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.

Not really, the way I was describing it is to deploy it as a lifeboat (for example behind the main fleet parallel to to the edge pointed away from the action with speed 3). As a result it flies away from main fleet round 1 no matter what opponent does and will force opponent to split forces to attack it.However Comms Net range 5 means that its likely to be in range of one of the ships rounds 1 and 2.

Okay, I misunderstood. That seems like a worthy use of two points for the Comms Net too.

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.

That's the great thing about having an opinion I'll defend at any cost. As the debate has ebbed and flowed, I've been able to refine and better present my opinion. Also, I didn't say you were rude. I said not to be rude and presented you with a possible interpretation of what you'd said. What's sad here is, apparently, your reading comprehension.

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.

I understand. One must also consider I can only be the one following this...I guess we'll call it a rule...for so long before the frustration of dealing with the same negativity and aggressiveness over and over and over again for so long. Rather than come down on the guy trying to have a discussion, let's spread the attention a little and come down on the ones provoking a negative response (eventually).

^ 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 also had no control over the title of the previous thread as it was not started by me, although it's existence has been assigned to me more than once.

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.

Not really, the way I was describing it is to deploy it as a lifeboat (for example behind the main fleet parallel to to the edge pointed away from the action with speed 3). As a result it flies away from main fleet round 1 no matter what opponent does and will force opponent to split forces to attack it.

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

And sadly, without being able to watch every game which data is reported on, the data could be unintentionally skewed. Granted it wouldn't be a significant increase, but it does represent a presence.

Perhaps lifeboating isn't as prevalent because it's impact on the game hasn't been thoroughly pursued beyond "cheap way (literally and figuratively? ) to keep the Admiral alive."

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.

I understand. One must also consider I can only be the one following this...I guess we'll call it a rule...for so long before the frustration of dealing with the same negativity and aggressiveness over and over and over again for so long. Rather than come down on the guy trying to have a discussion, let's spread the attention a little and come down on the ones provoking a negative response (eventually).

Sadly no. This is your thread, you set the tone.

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.

I get what you're saying. I really do. However, because a meta is nearly always unavoidable, you have to accept that tournament lists will rarely be anything beyond a modified version of an archetype. Why? Because of things like these forums and the input some people put out. When a list arrives in a tournament that goes outside of the predetermined meta lists, it shakes up the meta and suddenly things that were being dismissed one week are now an acceptable way to play.....like dual big ships.....or squadrons.

I referenced the Demolisher discussion previously because it was a great example of the conversation we're having here. The only difference is, a Demolisher is a two handed mace with blades and spikes on the end, whereas (if you'll permit to say) flotilla abuse is a 4" knife. In a mindset of "kill all the things", which weapon are people going to take most frequently?

In the end, Demolisher has lost some bite, partially due to released cards, partially due to a shift in available ship roles....yet it still persists. To that end, at the end of the OP, part of my solutions to flotillas were upgrade cards and modifications that would address the effects of lifeboat flotillas without completely destroying how they function.

I've watched a few games where the flotillas were largely ignored. They're on YouTube and I don't remember which uploader it was. I suppose I could go through them all to link examples if the need truly arises. I said the most common occurrence in this sense because that's the feeling I get from most of the responses here so I assumed that was the solution for a lot of the posters here. It was partially deduction and partially assumption. My apologies for being unclear.

In regards to the data from tournaments, I largely accept it but one has to accept that it's also somewhat open to interpretation. For one thing, without seeing all of the games, it's truly impossible to know if those flotillas with a single upgrade card weren't either repurposed as a lifeboat or forced into the role. The same could be said for flotillas with multiple upgrade cards. With somewhat less probability, one could make the claim any flotilla with an Admiral on it is suspect because the possible use of lifeboating was factored in to the decision to flotilla the Admiral, not just the scatter.

That would require watching every game the data references - impossible.

or

Interviewing every player to find his thought process behind his decision to lifeboat his Admiral. - Also impossible.

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.

I understand. One must also consider I can only be the one following this...I guess we'll call it a rule...for so long before the frustration of dealing with the same negativity and aggressiveness over and over and over again for so long. Rather than come down on the guy trying to have a discussion, let's spread the attention a little and come down on the ones provoking a negative response (eventually).

Sadly no. This is your thread, you set the tone.

Disagree. You're intentionally relieving people you support of their own actions. I've gone above and beyond reasonable in this thread. Those few times I've perhaps slipped are in response to people who brought exactly what you're holding me accountable for into the thread.

