I assume Imperial ones)

1. Raider. Thats all it takes. There is no need to load anything on it, he'll get that flotilla. Maybe it'll take him 2-3 rounds but he'll get it.

2. Gladiator. A usual GSD loadout with Intel officer - poof. Dead flotilla in two rounds. It may be even a half-dead Demolisher going after that admiral after successful run on a ship.

3. Squadrons. Bossk + Zertik. Done. Bossk gets his free accuracy and keeps bombing.

4. A set of rogues that keeps going and going.

5. ...

Essentially I think that we're at a point in the cycle where usuing a lifeboat flotilla is riskier and riskier and we'll see a decline in the use of this strategy over a next few months.

As stated in my example, if you wish to include the cost of an admiral in the lifeboat, that's fine but it has to be done across the entire fleet since the admiral effects the entire fleet. In the provided example, I used Dodonna in a 4 activation fleet, effectively increasing the cost of the flotilla by +5. To reflect this increase, I offered detractors to remove .5 from my estimates.

The logic behind this is fairly simple. Upgrades factored into the cost of that ship effect only that ship (or allow it to manipulate the battle in some way). To assign the entire value of a card that affects your entire fleet to a single ship is misleading in the extreme.

1) It's stilla points imbalance and a unit that is effectively lost for the rest of the battle.

2) Will never return to the battle in time and an even higher points cost than my Raider example.

3) Purely fighter-dice are highly unreliable since the only thing that applies damage is actual hits, which is why I included Vader.

Perhaps.

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't try and apply the points across the entire fleet. That's not how this game works. Don't try it. Follow the RRG and FAQ if you want to create points like this. Everyone else plays by them. You have to as well.

Otherwise we can make all sorts of crazy arguments.

Correct. Utilizing the same biased and flawed logic wouldn't all ranged effects only be applied in part to the ship they are actually on and have a variable value throughout the game as ships moved in and out of that range?