59 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

In the last Vassal world Cup finals both fleets did not have 2+ flotillas. And there were a lot of top notch players in the tournament, including the officialcurrent world champion who happened to win the tournament with less than 2 flotillas

Yeah, but my list was intentionally retro (or the result of a lack of imagination, you pick). It would have been better with an extra flotilla and less pimped ships.

I will say I lost track of how many threads we've had on the Squadrons and Flotillas and it always seem to be the same posters in each one of them. (There is one missing and I'm ok with that.) And the discussion hasn't changed. People still say they have issues in their area, and suggest that it's game wide without any proof, and there are those of us who keep giving suggestions on how we deal with it. But as of yet I don't think this who hate the Flotillas have tried any of the suggestions which tells me they are not interested in resolving the issue they are having by changing their play style and still want the over all game to change to fit their game style.

Guys that is not reasonable. We know you are having issues, we've heard it a lot, and so has FFG from this last wave preview, but understand this is not a Game Wide issue at all fromball the data shown. So it is your responsibility to change your tactics to fit the game, you can't reasonably ask the game to change to fit your ideal.

7 minutes ago, Beatty said:

I will say I lost track of how many threads we've had on the Squadrons and Flotillas and it always seem to be the same posters in each one of them. (There is one missing and I'm ok with that.) Amd the discussion hasn't changed. People still say they have issues in their area, and suggest that it's game wide without any proof, and there are those of us who keep giving suggestions on how we deal with it. But as of yet I don't think this who hate the Flotillas have tried any of the suggestions which tells me they are not interested in resolving the issue they are having by changing their play style and still want the over all game to change to fit their game style.

Guys that hat is not reasonable. We know you are having issues, we've heard it a lot, and so has FFG from this last wave preview, but understand this is not a Game Wide issue at all fromball the data shown. So it is your responsibility to change your tactics to fit the game, you can't reasonably ask the game to change to fit your ideal.

and thats the gist of it.

i dont hear things like "but using a decent squadron screen well is not enough to help against bombers".

i dont hear things like "but using smaller ships to support a large powerful ship is not good enough to make the large ship a viable, if not powerful, choice".

what i hear is "but this game MUST be all about the endless big ships spam! everything else SHOULD be secondary! if its not all about that, then its wrong!"

i start feeling angry about that. like, its not about complaining anymore, but merely about "whine to opress everybody until we change the game state to what we like!"

Then stop posting in the whine threads until they go away? Cause every time you get baited to continue the same word out endless conversation the thread gets a bump.

1 hour ago, Darth Veggie said:

In the last Vassal world Cup finals both fleets did not have 2+ flotillas. And there were a lot of top notch players in the tournament, including the officialcurrent world champion who happened to win the tournament with less than 2 flotillas

The World Cup is also something of a different animal, since MoV is meaningless after the pod rounds.

Just now, BrobaFett said:

Then stop posting in the whine threads until they go away? Cause every time you get baited to continue the same word out endless conversation the thread gets a bump.

because the last time i didnt care about this sort of people, it was pre-ffg L5R, this kind of people wanted political decks and enlightenment decks to vanish so it can all be one big samurai brawl, and endless whines ACHIEVED that(leading to gradual fading out of faction identities, then fading out of diversity in the game, then the game itself fading away). i perceive this as a threat to the game. like, if we dont counter the whines, FFG might listen to them.

Again this is anecdotal, but looking at way too many tournament lists makes me love what flotillas have brought to the game. I don't even try to lump fleets into archetypes anymore as I no longer find it useful or possible.

The inclusion of flotillas in Armada has led to a major increase in the diversity of fleet builds in major tournaments. I have no problem with them being ubiquitous, given that they are such a small part of the overall cost of fleets and they enable such variety.

23 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Then stop posting in the whine threads until they go away? Cause every time you get baited to continue the same word out endless conversation the thread gets a bump.

We post for two reasons. First is to let beginners who are shadow watching the discussions know that the complaints are not game wide and should be taken with a large spoonful of salt. Second is the small hope that we might get one of the negative players to try our suggestions and make a conversion in at least one person. (And Hopefully make a better player and happier person.)

Also like I keep bringing up in other threads this is an open forum and we will have diverse opinions on many matters. This is not a one sided discussion and as mentioned if only one voice is heard then FFG may believe that that is the opinion of all players if there wasn't a healthy discussion and back and forth.