That's like blaming the government because you can't find a job while you rub salve on your facial tattoo and clean face grease from your 00 nose plug.

I came over wondering what the hubbub was all about...and after skimming the thread, I think Sygnetix's solid, tightly constructed argument is correct. Within his framework, there is usually an imbalance/points inefficiency in trying to kill a lifeboat.

But it's also largely irrelevant.

Armada is a game about imbalance and asymmetry - the key to success is to achieve a localized imbalance of forces and capitalize on it. If sending 100 points of fleet after a lifeboat wins me the game, do I care if it was 18.5 points/turn vs 9.8 points/turn "wasted"? Not in the least. Armada is full of situations which are imbalanced, if taken without context. Doesn't mean they need addressing. It's simply one more factor to assess in your battle plan.

Is it a problem that's skewing victories toward fleets with lifeboats? Doesn't seem to be...

Is it a problem that's skewing victories toward Rebels or Imperials? Doesn't seem to be...

So let's acknowledge Sygnetix's tightly constructed, limited argument and move on.

A bit of statistics from a recent regional (Boston):

Only a quarter(*) of players in either Top8 or Top4 used a lifeboat flotilla for their Admiral. A winner didn't. (And about the same percentage of players (22%) used that technique across all fleets in a tourney).

So I think that empirical data doesn't show lifeboating to be a problem.

(* One of the players in Top 8 put an Admiral on a flotilla with BCC and Expanded Hangar Bay, so I didn't count it as a lifeboat as to activate squadrons it needed to be in medium range)

I came over wondering what the hubbub was all about...and after skimming the thread, I think Sygnetix's solid, tightly constructed argument is correct. Within his framework, there is usually an imbalance/points inefficiency in trying to kill a lifeboat.

But it's also largely irrelevant.

Armada is a game about imbalance and asymmetry - the key to success is to achieve a localized imbalance of forces and capitalize on it. If sending 100 points of fleet after a lifeboat wins me the game, do I care if it was 18.5 points/turn vs 9.8 points/turn "wasted"? Not in the least. Armada is full of situations which are imbalanced, if taken without context. Doesn't mean they need addressing. It's simply one more factor to assess in your battle plan.

Is it a problem that's skewing victories toward fleets with lifeboats? Doesn't seem to be...

Is it a problem that's skewing victories toward Rebels or Imperials? Doesn't seem to be...

So let's acknowledge Sygnetix's tightly constructed, limited argument and move on.

And as stated initially, the thread serves as a point of reference for the next time this comes up (which it will) that isn't chocked full of elitists shouting down the conversation. At least now there is a resource available to people willing to direct others to it. I have no problem letting the thread fade into obscurity with no definitive answer because one simply does not exist. As interest here dies down, I'll more than likely comb through the responses and get them edited into the main article so that when people are referenced here, they can easily find tactics and strategy's available to them.

A bit of statistics from a recent regional (Boston):

Only a quarter(*) of players in either Top8 or Top4 used a lifeboat flotilla for their Admiral. A winner didn't. (And about the same percentage of players (22%) used that technique across all fleets in a tourney).

So I think that empirical data doesn't show lifeboating to be a problem.

(* One of the players in Top 8 put an Admiral on a flotilla with BCC and Expanded Hangar Bay, so I didn't count it as a lifeboat as to activate squadrons it needed to be in medium range)

Perhaps not. Or perhaps this thread with motivate someone to sink the equivalent amount of brain sweat into utilizing it and we'll see a shift. Although that would be flattering, I doubt that will be the case but one never knows what the future holds.

^ 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 also had no control over the title of the previous thread as it was not started by me, although it's existence has been assigned to me more than once.

I was hoping to not have to say anything, but one thing I can't stand is an outright lie. Sygnetix, you started a thread on Jan 7, 2017. Your last comment to me said This is the first time I've breached this topic. Your memory is faulty. Which is clearly wrong. The reason you are tied to this topic is as soon as your first thread stopped, the other thread that we burned down together got started, and as soon as that got locked, you started this one. I'll admit, you didn't really stay around for your first one, but you did start all of this discussion.

Here is the link to your thread you started.

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

What I find interesting about all of this, is you changed your OP since then. Now you hate them and think it's imbalanced. Maybe some merit to that. But your OP from 15 days ago was this: Put in a Raider I with Veteran Gunners and Overload Pulse. Worse case, flotilla should go down in 2 turns once contact is made. It's a shame it takes 61 pnts, but if you think about it....cost of flotilla + cost of commander + loss of their abilities = marginal profit.

