It means that there is an imbalance [citation needed] in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats

FTFY

Superiority complex based rant.

Le sigh.....

For about the 70th time in two days, I understand ships can kill flotillas. The flaw in your logic when throwing this in my face is that you are viewing it from purely your perspective. You refuse to factor in the likelihood that a skilled player would read you sending a unit to "deal" with the flotilla and take preventative measures or maneuver accordingly to (at the least) deny you a double arc in the turn after you arrive in range. I stated clearly that in order for the points value of the raider to match the points of the given lifeboat scenario, it would have to be unreasonably buffed. I did this in an attempt to show imbalance even in an unreasonably skewed example that should have benefited the discussion against me. Instead it did nothing but serve to further my point, you just refuse to see it.

As far as my responses go, you can either read what I type or you can continue to decide how I feel for me. I do not care either way because it's becoming apparent that you're incapable of thinking from any other perspective other than your own, which is why I said your input is noted and you are free to move along.

I've not insulted anyone here in this thread. If you're referencing the previous thread, then you are choosing to remain willfully blind to their actions, which is an illustration of a bias opinion about them. You lauding their status as "established community members" goes on to further illustrate that point. Perhaps quality actually isn't more important than quantity....of posts.

If you choose to interpret that as playing a victim card, feel free. You're also welcome to not presume my thoughts or perspective, as well.

Alright, all of the following is to be taken with a grain of salt, since I have yet to conduct rigorous experiments with the full force of a Wave 5/CC enabled bomber wing. I also have no idea what of this you've tried, so I'm throwing it all out there. I like the Victory and ISD-2s for the standoff ship combat range, but I have some ideas from my own experience you might like to try. My first suggestion is trying Raider-1s (pairs work best, but one is ok) loaded with OE, and either Flechette or Assault Proton Torpedoes. I would experiment with a pair of such ships, working in concert with either an ISD-2 or the double Victories as escorts. If you've got FT, use them to cut off the bomber wing with crits left and right. Otherwise, Raiders make great Yavaris and MC30 killers if they can get the drop on it. In my experience, the Rebel will either wheel his bombers to hold off your light ships, leaving the battlewagons to slug it out with the regular ships, which aren't all that impressive in combat power (excepting the MC30 of course, and even that is situational), or the Raiders will slice through the flank like the oversized lawn darts they resemble so closely. If you run Motti, I wouldn't be afraid of ramming Yavaris or an MC30 after the APT crit to finish the job. The Rebels may burn through your shields, but the look when you ignore theirs is priceless.

Raiders can die very rapidly to stacked BCCs and a static Bomber wing that hangs close to the carrier ships (medium range, or under Boosted comms with speed 0). Unless you take the initiative advantage to dive in that Raider and activate it on the first turn to stun some stuff, those B-Wings will eat it alive.

Assuming through BCCs and Toryn a B-Wing can gurantee 3 damage (or two damage with acc), with Norra nearby, a B-Wing can destroy a Raider in two shots (First peels a shield and pushes does 2 hull damage. Second finishes it off with three damage critical, dealing an extra damage card). Even driving two B-Wings from out of Flichette range can do that damage.

So I've come to not rely on capital ships for AA protection because of how easily that cocktail can make a Raider (or any capital ship really...) pop. I don't want to hand those points to my opponent that easily. Likely there will be that one chance of a non-perfect roll allowing a B-Wing to live for Yavaris to activate when it's ready to kill the Raider (it can act as cover until the Yavaris activates and chooses to destroy it).

Second point, which fits into the first and last, I would try to exploit that flotillas have only moderate fighter control. Unupgraded they can only push two squadrons around, four tops with a token, whereas VSDs and ISDs easily outmatch that. If you can arrange the fighter battle so that he can't effectively jump everyone at once, or heavily punish them once they have, I think you might make your opponents think twice about the tactic. FOr example, leap your fighter screen onto some bombers to engage them, then let Jan arrive and pounce on the Rebel traitor with a Raider and perhaps IG-88. Between those two units, you ought to be able to murder her, leaving the rest of their bombers much more vulnerable to your own screen. Another counter here is that Instigator is not affected by Intel. If you can jump the bombers after they move with the Raider such that it survives until the next round, then lead with anti-squadron fire and a wave of attacks from the fighter screen, you might do some considerable damage, and Instigator need only be in danger for about one round. That is not to say this is easy or foolproof, but it's a tactic that has worked on me on occasion.

