Personally, I prefer the world we have now - where Imperial Players take more than just Advanced Gunnery as their Red Objective.

Green Knight maybe I heard someone screaming "Wolf!" so many times I am developing a knee jerk reaction when I see people saying certain things. I think the ISD and Large Ships are great and hearing people say they aren't is like hearing a sore point.

And I was directing my comment at the phrase "Make ISD's Great Again!" because I just don't see how they're not already.

23 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Personally, I prefer the world we have now - where Imperial Players take more than just Advanced Gunnery as their Red Objective.

You mean Imperial Players fielding at least one ISD-II, right?

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

You mean Imperial Players fielding at least one ISD-II, right?

No.

There was a good 12 months there that I don't recall seeing an Imperial List that did not have advanced Gunnery as its red Objective.

Checking my stats for Hothgary Now.

Because it looks like some 80 odd Percent to Advanced Gunnery. The odd choices out of the box are Opening Salvo (Discounted, as that was me doing a 5x Victory + Motti on a Dare for Store champs and never playing it...) and the others are Massed-Rhymerball Precision Strikers.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

No.

There was a good 12 months there that I don't recall seeing an Imperial List that did not have advanced Gunnery as its red Objective.

Checking my stats for Hothgary Now.

Because it looks like some 80 odd Percent to Advanced Gunnery. The odd choices out of the box are Opening Salvo (Discounted, as that was me doing a 5x Victory + Motti on a Dare for Store champs and never playing it...) and the others are Massed-Rhymerball Precision Strikers.

That's a lot of AG. This is before the errata right?

Yes.

Afterwards:

More Precision Strikes and Most Wanteds come up - but we get Gunnery-Teamless ISDs as well.

Then Conflict hits and Reds are suddenly Wide open... Even Station Assaults with Interdictors + Grav Shifters.

7 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Not true.

The golden rule that CANNOT overules was always true.

This cannot be erata'd without changing one of the base rules of the game.

If CANNOT is not mandatory then I choose to double arc with Ackbar, afterall its only a CANNOT that I can choose to ignore.

Uhm, that is 100% true. I still have the email ruling on it. I've posted it a bunch do I need to again?

Hello, John,

11 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Uhm, that is 100% true. I still have the email ruling on it. I've posted it a bunch do I need to again?

Hello, John,

In response to your question:

Rules Question:
In Star Wars:Armada, if a ship has Gunnery Team equipped, and is also designated the objective ship in a game using the Advanced Gunnery objective, may it still choose to use the Advanced Gunnery ability over the Gunnery team and shoot the same enemy ship from the same hull zone?

In this case, Advanced Gunnery supersedes Gunnery Team. The second player is not penalized for choosing to equip Gunnery Team.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

They later overruled this with a FAQ.

I continue to maintain that this was the right ruling, because advanced gunnery becomes the agency by which you are allowed the second shot, and you arent invoking gunnery teams at all. But they changed it as a nerf to the objective because it was ALWAYS PICKED.

In between which two waves was this FAQed? I forget.

2 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

In between which two waves was this FAQed? I forget.

It was the wave 2 FAQ i think. I know we started the vassal world cup that year under the assumption you could make use of adv gunnery despite gunnery teams.

49 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Do you really need to start that one again? I'm not seeing anyone complaining about the viability of big ships in this thread.

---

I think in this context people are looking for an easy red pick for their GT ISD-2.

But guys, FFG isn't going to give it to you.

In fact, not too long ago they FAQed Advanced Gunnery the EXACT OTHER WAY.

So move along, you won't get your wish fulfilled.

Wave 2 was "not too long ago?"

Apparently, that's when this was FAQed. A lot has changed since then.

4 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Wave 2 was "not too long ago?"

Apparently, that's when this was FAQed. A lot has changed since then.

Well I mean, we're still only talking about a year of actual people time.

4 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Wave 2 was "not too long ago?"

Apparently, that's when this was FAQed. A lot has changed since then.

Has the following changed?

Almost all GT ISD-2 fleets would benefit hugely from AG?

A lot has, Yes, but has the reason for it being done so changed?

Because a lot could change, but if the reasoning is just as valid - then it doesn't need to be changed.

I mean, I see more of an argument about the AP vs XI7 ruling to be changed back, because that original change was done with the caveat "for game balance".

And the Game balance has changed.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Well I mean, we're still only talking about a year of actual people time.

What's relevant is that 3 waves have come out since the FAQ.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

A lot has, Yes, but has the reason for it being done so changed?

Because a lot could change, but if the reasoning is just as valid - then it doesn't need to be changed.

I mean, I see more of an argument about the AP vs XI7 ruling to be changed back, because that original change was done with the caveat "for game balance".

And the Game balance has changed.

Wasn't the caveat an amusing ironic "future game balance"?

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Wasn't the caveat an amusing ironic "future game balance"?

Yes.

Yes it was.

However, it is the future now. And we have changed Game balance. We can at least hope that its being revisited - even if no change is made at the time

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Has the following changed?

Almost all GT ISD-2 fleets would benefit hugely from AG?

With flotilla spam?

Yes, they would greatly benefit.

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

With flotilla spam?

Yes, they would greatly benefit.

Point taken, but:

Take Jonus - then you can kill 2 flotillas per round wo AG

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

What's relevant is that 3 waves have come out since the FAQ.

But only a single ship (The Liberty) that such a faq would apply to. Ironically though, if the argument is that the original interaction between Gunnery Teams/Advanced Gunnery was deemed too Imperial friendly because of the ISD then the Liberty is a great reason thats less true.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

With flotilla spam?

Yes, they would greatly benefit.

Would they benefit to once become the Dominant single Objective choice?

If Answer = Yes, Change = No.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yes.

Yes it was.

However, it is the future now. And we have changed Game balance. We can at least hope that its being revisited - even if no change is made at the time

I'm pretty sure tomorrow is always the day after today.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

I'm pretty sure tomorrow is always the day after today.

I once had a hand in swapping out a "Free Beer Tomorrow" sign in a Pub without the Owner knowing.

It was hilarious.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

I'm pretty sure tomorrow is always the day after today.

I hear there is always free beer tomorrow.

7 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Point taken, but:

Take Jonus - then you can kill 2 flotillas per round wo AG

Jonus is da real MVP.