So what changed your mind? Why are you so against this idea?

You brought up a good point to Schmitty about collecting all the data from players to see who runs life boats and why/how they do it. But that is a double edged sword. You said it's impossilbe to collect all of that data. Yet your OP for this you start with The skinny of it is, if flotillas weren't a problem/issue/point of contention, they wouldn't come up all the time. If you can't collect data, how does the problem/issue/point of contention come up all the time?

We have 2 contradicting statements from you. Is it worth killing the life boat for a marginal profit? Your tone makes it seem like you are fine with this exchange. But then you changed your mind to say By being forced into ignoring a lifeboat flotilla in a corner, the lifeboating player has less points "at risk" than someone not utilizing this strategy, effectively giving them a cost of lifeboat + admiral points advantage of 38-56 (flotilla 18 + Dodonna 20 - flotilla 18 + Ackbar 38) since those points are not at risk and their protection has no cost effective counter-play.

I'm not trying to shame you because you changed your mind. It's totally fine. That's the whole point of these debates.

How can you make the argument that these life boats are imbalanced? We have already established that FFG uses tournament info for future balancing for the game. And Schmitty said this

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.

For the Top 4 it was 3 in 44. 10 others had admirals in flotillas, but again those had Comms Net or Hangar Bays that suggested they would be keeping them near the fight.

So, 6.8% of the Top 4 finishers in Regionals tried a lifeboat strategy.

So we have a definition for life boat flotillas: no upgrades that require it to be near the rest of the fleet. And FFG can see that a very small portion of the community is using and winning with life boats.

How is life boating a problem? Where is the cold, hard proof? Why should we be convinced of your argument? You said:

That would require watching every game the data references - impossible.

or

Interviewing every player to find his thought process behind his decision to lifeboat his Admiral. - Also impossible.

After reading all of this, I am very convinced life boating is not a problem, which coincides with my thought before that it was not a problem. The data supports my emotional and theoretical argument.

So before you go an call me an elitist or facist or anything else, answer these questions. Understand I have 100% the best intentions with this post. It's fine for you to make a theoretical argument that life boat flotillas are imbalanced. But it's all theoretical. There is no data supporting it, and according to you, it is impossible to gather. I'm all for theoretical arguments and theory crafting fleets, but I'm afraid that is all that this is. Theory.

Now look, I don't want to get dragged into a huge opinion argument with you again. I'll just flame bait you until this thread gets locked. I know we will never convince each other that one of is right, and the other is wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that. Dissenting points of view is healthy for a community because we can be devils advocates for each other. But please, don't outright lie on the forums. It's very easy to fact check here. And try to understand why so many people disagree with you. Both of those reasons are why I wrote this.

^ 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 also had no control over the title of the previous thread as it was not started by me, although it's existence has been assigned to me more than once.

I was hoping to not have to say anything, but one thing I can't stand is an outright lie. Sygnetix, you started a thread on Jan 7, 2017. Your last comment to me said This is the first time I've breached this topic. Your memory is faulty. Which is clearly wrong. The reason you are tied to this topic is as soon as your first thread stopped, the other thread that we burned down together got started, and as soon as that got locked, you started this one. I'll admit, you didn't really stay around for your first one, but you did start all of this discussion.

Here is the link to your thread you started.

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

What I find interesting about all of this, is you changed your OP since then. Now you hate them and think it's imbalanced. Maybe some merit to that. But your OP from 15 days ago was this: Put in a Raider I with Veteran Gunners and Overload Pulse. Worse case, flotilla should go down in 2 turns once contact is made. It's a shame it takes 61 pnts, but if you think about it....cost of flotilla + cost of commander + loss of their abilities = marginal profit.

So what changed your mind? Why are you so against this idea?

You brought up a good point to Schmitty about collecting all the data from players to see who runs life boats and why/how they do it. But that is a double edged sword. You said it's impossilbe to collect all of that data. Yet your OP for this you start with The skinny of it is, if flotillas weren't a problem/issue/point of contention, they wouldn't come up all the time. If you can't collect data, how does the problem/issue/point of contention come up all the time?

We have 2 contradicting statements from you. Is it worth killing the life boat for a marginal profit? Your tone makes it seem like you are fine with this exchange. But then you changed your mind to say By being forced into ignoring a lifeboat flotilla in a corner, the lifeboating player has less points "at risk" than someone not utilizing this strategy, effectively giving them a cost of lifeboat + admiral points advantage of 38-56 (flotilla 18 + Dodonna 20 - flotilla 18 + Ackbar 38) since those points are not at risk and their protection has no cost effective counter-play.