I've been having successes against this mock list with a supercarrier ISD (6 activations) with nearly an entire ace ball, including both tie Advanced pilots. I jump the ball to wipe out the X-Wings first, then cut into the B-Wings from there. I have two sources of intel to try getting away from Shara Bey or any other X-Wings. Two for two so far it works, though we'll see in a game with a live opponent.

Same notation with Raiders, too easily destroyed.

My final thought is this, have you tried investing in a Defender wing? There are enough fighters on the board here I'm not sure Phantoms will last long enough to be worth it (YMMV), but the 6 hull of a Defender makes it a nasty customer for all but the most ace-heavy of Rebel fighter wings. Col. Jendon works well here, since he can double-tap one of your own squadrons (at the purely nominal expense of his own unimpressive anti-squad armament), and he positively sings with Maarek Steele, whose auto-damage and braces mean he can attract an amount of Rebel attention to be worth his points, whether he ever kills anything or not. I've have to do some fiddling with your listed fleet attributes to see how many are a good number, but I am confident they can help your problem. The only Intel unit is Ors, but the damage output of a Defender wing will quickly have your opponent make hard choices about his tokens, especially if most of the other fighters are generic. A thematic version of this I've yet to run through the wringer would be a couple (literally two or three) Defenders, backed up by swarms of regular TIEs and Interceptors. Use the Defenders' hull and speed advantage to dive into a Rebel fighter wing, and liberally sprinkle the TIEs to take advantage of the new Swarm node you've created. Best of all, Defenders are bombers, so if they chew through the Rebel wings or spot a target of opportunity, they can strike for impressively consistent anti-ship damage. They can't match a B-wing for output, but overall I rate them the better fighter, even after their expense.

To be fair the only time I've run pure Defenders is in a self test to see how well they'd match up against VTs (They destroy them utterly). The last attempt against the Rebel speedbump list was three interceptor aces with Dengar and VTs, but an earlier version had a couple of TIE/Ds. I flipped them out because VTs have phenominal damage output (if their carrier survives), but I would like to try six defenders again. I'm wary because no-defense token fighters can go down very quickly under concentrated fire, and if I'm not careful with those Defenders they'll go quick. I switched to Interceptors as well because swarm does make a difference when used, and on the backhand swarm counter attack sometimes I can kill squadrons that way.... unless they're Rieekan zombies...

What other tricks have you tried? A Rhymerball of Defenders, Tempest Squadron, Strom, Rudor if you're worried about interception, could try burning through the transports from standoff range, aided by the fact the Defenders are more than happy to mix it up with any Rebel unit brave enough to intercept them. One of these days (probably after my new PC is online), I'll get Vassal working and we can try some of these experiments against each other. I regularly face Rebel bomber wings, but rarely do they pack as many transports as you face, so I would be curious how we could learn from each other. I don't think I've solved your flotilla problem, but I think between us and the rest of the forum we can try.

Eh, I'm not a vassal player but I appreciate the invite. If I could figure out how to use the Tabletop simulator emulator of the game, Id be doing that. I've been mostly trying interceptor focused builds of varying degrees. One list under Motti returned to the VSDs and ISD with 9 TIE Fighter squadrons backed with Flight Controllers. It worked for a time, but a stronger interceptor ace build beat it. I could try that list again, though I have more faith in this supercarrier ISD build with aces.

I came here and contributed mostly because I still find flotillas an issue in controlling and pacing activation. That they also help the squadron game get stronger is just like a DeMSU list with APTs on their activation-padding Raiders... save that the Rebel bomber support flotillas are cheaper. And with fighters doing more damage to capital ships out of certain Rebel cocktail combinations... it can get frustrating.

Good input, Norse. Getting tired so I don't have anything to add, just wanted to say thanks for it.

So it's not a problem, not a big one anyway, but it's imbalanced.

What does that really mean?

It means that there is an imbalance in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats that, although not game breaking, decidedly favors those who use it. It's also a good illustration in the flaw of using tournaments as a baseline for how you judge an aspect of a game. Althought there is no doubt that tournament results would reveal something that is truly overpowered, they are not a dependable source of information for finding specific areas of imbalance.

