Ok, don't want to take a discussion onto multiple threads but I think this deserves its own thread.

I have a strong suspicion that 400 points is just too confining for a number of players, especially the ISD players. So we have to play at 400 in tournaments and those are events that have a strict time limit so 400 is a good point level. (Can you imagine the length of a turn of a MSU player with a full Squadron list at 500?) But why play at 400 for regular games?

I've played CC and my list got to 500 quickly and it is a 4 Ship fleet and my MC-80 and Mark II are kitted out to the max and I loved it. I think that is the point level Armada really starts to shine. So why are we not playing at that level Normally? We have that ability and FFG seems to be encouraging us to go higher than 400 without saying it directly.

Am I in the minority that thinks this would be good? Think of the kitted out ISD with all the support ships and Squadrons? Doesn't your mouth start to water thinking about it?

The major concern is games would take too long during tournament play at 500.

I'd rather practice at 400 points because that's the tournament structure.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

The major concern is games would take too long during tournament play at 500.

That's why I said for normal games. Tournaments are not normal games. Otherwise I agreed with you on that point.??

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I'd rather practice at 400 points because that's the tournament structure.

If you're practicing for tournaments you would want to play at 400, yes. But are you always practicing for tournaments? Don't you just play to have a beer and good time??

Oh I missed that. By all means, have a blast.

Edit: its the whole first paragraph. What a fail. Long day.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

The major concern is games would take too long during tournament play at 500.

Yeah, this. Have a few CC games in at ~500 pts a side, and it sucked for time. Like, 4 hours for a game. That's no bueno - you can run an entire X-Wing *campaign* in that time (actually, not sure it even took us that long to run through the Gozanti campaign in X-Wing).

At 400, a 2-hr game is feasible, and that's about the upper limit on how much time I'm interested in putting into a 'single game' of something.

Just now, xanderf said:

Yeah, this. Have a few CC games in at ~500 pts a side, and it sucked for time. Like, 4 hours for a game. That's no bueno - you can run an entire X-Wing *campaign* in that time (actually, not sure it even took us that long to run through the Gozanti campaign in X-Wing).

At 400, a 2-hr game is feasible, and that's about the upper limit on how much time I'm interested in putting into a 'single game' of something.

Yikes! My longest game was about 3 hours but most were about 2.5. But I tend to play ships I know so I'm not slowed down during game. Learning games should be at 300 or 400 but for more experienced players 500 shouldn't take that much longer. Especially since a lot of people won't be adding in more ships as much as adding in more upgrades we've been wanting to use.

But if time continues to be an issue I can understand your point.

The main issue is getting tournament rounds resolved in a short enough period of time. At 400 points you still have events that just drag with three 2 hour and 15 minute rounds. I know it was mentioned (above by @Beatty ) that this would be for casual play, but there are a number of people who enjoy casual play as a kind of way to feel out ideas for more competitive tournament play (including me) who would prefer to stay at 400 if only for that. I do play the occasional 500 point for funsies game and they're a blast. I can't disagree with that. It's just getting enough people to shift to that being their "regular" casual game seems like it would be too difficult given the tournament point structure would stay the same.

Now if they raised the tournament points limit to 500 and cut down on the more time-intensive areas of the game (say you were limited at 500 points to 1/4 points in squadrons, so it capped at 125, as squadron play consumes a lot of time for the points spent compared to ships) then maybe you could bump the time limit to 2.5 hours without much change. I'd be down for that.

...Hell, I might even try running a local event with that kind of silliness. Or at least see if there's any appetite for it. Could be fun!

I also think that one of the main reasons is game length. Keep in mind that 500 points game is 165 squadron points (and that can translate into 20 TIE Fighters)

8 minutes ago, Beatty said:

If you're practicing for tournaments you would want to play at 400, yes. But are you always practicing for tournaments? Don't you just play to have a beer and good time??

Yea I always play 400 point lists. I'm boring. CC is the only time I've played over 400 points.

And I do suppose I play every game in the context of practicing for a tournament, not so much to just play the game.

1 minute ago, pt106 said:

I also think that one of the main reasons is game length. Keep in mind that 500 points game is 165 squadron points (and that can translate into 20 TIE Fighters)

But that is only a 31 point increase over a 400 point game, so it is only 4 more TIE Fighters/Z-95s. Two more activations of squadrons per side, at maximum.

1 minute ago, pt106 said:

I also think that one of the main reasons is game length. Keep in mind that 500 points game is 165 squadron points (and that can translate into 20 TIE Fighters)

I have seen the "long" squadron turns and it does become frustrating if your opponent is on there trying to get every angle and centimeter perfect. I tend to call my Squadron play close enough and just make sure I don't go too far.