I'm not trying to shame you because you changed your mind. It's totally fine. That's the whole point of these debates.

How can you make the argument that these life boats are imbalanced? We have already established that FFG uses tournament info for future balancing for the game. And Schmitty said this

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.

For the Top 4 it was 3 in 44. 10 others had admirals in flotillas, but again those had Comms Net or Hangar Bays that suggested they would be keeping them near the fight.

So, 6.8% of the Top 4 finishers in Regionals tried a lifeboat strategy.

So we have a definition for life boat flotillas: no upgrades that require it to be near the rest of the fleet. And FFG can see that a very small portion of the community is using and winning with life boats.

How is life boating a problem? Where is the cold, hard proof? Why should we be convinced of your argument? You said:

That would require watching every game the data references - impossible.

or

Interviewing every player to find his thought process behind his decision to lifeboat his Admiral. - Also impossible.

After reading all of this, I am very convinced life boating is not a problem, which coincides with my thought before that it was not a problem. The data supports my emotional and theoretical argument.

So before you go an call me an elitist or facist or anything else, answer these questions. Understand I have 100% the best intentions with this post. It's fine for you to make a theoretical argument that life boat flotillas are imbalanced. But it's all theoretical. There is no data supporting it, and according to you, it is impossible to gather. I'm all for theoretical arguments and theory crafting fleets, but I'm afraid that is all that this is. Theory.

Now look, I don't want to get dragged into a huge opinion argument with you again. I'll just flame bait you until this thread gets locked. I know we will never convince each other that one of is right, and the other is wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that. Dissenting points of view is healthy for a community because we can be devils advocates for each other. But please, don't outright lie on the forums. It's very easy to fact check here. And try to understand why so many people disagree with you. Both of those reasons are why I wrote this.

Yes, I started a thread with flotilla in the title. Framed in a question. It was also no where near a debate. It was a passive question posed to the community with little to no discussion about flotillas, their mechanics, or a refined opinion on any form of perceived problem with them. It served as a form of unofficial poll as to how people play against them and was a draw for a lot of the formulation of my contributions to this post. Great detective work, you "got" me.

What I meant by "this is the first time I've breached this topic" is this is the first time I've gone under the hood (so to speak). I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough to prevent the confusion or misconception that I was somehow attempting to deviously mislead you. If you'd stop looking for what you want to see and see things for what they are, you wouldn't arrive at the insulting, aggressive conclusions that you seem to find yourself in. Not only in this debate but across multiple threads.

I'm starting to wonder if you are not just an innately negative person.

I have not changed the OP other than to edit in suggestions provided by members of the community who I cited at the bottom of the post. I assume you make this accusation based on the edited tag at the bottom and not by comparing it to a screen capture of the original post. I'm sure there are a few quotes of it so feel free to compare those.

You're now regurgitating information that has already been discussed and explained so I'll not provide additional explanation here. You're free to scroll back through the responses you have apparently missed and see the rebuttal and/or concessions of these observations.

I will repeat that the definition of lifeboat in this scenario is open to debate because without actually watching every cited game and/or interviewing everyone who placed their Admiral in a flotilla, regardless of upgrades we have no verified information, just data that can interpreted multiple ways. Again, this is something I've already addressed and provided a few different ways that data could be inaccurate. While doing so, I conceded that some were more likely than others but again I must reiterate the inherent inaccuracy of purely looking at tournament data at face value. I provided examples of how doing so can skew the results in your favor just as easily as treating my interpretation could. Therefore, the best way to translate that data is by generating a range of percentages rather than a flat rate (the a fore mentioned 6.8%). The reason why a range is more applicable here is that it allows flexibility in the interpretation of the data.

Since we cannot interview all of those fleet commanders, we cannot say one way or another what the logic or thought process that motivated them to place their admiral on a flotilla with upgrades. Once again, please reference my previous post(s) for more insight on how we could more accurately examine the data that doesn't unintentionally skew it towards a desired outcome.

The fact is, the preceeding blocks of text illustrate the only intention you have is to undermine anything I say by throwing anecdotal "evidence" in my face like it makes you triumphant. Other than call me a liar because you chose to interpret two different posts as effectively the same thing, other than stating you don't mean anything by your posts, where is the evidence to support that?

All I see is evidence that undermines that statement. It's the same meaning behind not being able to say whatever you want just because you preface it with "with all due respect."

In the interest of entertaining you further, here we go.