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that in other threads it has become obvious that most of the outspoken people against this discussion are decidedly Rebel players due to the causal observation that they always speak of their rebel fleets and reference facing rebels (a side effect of being most familiar with the faction) when discussing tactics and counter play to the topic of conversation.

Having spoken with the designers, they do use tournament attendance and results to spot imbalance troubles with the game. In the current case the tournament results do not support your assertion that a lifeboat strategy is in anyway imbalanced or especially advantageous.

You have provided some thought experiments as to why you believe it is inefficient to spend time hunting a lifeboat. Do you have any specific game evidence? For instance, battle reports, Vassal logs, or videos that illustrate this imbalance?

So it's not a problem, not a big one anyway, but it's imbalanced.

What does that really mean?

It means that there is an imbalance in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats that, although not game breaking, decidedly favors those who use it. It's also a good illustration in the flaw of using tournaments as a baseline for how you judge an aspect of a game. Althought there is no doubt that tournament results would reveal something that is truly overpowered, they are not a dependable source of information for finding specific areas of imbalance.

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that in other threads it has become obvious that most of the outspoken people against this discussion are decidedly Rebel players due to the causal observation that they always speak of their rebel fleets and reference facing rebels (a side effect of being most familiar with the faction) when discussing tactics and counter play to the topic of conversation.

For the record I play both sides, but more and more imperial. My favorite admiral is Vader. I don't particularly enjoy squadrons and typically take as few as I can get away with. Sometimes I run a gozanti in a support role, but my admiral is on the isd.

I recently played vs a rebel bomber build.

I was first player. I picked his most wanted.

Predictably he set his qs lifeboat in the corner, made that his objective ship AND my isd the other one.

I could have used my raider or demo to go after that flotilla, with a good chance of killing it.

In the event I chose not to. Both would be viable options for me.

Now, if he couldn't have done the lifeboat thing, he'd need to put his admiral somewhere vulnerable. On fragile ships supporting his bombers. Right into my guns (and yes they all died).

By allowing the lifeboat strategy many new options are available. Squadron heavy fleets gain many options, including the ability to save a ship, an admiral and disengage squadrons - instead of a tabling you get a moderate victory.

If I wanted a tabling, I'd need to spilt my forces, take the additional risk.

So instead of gambling for a 10-1, I opted for a 7-4 or something.

Isn't this great?

Without the lifeboat things would have been slanted in my favor, and there would be no incentive for me to split my forces.

#lifeboatlove

I have an idea! I just kill the rest of the enemies with less losses

So it's not a problem, not a big one anyway, but it's imbalanced.

What does that really mean?

It means that there is an imbalance in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats that, although not game breaking, decidedly favors those who use it. It's also a good illustration in the flaw of using tournaments as a baseline for how you judge an aspect of a game. Althought there is no doubt that tournament results would reveal something that is truly overpowered, they are not a dependable source of information for finding specific areas of imbalance.

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that in other threads it has become obvious that most of the outspoken people against this discussion are decidedly Rebel players due to the causal observation that they always speak of their rebel fleets and reference facing rebels (a side effect of being most familiar with the faction) when discussing tactics and counter play to the topic of conversation.

Having spoken with the designers, they do use tournament attendance and results to spot imbalance troubles with the game. In the current case the tournament results do not support your assertion that a lifeboat strategy is in anyway imbalanced or especially advantageous.

You have provided some thought experiments as to why you believe it is inefficient to spend time hunting a lifeboat. Do you have any specific game evidence? For instance, battle reports, Vassal logs, or videos that illustrate this imbalance?

I get that they use tournaments to spot something over powered, which they might have described as imbalance. It's my opinion those two definitions are not mutually interchangeable. Prior to 2015, squadrons were also largely regarded as useless. Tournament results are capable of spotting major problems, but nuances? I think that's incredibly debatable.

Specific games? No. This entire debate started as a feeling which I was able to (somewhat) successfully transcribe into an example with a definition to define my position. I suppose I could scour the internet for a specific example but the most common occurrence is that the opposing player in a lifeboat scenario doesn't bother with it, which (from a certain point of view) goes to further illustrate my point of it being a relatively safe "gamble" that allows someone to effectively safeguard anywhere from 40-60 points of their fleet while still reaping the benefits of it's cost.

No one would argue with me if we were discussing a flotilla that was able to apply Bomber Command while being completely untargetable.

