To add to 5: Jerry is amazing. Super-agility with any ship, at any speed, AND you can do it without ever taking a Nav command! That's just... in a total different league from say Madine.

39 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

Motti, Jerjerrod, Screed, and Tarkin all work pretty well with everything,

I will boldly predict that Jerjerrod is a powerhouse because of the move/still use a squadron command synergy for carrier fleets

Just because people havent figured out imperial commanders does not make them generalists. You just proved it with your Jerrod comment. He is far from a generalist.

1 hour ago, Reinholt said:

I feel the biggest ball-drop in this game so far is FFGs creativity with imperial admirals.

I typically agree with you Reinholt...you sensible person you...and all of your points are great.

My only question is whether the lack of creativity with the Imperial commanders was intentional. As an imp-lover this is the way I feel. The imps get stuff that is boring, but works (other than Konny right now ) and the rebels get flashy commanders.

As far as Z95s go...I've seen the flashes and I've seen the duds. It is what you get with three reds. If you bring them, be ready to suck with them.

6 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

As far as Z95s go...I've seen the flashes and I've seen the duds. It is what you get with three reds. If you bring them, be ready to suck with them.

I would think with Blount they'd be decent...

You've got my attention with the option to pass. I hate flotilla spam and hate even more that it works well. Still, as with everything in this thread, I'm sceptical of major changes to a currently well balanced game.

8 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I would think with Blount they'd be decent...

Definitely decent . Definitely not broken .

4 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Definitely decent . Definitely not broken .

I dunno, the one z95 I usually use with my xwings has rolled double hits on the 3 times I've gotten to attack with him. Seems pretty OP to me!

/Rolls only crits for the next 7 rolls.

4 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Definitely decent . Definitely not broken .

I dunno, the one z95 I usually use with my xwings has rolled double hits on the 3 times I've gotten to attack with him. Seems pretty OP to me!

/Rolls only crits for the next 7 rolls.

3 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

As far as Z95s go...I've seen the flashes and I've seen the duds. It is what you get with three reds. If you bring them, be ready to suck with them.

My main problem with them is less from a game perspective, so much as the epic lore fail. X-Wings cap out at 4 damage, tops.

Z-95s max out at 6 damage.

That makes no sense . Z-95s are older than X-Wings. Slower, less capable. Inferior ship systems. No astromech adding capability to the pilot. HALF THE GUNS . A Z-95 squadron should not even possibly equal the damage output an X-Wing squadron can do - nevermind routinely out-shooting them .

It makes no sense!

Would be a simple enough errata, too - fighters roll dice for their damage, re-rolling or not as desired, and total damage from their dice results up to the number of dice icons on their ship card . So max damage a Z could do is '3', then. IE., their max-possible damage always less than X-Wing max-possible damage.

Just now, xanderf said:

My main problem with them is less from a game perspective, so much as the epic lore fail. X-Wings cap out at 4 damage, tops.

Z-95s max out at 6 damage.

That makes no sense . Z-95s are older than X-Wings. Slower, less capable. Inferior ship systems. No astromech adding capability to the pilot. HALF THE GUNS . A Z-95 squadron should not even possibly equal the damage output an X-Wing squadron can do - nevermind routinely out-shooting them .

It makes no sense!

Would be a simple enough errata, too - fighters roll dice for their damage, re-rolling or not as desired, and total damage from their dice results up to the number of dice icons on their ship card . So max damage a Z could do is '3', then. IE., their max-possible damage always less than X-Wing max-possible damage.

Z95 - Concussion Missiles vs Fighters = High Variable Damage.

X-Wing - Proton Torpedos vs Ships = Bomber Rule.

11 hours ago, Green Knight said:

My guess: your brain is so used to playing Rieekan as a 'must' effect (mine certainly is), that it's hard to think differently. But there is no must in Rieekan, and the RRG is very clear about all upgrades being optional.

Where/what in the RRG?

Generally FFG has been using similar language to Xwing which is from Magic , to that end, "when" effects without "may" are what are considered "triggered abilities" and are considered mandatory. As opposed to cards that have "may" which are "activated triggered abilities". This is a missed opportunity clause issue also, as in Magic, if you miss a "may", you cannot request a take-back, if you miss a triggered effect, you MUST go back if possible.

To that end, Jamming field and Rieekan are triggered abilities independent of controller choice.

20 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Would be a simple enough errata, too - fighters roll dice for their damage, re-rolling or not as desired, and total damage from their dice results up to the number of dice icons on their ship card . So max damage a Z could do is '3', then. IE., their max-possible damage always less than X-Wing max-possible damage.

How would this work with Flight Controllers and Howlrunner? What about bombers? 1 anti-ship means 1 damage.