I don't think you do understand the point of this post because you have consistently treated it with hostility like you think I'm speaking directly to you. You fail to realize that your opinion on this matter has been stated. You refuse to listen to any form of rebuke or rebuttal. You frequently seem to take offense and come back even more aggressively. Instead of quote my responses to you, you disappear from the conversation until others say something. You then continuously try to throw what others say in my face like it's some kind of weapon for you to wield while consistently ignoring those responses that have either already been addressed and discussed or acknowledged and conceded. All this conduct serves to do is throw the conversation into a loop every time you interject yourself into the discussion.

Despite your inability to objectively consume the data, theoretical data is evidence in support of a hypothesis, especially when it's firmly rooted in gameplay mechanics and interactions. For theoretical data to be completely dismissed in this instance, it would require I form it on something like guesses about Wave 6 ships or if it was formulated by taking into account rules changes that haven't happened.

The reason you feel so passionately the way you do is because you refuse to entertain any of this discussion, which is why I question why you choose to return to it other than to argue.

Your final paragraph is textbook fascism as far as fascism can be described on the internet. You're demanding your opinion on the matter be the be-all-end-all while proclaiming that if I do anything other than agree with you, you'll do everything in your power to effectively silence your opposition. If that isn't ideological fascism, then please explain to me what is.

The hypocrisy of your final statement is that you then try and take the moral high ground after openly stating you're not capable of engaging in a discussion with opposing views without attempting to out-right attack it and silence it. Every single one of your posts illustrate you are fundamentally incapable of "being the devils advocate" for me. Given that this reaction is not exclusive to me as proven in other threads with other people, the fact you think you are capable of seeing things from anothers point of view is down right laughable, at best.

Finally, take your own advice and do what you can to try and objectively review the thread and see how many people agree with me, as well as those who do not but are willing to entertain the discussion in a civil manner and speak about flotillas with objectivity and most importantly, respect for another opinion.

Sygnetix, it is on you to control the tone of the thread. You are failing.

To summarise the main arguments made:

• "Flotilla lifeboats are not thematic": Opinion (Respectable, arguable, and ultimately subjective. One can agree or not, but everyone's Star Wars experience is different so this may bother some players, please others, and be entirely irrelevant to the rest.)
• "Flotilla lifeboats are a violation of existing game mechanics and restrictions": Statement of fact, proven untrue (Admiral abilities have no range limitations since the Core set. There is nothing preventing a Raider or CR90B from performing the same function.)
• "Hunting down flotilla lifeboats is points-inefficient": Analysis/hypothesis, generally supported by evidence (Theorycrafting does not immediately reveal a reliable, cost-efficient way of destroying flotillas that engage in fully evasive behaviour. But ultimately this depends on many assumptions, such as the value of the Commander and other upgrades equipped to the flotilla. Also, as before, it is unclear how this differs from hunting down a runaway Raider or CR90B.)
• "As a result of the above, flotilla lifeboats represent an imbalance in the game.": Hypothesis, not supported by evidence (Currently available statistics do not appear to show that lifeboating schews or dominates the meta, or that they cannot be effectively countered.)

Did I miss anything?

To summarise the main arguments made:

• "Flotilla lifeboats are not thematic": Opinion (Respectable, arguable, and ultimately subjective. One can agree or not, but everyone's Star Wars experience is different so this may bother some players, please others, and be entirely irrelevant to the rest.)
• "Flotilla lifeboats are a violation of existing game mechanics and restrictions": Statement of fact, proven untrue (Admiral abilities have no range limitations since the Core set. There is nothing preventing a Raider or CR90B from performing the same function.)
• "Hunting down flotilla lifeboats is points-inefficient": Analysis/hypothesis, generally supported by evidence (Theorycrafting does not immediately reveal a reliable, cost-efficient way of destroying flotillas that engage in fully evasive behaviour. But ultimately this depends on many assumptions, such as the value of the Commander and other upgrades equipped to the flotilla. Also, as before, it is unclear how this differs from hunting down a runaway Raider or CR90B.)
• "As a result of the above, flotilla lifeboats represent an imbalance in the game.": Hypothesis, not supported by evidence (Currently available statistics do not appear to show that lifeboating schews or dominates the meta, or that they cannot be effectively countered.)

Did I miss anything?

For the most part, yes. Another perspective might be that flotillas are in the same boat now as squadrons were prior to Worlds 2015. Sure, they're being used by some....but are they being used with a focus in maximum efficiency? Debatable.