Superiority complex based rant.

I'll remind you of this next time you kvetch about how the bad man on the Internet was mean to you.

--

Le sigh.....

For about the 70th time in two days, I understand ships can kill flotillas.

That's not the claim you've set yourself up to have to refute. The claim is that they can do it efficiently. Which, again, you haven't made even the barest attempt to refute. Because you can't. Because they can.

--

The flaw in your logic when throwing this in my face is that you are viewing it from purely your perspective. You refuse to factor in the likelihood that a skilled player would read you sending a unit to "deal" with the flotilla and take preventative measures or maneuver accordingly to (at the least) deny you a double arc in the turn after you arrive in range.

So are you looking for an auto-win button? Tell you what: you're not going to find a solution that will always do what you want, how you want, against an equally-skilled opponent. If you did find such a thing, do you know what that would be indicative of?

Imbalance.

What you refuse to factor in is the numerous examples that people have given you of how this actually works effectively. ****, I myself linked you a .vlog of me actually doing this thing that everyone keeps telling you to do, and winning the game by doing it. Do you have specific examples of how these things don't work? Because at this point I'd even accept anecdote as some sort of grounds for discussion. At least then we'd have something concrete to talk about, rather than your nebulous feelings dominating the front page.

--

I stated clearly that in order for the points value of the raider to match the points of the given lifeboat scenario, it would have to be unreasonably buffed. I did this in an attempt to show imbalance even in an unreasonably skewed example that should have benefited the discussion against me. Instead it did nothing but serve to further my point, you just refuse to see it.

You did state that. And you were wrong, because you used a bad example. Which I pointed out. Send the wrong unit to do a job and it's going to do it badly. Look, I can do it too:

If you send a swarm of 8 TIE Interceptors (96 points) to kill Ozzel on a Raider (64ish points) they're probably going to die to AA and not kill him. That's imbalance caused by the inability of 96 points of Interceptors to kill 2/3 of their points in ship. #downwithraiderlifeboats

--

As far as my responses go, you can either read what I type or you can continue to decide how I feel for me. I do not care either way because it's becoming apparent that you're incapable of thinking from any other perspective other than your own, which is why I said your input is noted and you are free to move along.

Dismissing those who disagree with you every single time you can't refute their points?

And this is how you fly in the face of the spirit of open debate and free discussion.

--

I've not insulted anyone here in this thread.

I started to recount some of the rude, condescending things you've said here in this thread, but I just don't care enough to help you that much.

--

If you choose to interpret that as playing a victim card, feel free. You're also welcome to not presume my thoughts or perspective, as well.

You've made an awful lot of these unsupported claims about others making unsupported claims.

So it's not a problem, not a big one anyway, but it's imbalanced.

What does that really mean?

It means that there is an imbalance in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats that, although not game breaking, decidedly favors those who use it. It's also a good illustration in the flaw of using tournaments as a baseline for how you judge an aspect of a game. Althought there is no doubt that tournament results would reveal something that is truly overpowered, they are not a dependable source of information for finding specific areas of imbalance.

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that in other threads it has become obvious that most of the outspoken people against this discussion are decidedly Rebel players due to the causal observation that they always speak of their rebel fleets and reference facing rebels (a side effect of being most familiar with the faction) when discussing tactics and counter play to the topic of conversation.

For the record I play both sides, but more and more imperial. My favorite admiral is Vader. I don't particularly enjoy squadrons and typically take as few as I can get away with. Sometimes I run a gozanti in a support role, but my admiral is on the isd.

I recently played vs a rebel bomber build.

I was first player. I picked his most wanted.

Predictably he set his qs lifeboat in the corner, made that his objective ship AND my isd the other one.

I could have used my raider or demo to go after that flotilla, with a good chance of killing it.

In the event I chose not to. Both would be viable options for me.

Now, if he couldn't have done the lifeboat thing, he'd need to put his admiral somewhere vulnerable. On fragile ships supporting his bombers. Right into my guns (and yes they all died).

By allowing the lifeboat strategy many new options are available. Squadron heavy fleets gain many options, including the ability to save a ship, an admiral and disengage squadrons - instead of a tabling you get a moderate victory.

If I wanted a tabling, I'd need to spilt my forces, take the additional risk.

So instead of gambling for a 10-1, I opted for a 7-4 or something.

Isn't this great?