To be fair I am a pain in the @&& and I have rubbed a number of people wrong when the discussion gets heated. But that happens when you have two passionate stubborn people in a discussion. That said this thread has been extremely level headed and I am glad we have all kept our heads. This topic I believe has gotten a lot further in 4 pages then the last one in 12. And no one will lose their account over it either.

I feel Ben somewhere...

but using a decent squadron screen well is not enough to help against bombers -> Its been tried. Over the course of a 5 or 6 different opponents, each with multiple games. Requires an investment of 7 or so squadrons, into 80 points to not have severe weaknesses or die to massed squadrons with multiplicative effects. I've made this comment as advice to the forum multiple times to show how much exactly is required to have a strong minimum chance against heavy squadron counts off of table experience. Not just theoretical hum hawing.

but using smaller ships to support a large powerful ship is not good enough to make the large ship a viable, if not powerful, choice -> There are no 2 ISD currently considered T1 viable, including with 5 activations via flotillas. Nor any that are not 1 ISD + 134 bombers. See the ISD thread and see the 12 pages of the "Let's make 2 ISD lists viable again". Table testing. Not just theoretical.
There's no reasons why a 2 ISD with 5 activations and 4-6 squadrons light cover shouldn't be unviable. But they are. They lack the ability to deal meaningful damage, they out activated by 6+ MSU, their screens are multiplicatively destroyed by Toryn, Flight controller, whatever enhanced squadrons of x2 size and then bombed to death.

No. Its being said. Its said in the threads themselves. Go look. Then try the game from a different vantage point, try the 2ISD challenge, and you'll see for yourselves.

And this is a statement that there are people who do not think this game is fine, and want there to be higher variety in possible choices. Apparently that's a poor thing to ask.

What's really funny is the people who talk about these things have experience with both sides, we HAVE to use the other styles of fleets because that's what works. What I haven't seen is people willing to try things from the other perspective.

Variety is not a poor thing to ask, asking to change the core mechanics is a ooor thing to ask.

Also I'm sorry you're personally having issue and if you do battle reports maybe we can help you. But you also may be running into a Ben problem, where your opponent is just a really good player and it's not the list that needs adjusting. Some players are just really good no matter what you bring to the table. (Mind you I don't play Imperials right now and I don't own two ISD's but if that's you're only issue is the Two Ship List I don't have much sympathy really. We had that discussion already.)

I am not saying this as the best player in my area, I'm saying this as someone who is an average player and there are a few players I know I just won't beat no matter what list either of us bring.

10 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

but using a decent squadron screen well is not enough to help against bombers -> Its been tried. Over the course of a 5 or 6 different opponents, each with multiple games. Requires an investment of 7 or so squadrons, into 80 points to not have severe weaknesses or die to massed squadrons with multiplicative effects. I've made this comment as advice to the forum multiple times to show how much exactly is required to have a strong minimum chance against heavy squadron counts off of table experience. Not just theoretical hum hawing.

but using smaller ships to support a large powerful ship is not good enough to make the large ship a viable, if not powerful, choice -> There are no 2 ISD currently considered T1 viable, including with 5 activations via flotillas. Nor any that are not 1 ISD + 134 bombers. See the ISD thread and see the 12 pages of the "Let's make 2 ISD lists viable again". Table testing. Not just theoretical.
There's no reasons why a 2 ISD with 5 activations and 4-6 squadrons light cover shouldn't be unviable. But they are. They lack the ability to deal meaningful damage, they out activated by 6+ MSU, their screens are multiplicatively destroyed by Toryn, Flight controller, whatever enhanced squadrons of x2 size and then bombed to death.

No. Its being said. Its said in the threads themselves. Go look. Then try the game from a different vantage point, try the 2ISD challenge, and you'll see for yourselves.

And this is a statement that there are people who do not think this game is fine, and want there to be higher variety in possible choices. Apparently that's a poor thing to ask.

What's really funny is the people who talk about these things have experience with both sides, we HAVE to use the other styles of fleets because that's what works. What I haven't seen is people willing to try things from the other perspective.

The squad argument is meta dependent IMO. In NC, we tend not to run max squads. It happens sometimes, but it's never consistent. It's pretty typical to see 2-6 squads per side. Normally, Tycho/Shara at 2, and Firesprays or Ties at 4-6. I used to play max rebel and imp squads all the time before wave 5, but I've changed it up since then.

