34 minutes ago, Paindemic7708 said:

Wait a second! Enough of this pointless bickering... the real issue here is...

My first ever game of Armada on Vassal was against a former two-time national champion?! Are you kidding me?!

My first three real VASSAL games were, in no particular order, @Aresius , @JJs Juggernaut , and @pt106 . Only one of those did not end in a tabling, and that one ended with one ship left, hounded into a position where it was doomed, and I preferred to debrief than let the massacre finish. I feel you.

I think the most important thing is how FFG envisioned and sees the Flotilla in the game. They originally had the "How many will you take?" marketing stance to FLEET SUPPORT, and priced them very cheaply. It makes me think they always thought they were likely to be in most lists.

While I really like the place the game is at, I totally understand the issues with the activation war. That said, it doesn't seem like any specific archetype is really dominating the meta right now according to the Regionals Data. (Flotillas are EVERYWHERE though!)

If FFG sees a problem, I'm confident that they'll fix it. I don't know X-Wing, but understand the last FAQ over there really changed things up.

10 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

*snip

If that is what we truly see at Worlds, I do think things should be carefully looked at going forwards. However, I'm not so certain that the situation is quite so dire. The inclusion rate of flotillas is not so worrisome; being the cheapest ship out there, and since Armada is a game with the activation system playing a fundamental role, it is natural they should be very common. With their costs being similar to squadrons, we also have data about high inclusion rate of at least one of those as well.

If the majority of lists start including 3+ flotillas, I see more of an issue. Currently though, I'm not seeing anywhere close to that. In fact, the last Vassal tournament had two 4 activation fleets in the finals, both only had one flotilla. I have only used fleets with 3+ flotillas in a handful of games since the last worlds, and I'm still winning without them. I truly do understand the concerns people have voiced, and I do think this is something we need to keep an eye on. However, at the current juncture I think the game is in the healthiest state it has ever been.

For whatever my opinion is worth, I concur with JJ. Given the disparity of points available even in the Core Set, I have trouble believing that if FFG's dev team was worried that one day the activation meta could escalate to this point and be a detriment to the game, they would not have introduced an Imperial Assault-style pass system from Day One. They didn't, so circumstantially I would conclude that the activation system is working as intended. Whether or not FFG correctly predicted how the community would respond to it is an open question likely never to be answered, but I prefer to assume intent over incompetence (a corollary of incompetence over malice in my book). Since Armada is not immune to tradeoffs, some decisions, particularly costing, may have been non-optimal in the opinions of other observers, but they are the decisions that were made, and now it is our task as players to adapt. I don't mind that most of my fleets nowadays include (usually only one) flotilla(s), they offer new capabilities I'm otherwise deprived of at a cost I can usually (not easily) justify finding in my fleet budgets. To offer anecdotal evidence, in my own meta, they are common in that they are usually on the board, but rare is a flotilla spam that is truly cheesy.

Regarding theme and gameplay, I must point out at least the GR-75 is doing its job thematically if it is in 75% of Rebel fleets. I haven't seen Rebels (the TV show), but every time we see the Rebel fleet assembled in the OT, there are GR-75s hovering in the wings, purpose unclear. Regarding combat, I think many continue to underestimate the weakness that is activating squadrons two at a time. My Imperial space-superiority wings certainly don't mind the tactic, but I continue to see people acknowledge and take advantage of larger, mass activations. They vaporize when caught by most real combatants, and for their points do not offer the same capabilities. Two Gozanti s can activate four squadrons to a EHB Raider 's two, but one of those can kill the other two fairly easily, and provide meaningful anti-squadron picket duties doing it. If I were to trade in my Kallus-FT- Impetuous in my VASSAL Freshman Tournament list for another pair of Gozanti s, my list would be notably (probably unsustainably) weaker. If flotillas really do get to the point where three of them on the table is the bare minimum to get your foot in the tactical door, I think revisiting this discussion is wise. However, right now I think the doors flotillas have opened up for previously unviable fleets far outstrips any cost their common use might or might not be inflicting on the meta.

vs

Rebels won cause the played meta. Rebels sucks.

Its currently not uncommon to see 2 or 3 flotilla fleets however. Ex. 2 ships and 3 flotillas, say ISD Demo and 3 Gozantis. This is exacerbated in meta heavy areas. Heavy squadron games, 5 activations 134 bombers. MSU 7-8 activations.

I'd say 2 flotillas is not cause for alarm, however when lists start to look like 2 actual fighting ships and 3 flotillas, I'm not sure that's healthy.