Without the lifeboat things would have been slanted in my favor, and there would be no incentive for me to split my forces.

#lifeboatlove

So not to try and be rude, but what I take from your post is this:

1) You're a rebel main that's bored and fiddling with Imperials.

2) You limit yourself because you do not like squadrons for one reason or another. Given the complex nature of the game, that could be interpreted on handicapping yourself because of a personal bias. This could provide me with an example of a scenario in which you're more willingly viewing things from your singular perspective and not from another's, much less the game as a while. Most naysayers in the flotilla discussion are extremely confrontational and aggressive in their assertions about the available options that are capable of killing a flotilla without being willing to consider the efficiency in doing so.

3) Anyone can provide a myriad of personal experiences that further their point of view. Some are probable and some are used as validation without regard to the conversation. I could point out that had your dice been fickle, you would have lost had your opponents dice been less fickle.

So congrats to you on your 7-4 (or something) win that could have just as easily been a loss but worked out. It's still not sufficient data to formulate a solid foundation for such a staunch opinion in the face of such detailed evidence in support of the opposing statement....especially considering that I have intentionally taken steps to skew my own examples against myself in an effort to make it more apparent.

Although not as clear in the original post, I've since clarified it but rather realize the efforts I took to illustrate my point, people (not exclusively you) chose to instead focus on invalidating it by raising themselves while attempting to demean the evidence in such a fashion that it presented a foolishly "OP Raider" used as an example....which still supported my original claim of imbalance, despite it's intentionally skewed points investment.

H9's ..

*Drops mic

Game Over

Efficiency is a measurement of the baseline I have provided. Effectively is what you're confusing it with.

No, I am not looking for an auto-win button. I'm merely trying to have a rational debate about a subject whose mechanics are debatable. What you dismiss as irrelevant or anecdotal is, if anything, more hard data than you linking some game you played once. Why? Because my data and examples are not dictated by skill. There will always be what some could describe as imbalance in skill cap when facing an opponent. By accounting for that in break down of turns, I feel as though I made it fairly apparent that mechanically and mathematically there is a slight disconnect in balance when this tactic is utilized. It is interesting that you choose to deflect attention from the turn break down by referencing the front page but I won't point out how that's a small form of denial and a bit of a subconscious effort to avoid admitting I might have a point.

Whoops.

Of course I used a bad example. I granted far too many points to an untitled Raider I that was hypothetically used to go engage a hypothetical flotilla. The example I used was skewed in favor of the "everything is fine here" argument. I even went as far as to break this down point by point. Perhaps the problem isn't so much that you refuse to see this, perhaps the problem is you are incapable.

Prove me an example of an equal unit (in this case, an Imperial unit) that has an equal cost-per-turn or cost-per-battle as a lifeboat flotilla. I used the Raider because of it's cost vs it's speed vs it's armament. If you can find a better example, feel free. If every example you can provide is just "this ship can kill that ship" then you are failing to grasp the other elements of the equation....or perhaps your arrogance is preventing you from thinking the entire question through.

Telling you to accept what I type over assigning me how I feel is not dismissing points that I cannot refute. It's dismissing someone so arrogant, they think they can dictate their perception onto other people, which you have consistently proven is all you're capable of.

Which I why I reminded you no one is forcing you to be here and that your input on the matter is noted.

"I started to recount some of the rude, condescending things you've said here in this thread, but I just don't care enough to help you that much." - So are you the pot or the kettle because now you're just getting confusing.

Again, you choosing to dictate to me that I'm playing the victim for not tolerating...well.. frankly, your behavior now as well as those who came before you....is not unsupported claims. I'll tell you the same thing I told them. Your opinion on a subject should be about that subject, not why those you debate with are bad.

Your arrogance prevents you from considering the evidence I've laid out, which is fine. You choose to only accept your own experiences and to not listen to the other side of the debate, which is also fine. So again I say.....yout input is noted and you are free to stop posting since you're on the verge of just derailing the conversation by attempting to passively-aggressively make the debate personal....which it is not.

H9's ..

*Drops mic

Game Over

In the example given ( a Raider for its cost, speed, and dice).....no turbolaser slot......

So it's not a problem, not a big one anyway, but it's imbalanced.

What does that really mean?