Keeping your opponent on a time turn is awkward but I know what you are saying when you run into that.

A lot of people stick to tournament sizes because, honestly, most games don't actually scale with points as well as players believe they should and play better at whatever level the developers are designing for. Things get a little easier to focus fire, activation advantages multiply, scenarios have a little more stuff vying for them than intended, etc and the result is often just bigger rather than better. There's a sort of quality guarantee when playing in competitive formats that is attractive, even for casual play.

I've been firmly in the 'make 500 the standard' camp for a while now. I'm a squadron heavy player, yet my games routinely last around 1.5 hours. The only time it's ever dragged is either a) indecisive players or b) inexperienced players. I have sympathy or the latter, but the former are not a good reason to keep the point totals down. My CC games are not usually much longer. JJ and I have capped out at 2 hours when we've played CC, and that's on Vassal . 500 points is just such a richer game.

Why not 450?

Or even better, why not Zoidberg?

In casual games with friends, go nuts. Play 500. Heck, play 1000 points if you're feeling up to it.

However, there is something I noticed that you might want to keep in mind. 400 points does limit the fleets, but in a good way. 500 starts to push fleet sizes with upgrades a bit too much in my opinion.

At 500 points, I can field Admiral Motti, 3x ISD-II's, and each ISD with Gunnery Team, X17 Turbolasers, Leading Shots, and Electronic Countermeasures and still have points to spare for further upgrades to "dreadnaught-up" my ships, or bring small fighter screen to tie up my opponent's fighters long enough for my ISD's to do real damage. The 400 point allows for good fleet sizes but also limits fleets from becoming too upgrade or ship heavy.

I don't particularily care what the standard is.

I just play to the standard .

Because I want to know, when I get to the store, and I'm looking for someone to play against, they have a knowledge about what to play.

I hate losing an hour of my very short gaming days discussing what to play .

The main problems I see are time, money invested by casual players, and overbloated spam fleets. Armada is already a long game and to make it longer would really bog down tournaments. Players who didn't want to buy at least 1 of everything would also find it difficult to play competitively at 500 points, and might keep new players from even picking it up. And finally, that's just too many Tie fighters and z-95s on the table.

But feel free to house rule larger point games, and CC is always a good time!

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I don't particularily care what the standard is.

I just play to the standard .

Because I want to know, when I get to the store, and I'm looking for someone to play against, they have a knowledge about what to play.

I hate losing an hour of my very short gaming days discussing what to play .

that, or when someone proposes 800 points game and I'm just "sorry, I have 4 hours max for this, not the entire day"

Plus I like to practice tournament fleets

Still, I think the next jump in points (if we're to get one) should be 50, not 100. Then, it's easier to judge if we should go to 500 or not. It's like having video game devs overbuffing or overnerfing something. Just go piece by piece then judge how it is.

I don't think we will run into serious balance issues at 500pts.

My solution to the time issue would just be to have longer tournaments. I'm probably in the minority though, as I don't think most people would actually want a 10 hour tournament.

Something more practical might be to do a 500pt league, where you don't have to play more than one game in a sitting.

1 hour ago, Beatty said:

Ok, don't want to take a discussion onto multiple threads but I think this deserves its own thread.

I have a strong suspicion that 400 points is just too confining for a number of players, especially the ISD players. So we have to play at 400 in tournaments and those are events that have a strict time limit so 400 is a good point level. (Can you imagine the length of a turn of a MSU player with a full Squadron list at 500?) But why play at 400 for regular games?

I've played CC and my list got to 500 quickly and it is a 4 Ship fleet and my MC-80 and Mark II are kitted out to the max and I loved it. I think that is the point level Armada really starts to shine. So why are we not playing at that level Normally? We have that ability and FFG seems to be encouraging us to go higher than 400 without saying it directly.

Am I in the minority that thinks this would be good? Think of the kitted out ISD with all the support ships and Squadrons? Doesn't your mouth start to water thinking about it?

500 is pretty good. Probably close to the Sweet Spot.

600 also feels right, but I haven't played enough 600-pointers to say for certain if it's as good as 500.

You can run a kitted ISD at 400. With squads too. But you Goz/Raider support will be lean.

Im in favor of keeping it 400 standard for casual play but do not object to big games. Heck, just had a 4 player, 800v800 this week.

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

Still, I think the next jump in points (if we're to get one) should be 50, not 100. Then, it's easier to judge if we should go to 500 or not. It's like having video game devs overbuffing or overnerfing something. Just go piece by piece then judge how it is.

Good point. Go a little slower and let everyone get used to the new format.

Of course i'll still be playing my 900 point fleet/300 point fleet wings and having a blast