You're right about dual ISDs. I tried it and it simply can't be done. 2 activaions and 4/6 deployments is just not enough when your first deployment is an ISD. I think Sloane might make an ISD+3 flotillas and some Ties viable since you get extra value from your attacks if it's against an exhausted target. I think the biggest issue is the ISD can't be run like the doom pickle, which can run AWAY from the enemy fleet at speed 2 and get it's main arc on targets while it collects points from the objective. Good news is the Dual ISD with Raiders or Gozantis is possible, but still vulnerable to squads.

All of that said, I'm still don't think Armada needs an activation passing rule. The vast majority of things work and I don't think the super niche fleets, like 2 ISDs and 4 Tie/D, should work all the time.

However, I do think light/no squads should be viable for more than MC30 MM fleets. I just don't know how to do that yet.

11 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

However, I do think light/no squads should be viable for more than MC30 MM fleets. I just don't know how to do that yet.

I don't know man, I don't think squadronless fleets should be a very prevalent thing... I really think they should be the exception rather than the rule.

If they're common, the value of interceptors/space superiority fighters is dramatically diminished by the risk of not encountering any squadrons at all. That sets off the cascade we saw in W1 of not worth taking fighters -> bombers are easily countered by light screens -> why take squadrons at all -> all ships all the time.

Hell, I myself am just riding out the deadline until I have to start bringing a squadron screen again, like an anarcho-capitalist who doesn't believe public roads should be a thing but uses them anyway.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

I don't know man, I don't think squadronless fleets should be a very prevalent thing... I really think they should be the exception rather than the rule.

If they're common, the value of interceptors/space superiority fighters is dramatically diminished by the risk of not encountering any squadrons at all. That sets off the cascade we saw in W1 of not worth taking fighters -> bombers are easily countered by light screens -> why take squadrons at all -> all ships all the time.

Hell, I myself am just riding out the deadline until I have to start bringing a squadron screen again, like an anarcho-capitalist who doesn't believe public roads should be a thing but uses them anyway.

I echo this. Star Wars has always been about Squadrons flying with the Capital Ships and it was Squadrons that took down the Executor, not MC-80's. (A whole lot of fighters but they did it.)

Star Wars is as much about the Tie Fighter as it is about the ISD. It always has been and always will be, that's Star Wars.

I say if people want Squadronless Sci-Fy you're talking about Star Trek, not Star Wars.?

Re: 80 points of squadrons.

I've seen people win with 6 TIEs against max bomber lists. Use raiders and their 2 black dice flak with ordinance experts. If your opponent has a bunch of their points in squadrons, using flak to hurt those points only helps you and your squadrons.

Re 2 ISDs:

If "I want it to be viable" is a valid argument, is "I don't want it" a valid counter argument? Didn't someone win a tournament a few days or weeks ago with a 2 ISD list? If it's not viable, maybe it's your objective choices, maybe it's your piloting skill, and maybe it's a bad list? I don't hear rebels complaining that they can't run 2 H1MC80 viably. Why should 2 ISDs be different?

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

I don't know man, I don't think squadronless fleets should be a very prevalent thing... I really think they should be the exception rather than the rule.

If they're common, the value of interceptors/space superiority fighters is dramatically diminished by the risk of not encountering any squadrons at all. That sets off the cascade we saw in W1 of not worth taking fighters -> bombers are easily countered by light screens -> why take squadrons at all -> all ships all the time.

Hell, I myself am just riding out the deadline until I have to start bringing a squadron screen again, like an anarcho-capitalist who doesn't believe public roads should be a thing but uses them anyway.

Well my idea is that the game doesn't devolve into straight ships vs ships. Rather, you can take upgrades on ships to deal with squads instead of taking squads. Crazy stuff that gives you additional anti-squad dice or let you take a free anti-squad shot from an arc. You still have to devote points into dealing with squads or you simply die like what happens now.

What I don't want is always having to take some squads in anticipation of having to sacrifice them. I have a Raider with OE and Flechette and 4 Tie/F in my dual Glad fleet to soak up squadron attacks so my other ships can do work. I'm all for sacrificing things, but I want it built into my fleet design, rather than being mandatory in every fleet.