It means that there is an imbalance in the interaction of flotilla lifeboats that, although not game breaking, decidedly favors those who use it. It's also a good illustration in the flaw of using tournaments as a baseline for how you judge an aspect of a game. Althought there is no doubt that tournament results would reveal something that is truly overpowered, they are not a dependable source of information for finding specific areas of imbalance.

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that in other threads it has become obvious that most of the outspoken people against this discussion are decidedly Rebel players due to the causal observation that they always speak of their rebel fleets and reference facing rebels (a side effect of being most familiar with the faction) when discussing tactics and counter play to the topic of conversation.

For the record I play both sides, but more and more imperial. My favorite admiral is Vader. I don't particularly enjoy squadrons and typically take as few as I can get away with. Sometimes I run a gozanti in a support role, but my admiral is on the isd.

I recently played vs a rebel bomber build.

I was first player. I picked his most wanted.

Predictably he set his qs lifeboat in the corner, made that his objective ship AND my isd the other one.

I could have used my raider or demo to go after that flotilla, with a good chance of killing it.

In the event I chose not to. Both would be viable options for me.

Now, if he couldn't have done the lifeboat thing, he'd need to put his admiral somewhere vulnerable. On fragile ships supporting his bombers. Right into my guns (and yes they all died).

By allowing the lifeboat strategy many new options are available. Squadron heavy fleets gain many options, including the ability to save a ship, an admiral and disengage squadrons - instead of a tabling you get a moderate victory.

If I wanted a tabling, I'd need to spilt my forces, take the additional risk.

So instead of gambling for a 10-1, I opted for a 7-4 or something.

Isn't this great?

Without the lifeboat things would have been slanted in my favor, and there would be no incentive for me to split my forces.

#lifeboatlove

So not to try and be rude, but what I take from your post is this:

1) You're a rebel main that's bored and fiddling with Imperials.

2) You limit yourself because you do not like squadrons for one reason or another. Given the complex nature of the game, that could be interpreted on handicapping yourself because of a personal bias. This could provide me with an example of a scenario in which you're more willingly viewing things from your singular perspective and not from another's, much less the game as a while. Most naysayers in the flotilla discussion are extremely confrontational and aggressive in their assertions about the available options that are capable of killing a flotilla without being willing to consider the efficiency in doing so.

3) Anyone can provide a myriad of personal experiences that further their point of view. Some are probable and some are used as validation without regard to the conversation. I could point out that had your dice been fickle, you would have lost had your opponents dice been less fickle.

So congrats to you on your 7-4 (or something) win that could have just as easily been a loss but worked out. It's still not sufficient data to formulate a solid foundation for such a staunch opinion in the face of such detailed evidence in support of the opposing statement....especially considering that I have intentionally taken steps to skew my own examples against myself in an effort to make it more apparent.

Although not as clear in the original post, I've since clarified it but rather realize the efforts I took to illustrate my point, people (not exclusively you) chose to instead focus on invalidating it by raising themselves while attempting to demean the evidence in such a fashion that it presented a foolishly "OP Raider" used as an example....which still supported my original claim of imbalance, despite it's intentionally skewed points investment.

How was that rude?

Also, that's not what I said. I said I play both sides. I said I find myself playing more and more Imperial. That was to show you I don't favor Reb, squads of lifeboats in my lists...I just accept them as a strong, and quite frankly needed, part of the game.

And...what's the point. You're not taking away anything from this 'discussion', you're just repeating and rambling. You're less hurt and insulting than in the locked thread, but it's more of the same with regards to content.

Also, there was never any chance of a loss, only the choice to go for a safe approach. Not sure how/why you twisted that into something else? Perhaps to avoid/ridicule the entire point?

Lol...reading your reply again...talk about rude.

Also, you've gone from 'problem, let's change the rules' to 'vague imbalance based on a feeling you're struggling to articulate', yet any attempts to illustrate how this is NOT the case, how lifeboats are good for the game, are met with ridicule.

You're just incredibly sad.

H9's ..

*Drops mic

Game Over

In the example given ( a Raider for its cost, speed, and dice).....no turbolaser slot......

Sensor teams or Jonus

Apply Cr90B with engine tech. Ram life boat......repeat as necessary.

Except the closest things Imps have to that is the Raider and it can't run engine techs.