EDIT: For the most part, yes meaning that I agree with your observations, not that you missed something,

Sygnetix, it is on you to control the tone of the thread. You are failing.

More trolling from the amusingly droll peanut gallery. Any idiot can be disruptive from the safety of their computer chair. It takes something a little more to actually carry on a decent conversation.

[*]"Flotilla lifeboats are a violation of existing game mechanics and restrictions": Statement of fact, proven untrue (Admiral abilities have no range limitations since the Core set. There is nothing preventing a Raider or CR90B from performing the same function.)

Actually the raider was not included in the Core and I suffered a lot for that when we used to be at wave 1 XD

I always imagined the commander's abilities as the idiosincrasy of the commander transferred to the fleet's way of doing things rather than the orders given by him. This way is not necessary to be near the commander to get his boost and the lost of the ability when he die could be considered as a morale fall.

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.

That's the great thing about having an opinion I'll defend at any cost. As the debate has ebbed and flowed, I've been able to refine and better present my opinion. Also, I didn't say you were rude. I said not to be rude and presented you with a possible interpretation of what you'd said. What's sad here is, apparently, your reading comprehension.

Edit: reading comprehension...coming from you that's particularly rich. Refer to the post where you comprehended that I was really a rebel player first and foremost. That was some fine comprehension there. Truly fine.

[*]"Flotilla lifeboats are a violation of existing game mechanics and restrictions": Statement of fact, proven untrue (Admiral abilities have no range limitations since the Core set. There is nothing preventing a Raider or CR90B from performing the same function.)

Actually the raider was not included in the Core

Of course; there were two separate and independent statements:

1) Commander rules and mechanics themselves are unchanged since the Core Set.

2) There is nothing special about how flotillas interact with commanders, compared to other ships.

2) There is nothing special about how flotillas interact with commanders, compared to other ships.

Although the literal truth, I think that when you step back and look at the game as a whole, there is room for debate in the slight advantage it provides for reasons explained at length in this thread. It's not about commanders interacting differently with flotillas, it's about how commanders interact differently within flotillas utilized as a lifeboat.

As previously pointed out, there is no "solution" for this interaction other than 1) ignore it or 2) dispatch assets to engage it in the hopes you can clear it with enough turns left to make eliminating their commander have significant impact since those dispatched assets will more than likely not have an impact on the battle as a whole. Within the confines of the example scenario, it comes down to how the Imperial commander feels about the risk vs reward of gambling whatever assets he dispatches can clear the target in a reasonable amount of time.

Add Walex to the lifeboat for 5 points and now the Rebels have gained the ability to double scatter for 2 rounds of shooting (if they are first player).

It's an open, easily debated conversation because good subjects usually are. I think that both sides of the lifeboat tactic have good points, bad points, and perspectives that more than likely define playstyle preference. When people can civilly discuss differences of opinions, I think it opens up the possibility of further understanding of each others point of view.

Perhaps this has come up before and if so I apologize. This isnt just directed at the OP but the subject as a whole as i've read in other threads.

Someone suggested to counter the lifeboat flotilla, the admiral ability should be limited to range.

Part of the reason I think its fine for Admiral abilities to not be limited by range is canonically, we have never been given an example where the admiral's communication lines have been limited. In fact both the Battle of Scarif and Endor are great examples of how Admirals Raddus and Ackbar, even deep in enemy territory over highly secure and secret Imperial installations, could easily relay commands to the fleets. Those are both situations one would and should expect the Imperials to jam ship to ship comms but they didnt most likely because they couldn't. Likewise the Executor was still in communication with Death Squadron in the asteroid field without any difficulty. In canon there has never been a problem with an admiral commanding the fleet in the moment...unless there are Noghri involved, but then that's no longer canon.

Gameplay wise I get the concern of a lifeboat for a six round game as that can be a genuine problem. However I don't think a range rule should be applied to the admiral abilities. No need to punish all for the cowardice of some.

Honestly I would merely shame the person to pull a lifeboat stunt.

I didn't bother reading what you said, because that was exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

But I'm glad I got you to spend the time reading what I said and writing whatever hostile things you said.

Also, nothing in my statement was hostile towards you, and I stated I didn't want hostilities to continue. So please, keep being aggressive. I can and will keep reporting you.

I didn't bother reading what you said, because that was exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

But I'm glad I got you to spend the time reading what I said and writing whatever hostile things you said.

Also, nothing in my statement was hostile towards you, and I stated I didn't want hostilities to continue. So please, keep being aggressive. I can and will keep reporting you.

Point = Proven