I don't think this would work at all. Red dice are crazy. You only have 3 faces that deal damage, and can get a max of 4 rerolls. Average damage on rerolling blanks/crits is 2.633, and rerolling Acc is 3.05. The chance of rolling 6 damage is like 1.5% with the rerolls. Seems like a drastic change for something with such a low probability of happening and to stay in line with theme, which we know FFG cares little for.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Where/what in the RRG?

Generally FFG has been using similar language to Xwing which is from Magic , to that end, "when" effects without "may" are what are considered "triggered abilities" and are considered mandatory. As opposed to cards that have "may" which are "activated triggered abilities". This is a missed opportunity clause issue also, as in Magic, if you miss a "may", you cannot request a take-back, if you miss a triggered effect, you MUST go back if possible.

To that end, Jamming field and Rieekan are triggered abilities independent of controller choice.

But the RRG says:

Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified.

So what does Rieekan fall under? Is it a "may"? It doesn't say so. It is a "must"? Again, it doesn't say so. I only bring this up because the RRG says it must be specified. Under normal English reading, I'd agree with you that it doesn't say "may", so it is a "must".

The issue with JF was resolved with the errata so we know how to use it now.

9 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Where/what in the RRG?

Generally FFG has been using similar language to Xwing which is from Magic , to that end, "when" effects without "may" are what are considered "triggered abilities" and are considered mandatory. As opposed to cards that have "may" which are "activated triggered abilities". This is a missed opportunity clause issue also, as in Magic, if you miss a "may", you cannot request a take-back, if you miss a triggered effect, you MUST go back if possible.

To that end, Jamming field and Rieekan are triggered abilities independent of controller choice.

It's not specified to be not optional, so it's optional, per the passage UDG posted above.

This is the reason JF was errata'd.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

But the RRG says:

Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified.

So what does Rieekan fall under? Is it a "may"? It doesn't say so. It is a "must"? Again, it doesn't say so. I only bring this up because the RRG says it must be specified. Under normal English reading, I'd agree with you that it doesn't say "may", so it is a "must".

The issue with JF was resolved with the errata so we know how to use it now.

I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. What is "all other card effects"?

Hmm. Is this just clarification like, you don't need to use DTT the first time you attack every time?

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. What is "all other card effects"?

Hmm. Is this just clarification like, you don't need to use DTT the first time you attack every time?

Non-upgrade card effects: crits, objectives, squadron keywords... Probably some others I'm forgetting.

I have no idea what it means either. It's a paradoxical statement. You can ignore something if it doesn't say, but if it doesn't say it's mandatory.

So a good example of this would be with Ruthless Strategists. You attack a squad, and decide to ping it for 1 since it's engaged. You must now ping your squad as well. You triggered the upgrade, and have the option of doing it. Once you do it, you finish all the text.

I actually think this argument can force people to 100% complete DTT so they can't DTT, Vader, LS, CF, and then remove a die.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I have no idea what it means either. It's a paradoxical statement. You can ignore something if it doesn't say, but if it doesn't say it's mandatory.

So a good example of this would be with Ruthless Strategists. You attack a squad, and decide to ping it for 1 since it's engaged. You must now ping your squad as well. You triggered the upgrade, and have the option of doing it. Once you do it, you finish all the text.

I actually think this argument can force people to 100% complete DTT so they can't DTT, Vader, LS, CF, and then remove a die.

No, the mandatory bit references cards that aren't upgrade cards. Faceup crits, objectives, etc. Which you often would have a strong incentive to ignore the effects of if you were allowed to.

3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

No, the mandatory bit references cards that aren't upgrade cards. Faceup crits, objectives, etc. Which you often would have a strong incentive to ignore the effects of if you were allowed to.

Magic literally has this text, in much clearer formatting. If so, one would hope they would learn and simply "copy" that.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

Magic literally has this text, in much clearer formatting. If so, one would hope they would learn and simply "copy" that.

I agree. There are a many such rules construction lessons in MTG that Armada could greatly benefit from incorporating. :/

I wrote a rant about why I think it is the way it is months ago. Boils down to "office jobs are the worst."

GO TO THE RULES THREAD, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE

So I hear you can't Snipe if you're in distance 1 of Instigator and an obstructed TIE Advanced unless the TIE is Heavy...

6 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

GO TO THE RULES THREAD, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE

Right? How dare people discuss rules in a thread explicitly about changes to the rules and the mechanics thereof!

It's a good thing we have responsible and measured commentary to keep these threads from accidentally being on the topic the threads are also about. Where would we be without these contributions to the community?

Ok lets errata the whole game so that no upgrade card is optional.

Great discussion right there.

This is relevant discussion to the issue at hand.

Also, there is no reason why it can't be in the main forum. See Xwing for precedent about subforums.