Do I need to list every variation of ramming for each faction ship to make the point clear? Agreed...the repeat as necessary will use one extra turn for a raider. Take some double arc shots also and you may be able to eliminate the scatter before hand. I have also seen folks phylon/G8 the lifeboat or strategically place g7s to hinder lifeboat placement (I know......rebels do not have an interdictor.....so my point is probably not valid). :/

Sigh

Cr90b with engine tech annihalates flotillas. In fact they annihalate everything. I am currently attempting to show them as a viable ship in their own right in the vassal world cup. It looks like i am going to top my pod group at the moment.

See. Positive constructive action.

On the imperials side, a ship was recently added which like to stay out wide and has engine techs..... the Arquitten can ram a lifeboat to death without even taking its eyes of the fight. Add centicore and you can bounce squadrons of it. No longer are the flanks safe.

I hate flotilla spam. So I beat them up

Sygnetix, you have attracted quite a few regional winners to this thread. Most of whom dont run lifeboats.

Bear that in mind when you object to contrasting opinions. And keep it civil, this thread was going well, but is starting to deteriorate. You can do a lot to keep the language polite. I mean this in a positive way, you are asking good questions in the forum, and are willing to tend to your threads properly, which is a positive for this forum.

Until you can close with and try to kill that ship, it is an 18 point ship. You keep ignoring that fact because you'd rather attempt to poke holes in the debate than contribute to it.

The reason why it is an 18 point ship is because it's upgrade ranges encompass the entire map.

The reason these ranges encompass the entire map is because Admirals function the way they do.

I'd really like to know...do you main Rebels or Imperials and do you use this strategy?

Even by the argument that, "Until you can close with and try to kill that ship, it is an 18 point ship." It doesn't change anything. Their suggestion is building a ship to hunt down and kill it. Succeed at that and then you get all the points, fail at that and you were just outplayed. I'm not ignoring any facts; I am disagreeing with your argument because I think it is a very poor one. Poking holes in what is in my opinion a bad argument is contributing to the debate. I can't help the fact that you seem to think the only people contributing are those that agree with you. I understand how Admirals function. I prefer games to be thematic so when I play I prefer Rebels vs. Imperials, so whoever I'm playing against would dictate what I play more so than I do. By "this strategy" I'm going to assume you mean "lifeboats", the answer would be no; I wouldn't feel the need to justify them because I use them, they are well within the rules of the game. My point is that they seem perfectly fine thematically and from a gameplay perspective. I don't think any of your arguments to the contrary have been very good, yet you claim you want to have a discussion on them, but I'm unsure about what. If it is strategies to deal with them people have given that. If it is why they are a problem thematically people have given that. You seem to just want them outlawed because it's what you want and you want people to agree with you. Now if I'm wrong and I just missed what discussion you are trying to achieve feel free to specifically point it out and I'll be happy to either contribute to the topic at hand or stop responding if I have no contribution to make.

^ This summed things up quite nicely.

The closed thread was titled 'proposal to change the rules', and this one continues along the same vein, albeit a tad more civil.

I get that they use tournaments to spot something over powered, which they might have described as imbalance. It's my opinion those two definitions are not mutually interchangeable. Prior to 2015, squadrons were also largely regarded as useless. Tournament results are capable of spotting major problems, but nuances? I think that's incredibly debatable.

Specific games? No. This entire debate started as a feeling which I was able to (somewhat) successfully transcribe into an example with a definition to define my position. I suppose I could scour the internet for a specific example but the most common occurrence is that the opposing player in a lifeboat scenario doesn't bother with it, which (from a certain point of view) goes to further illustrate my point of it being a relatively safe "gamble" that allows someone to effectively safeguard anywhere from 40-60 points of their fleet while still reaping the benefits of it's cost.

No one would argue with me if we were discussing a flotilla that was able to apply Bomber Command while being completely untargetable.

My understanding from following this post is that you feel the lifeboat is unbalancing enough to warrant a change to the game. FFG has not made that type of change except when it is unbalancing enough to dominate a series of tournaments (ie Imperial assault 4x4v lists). If the imbalance is subtle or nuanced as to not impact tournament outcomes, does it really need to be addressed?

Your position would be greatly strengthened by a real-world example of your hypothetical situation. I had been assuming that the source of your interest in this topic was a game or series of games where it came up. My mistake.