I think the design space should be available to people who want it. A lot of people don't like squads and that's fine, I just want them to enjoy the game how they want to play it, within reason of course. As it stands, MM is the only commander that allows you to play with no squads because you can poo poo on 2xBCC bomber dice.

My personal opinion is everyone should use squads, but that's not fair to everyone else.

3 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Re: 80 points of squadrons.

I've seen people win with 6 TIEs against max bomber lists. Use raiders and their 2 black dice flak with ordinance experts. If your opponent has a bunch of their points in squadrons, using flak to hurt those points only helps you and your squadrons.

Re 2 ISDs:

If "I want it to be viable" is a valid argument, is "I don't want it" a valid counter argument? Didn't someone win a tournament a few days or weeks ago with a 2 ISD list? If it's not viable, maybe it's your objective choices, maybe it's your piloting skill, and maybe it's a bad list? I don't hear rebels complaining that they can't run 2 H1MC80 viably. Why should 2 ISDs be different?

The dual ISD list had 2 Raiders I think. It wasn't a straight dual ISD list.

3 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Re: 80 points of squadrons.

I've seen people win with 6 TIEs against max bomber lists. Use raiders and their 2 black dice flak with ordinance experts. If your opponent has a bunch of their points in squadrons, using flak to hurt those points only helps you and your squadrons.

Re 2 ISDs:

If "I want it to be viable" is a valid argument, is "I don't want it" a valid counter argument? Didn't someone win a tournament a few days or weeks ago with a 2 ISD list? If it's not viable, maybe it's your objective choices, maybe it's your piloting skill, and maybe it's a bad list? I don't hear rebels complaining that they can't run 2 H1MC80 viably. Why should 2 ISDs be different?

have you ever watched the show?

Just now, Undeadguy said:

The dual ISD list had 2 Raiders I think. It wasn't a straight dual ISD list.

ooh, dual ISD, dual raider? that ... actually sounds like a lot of fun to fly.

Just to caveat: I don't think squadronless shouldn't be a thing on principle or anything. I just think that with the way they work, we either will see none of them, or else pretty much everybody has to take at least a few. I'm okay with almost-forcing a core aspect of the game on people in order to ensure that that aspect stays relevant and usable for everybody.

Like upgrade cards.

4 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

have you ever watched the show?

Rebels? Yes. They also use Arquitens and the Quasar is a Rebel ship, and one B wing blew up a ship. TV gets some license to do things I for plot reasons. How do you know those aren't VSDs, anyways?

11 hours ago, Beatty said:

We post for two reasons. First is to let beginners who are shadow watching the discussions know that the complaints are not game wide and should be taken with a large spoonful of salt. Second is the small hope that we might get one of the negative players to try our suggestions and make a conversion in at least one person. (And Hopefully make a better player and happier person.)

Also like I keep bringing up in other threads this is an open forum and we will have diverse opinions on many matters. This is not a one sided discussion and as mentioned if only one voice is heard then FFG may believe that that is the opinion of all players if there wasn't a healthy discussion and back and forth.

Hear, hear! A round of blue milk shooters for everyone! (even if some of you ARE imperials )

On 16/03/2017 at 7:16 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Also a note: I'm personally just looking for even more elegant, if more intricate solutions to activation advantage hard countering. This means, like a crew upgrade for large base ships only that let you exhaust to skip an activation. Otherwise, I'm pretty fine with flotillas being dominant, they were expected to be that way in 90% of fleets, but also because 2 flotillas only runs you between 36-46 points.

But we really need better AA for ships, from ships, to counter squadrons. (The right) Squadrons are good against literally everything.

That could be Thrawns commander ability. Skipping an activation turn is pretty strategic.

The only down side would be Thrawn v Thrawn where two people continuously skip turns.

Haven't read through most of the thread, but had an idea reading the early posts on issue with activations.

How would you guys feel about an upgrade that either allowed you to sacrifice your command dial for that ship for the turn, or sacrifice one of your attacks to pass an activation? Just a thought! I personally like the sacrificing a shot aspect. Good drawback, and most big ships have a primary firing arc that they want to fire out of anyway, which they can (usually) only fire out of once anyway (gunnery team ISDs...). I think it'd be a great boost for big ship lists, and obviously things like GT ISDs wouldn't have to proc it if they have two great shots lined up. Might have to make it Unique or Limited or something like that.