Previously I had the assumption that a low-activation count fleet was incapable of winning a major Armada tournament. This was based on some real world examples and lots of mental exercises that showed me the weaknesses of that approach. Then at the GenCon tourney this summer, the top 2 finishers both had 2 ship fleets, which I had assumed was impossible. My opinion on that subject was substantially changed by a real-world occurrence.

In the past when members of this forum have pointed out what they felt was an imbalance in the game (ie Demolisher) they would have battle reports or tournament results to point to as a basis for their hypothetical discussions. It really helped the discussion and in the case of Demolisher seeing the tournament imbalance during wave 2, the data actually swayed some opinions. (Thankfully, Demo seems toned down in waves 3&4)

You state above that "the most common occurrence is that the opposing player in a lifeboat scenario doesn't bother with it" right after saying you have no examples to draw from. How is it possible you can know it is a common occurrence with no examples to point to?

The tournament data provides no evidence that life boats are either common or imbalanced. I am willing to accept your thesis, but you need to provide some evidence beyond hypotheticals.

Turn Break Down

If I was the Rebel player, I would place bright hope on that lifeboat flotilla as well in order to frustrate my opponent even further.

With few exceptions, I try to be overly generous while still being able to field a reasonable argument that the imbalance exists. If anything, you just supported my position.

......plus, correct me if I am wrong.....could not Major Derlin stack with the Bright Hope effect?

......and you have not even discussed Minister Tua/ECMs on the Gozanti lifeboat. I have made the Admirals immortal now?

Again, just fortifying my position that an imbalance exists....in regards to Tua/ECMs....as stated in the OP, for the sake of argument and easiest identification between the two forces, this example is Imperials vs a Rebel who employs the lifeboat tactic.

That said, no you haven't made them immortal but you have managed to continually strengthen my position. I went out of my way to use barebones examples in order to try and move clearly convey my perception of an imbalance, meaning I intentionally didn't include additional upgrade cards or combinations.

I assumed the imbalance would be more clear if I could prove it in it's simplest form. By taking into consideration other upgrades designed specifically to keep the lifeboat alive (which is probably relatively rare as those points would be better spent in the "combat branch" of the fleet) it would have been perceived as skewing the discussion towards a predetermined outcome....which I've already been accused of as it is.

Sorry you did not notice the sarcasm. Actual game play has shown that lifeboat flotillas do not offer a distinct advantage in actual winning or winning by large MOV. If you have data to contradict this....please share. I do not consider it an imbalance if it is a tactic that is available to both factions.

I looked at the Regionals data for where I have the lists for the Top 4 fleets. I looked for "Lifeboat" Flotillas, which I defined as a flotilla with no upgrades that require it be near the rest of it's fleet.

1 winnng fleet out of 11 used that tactic. It had Motti in a naked Gozanti. 2 other winners had their admirals in flotillas, but those had Comms Net (and Leia) which requires proximity and suggests they weren't using that tactic.

So, less than 10% used a lifeboat.

Be careful with that assumption. For example, I often put Comms Net on a Motti's lifeboat to get a round or two of free tokens while it's flying away from the main fleet.

I looked at the Regionals data for where I have the lists for the Top 4 fleets. I looked for "Lifeboat" Flotillas, which I defined as a flotilla with no upgrades that require it be near the rest of it's fleet.

1 winnng fleet out of 11 used that tactic. It had Motti in a naked Gozanti. 2 other winners had their admirals in flotillas, but those had Comms Net (and Leia) which requires proximity and suggests they weren't using that tactic.

So, less than 10% used a lifeboat.

Be careful with that assumption. For example, I often put Comms Net on a Motti's lifeboat to get a round or two of free tokens while it's flying away from the main fleet.

Absolutely. I needed a workable definition for my data mining and went with that. The tactic you are describing is different from the OP who seems to be more suggesting a situation where the lifeboat is deployed far from the fleet and forces the opponent to choose to split up from the get go.

I would describe what you did as using a 'chariot' rather than a lifeboat. Use it for the Comms Net and get to safety if it goes south.

Absolutely. I needed a workable definition for my data mining and went with that. The tactic you are describing is different from the OP who seems to be more suggesting a situation where the lifeboat is deployed far from the fleet and forces the opponent to choose to split up from the get go.

I would describe what you did as using a 'chariot' rather than a lifeboat. Use it for the Comms Net and get to safety if it goes south.

However Comms Net range 5 means that its likely to be in range of one of the ships rounds 1 and 2.