--

I think more actual fighting ships giving squad commands will be more fun though: more decisions to make. Bigger squadron moves. I like that.

I also think one of the easier fixes is just to make BCC unique.

This change seems more intended to hit two problems:

commander flotillas will require more careful use of combat ships. Good.

Weakening mass squadron fleets meant to be all about bombers and 3+ flotillas.

It would be nice if we could have 1st player 2nd player be dissociated with objective choice. Let the player who has less activations choose 1st or 2nd. Then, Bid of objective choice.

40 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

It would be nice if we could have 1st player 2nd player be dissociated with objective choice. Let the player who has less activations choose 1st or 2nd. Then, Bid of objective choice.

This would require erratas for so every objective though, as the objectives are designed to give second player the advantage. Going first AND getting advantage on objective would be crazy.

12 minutes ago, WuFame said:

This would require erratas for so every objective though, as the objectives are designed to give second player the advantage. Going first AND getting advantage on objective would be crazy.

Yeah. I know. Not realistic.

I've been saying for a while but the real issue with Armada is literally turn order: its a turn based game, with activations. Activation order being a key to the game is poor flavor and causing most of the problems.

1 hour ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

Git Gud Reinholt (disclaimer: never actually faced him)

If that is what we truly see at Worlds, I do think things should be carefully looked at going forwards. However, I'm not so certain that the situation is quite so dire. The inclusion rate of flottillas is not so worrisome; being the cheapest ship out there, and since Armada is a game with the activation system playing a fundamental role, it is natural they should be very common. With their costs being similar to squadrons, we also have data about high inclusion rate of at least one of those as well.

If the majority of lists start including 3+ flotillas, I see more of an issue. Currently though, I'm not seeing anywhere close to that. In fact, the last Vassal tournament had two 4 activation fleets in the finals, both only had one flotilla. I have only used fleets with 3+ flotillas in a handful of games since the last worlds, and I'm still winning without them. I truly do understand the concerns people have voiced, and I do think this is something we need to keep an eye on. However, at the current juncture I think the game is in the healthiest state it has ever been.

I can understand the wait-and-see approach. To be fair, @Reinholt is saying most fleets will have 50% flotillas, which is not going to be three or more. And as I said before, winning isn't the issue. Of course you can win without them. The issue is make any list without flotillas, then cooy that list and take out your ceapest ship and replace it with 2 or 3 flotillas. The one with flotillas has a distinct advantage over the other one, which is troubling.

We will see if there is any truth to this reddit thing. Now that every other game has an FAQ but ours, it is pretty clear FFG is heavily considering something.

16 minutes ago, Caldias said:

Now that every other game has an FAQ but ours, it is pretty clear FFG is heavily considering something.

That still assumes competency, when lazyness and incompetency is still not only a potential answer, but a readily convincing one.

37 minutes ago, Caldias said:

The issue is make any list without flotillas, then cooy that list and take out your ceapest ship and replace it with 2 or 3 flotillas. The one with flotillas has a distinct advantage over the other one, which is troubling.

I would contend that this isn't entirely true. There definitely can be cases when it is so. I have often suggested people drop a ship for either a couple flotillas or a flotilla and squadrons when asked about list ideas. Activations are powerful, but I have also been finding lately that the lack of ship firepower can offset that activation advantage flotillas provide. I think Ginkapo had some valid points, though not presented in a way I agree with. I am in a rush, but might post some examples in a bit.

I'd also say that most well constructed list cannot remove another ship for flots. The case talking here is poorly contructed fleets that really could use extra activations. 3 ship lists, 4 ship lists.

Ex. a list with ISD Demo 3 Gozanti and a minimal fighter force isn't going to be THAT much better if I remove Ayn pieces for more flots. (Hmm. does that even fit...). Although one could argue 5 Goz + Demo is a list, its not great.

At that point you ARE losing firepower and threat areas.

8 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

I would contend that this isn't entirely true. There definitely can be cases when it is so. I have often suggested people drop a ship for either a couple flotillas or a flotilla and squadrons when asked about list ideas. Activations are powerful, but I have also been finding lately that the lack of ship firepower can offset that activation advantage flotillas provide. I think Ginkapo had some valid points, though not presented in a way I agree with. I am in a rush, but might post some examples in a bit.

Hey, that's fair. I just saw this thread as an opportunity to voice some concerns I noticed. I may not agree with you 100% in this case, but I do appreciate your demeanor and willingness to engage in discussion.

38 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I'd also say that most well constructed list cannot remove another ship for flots. The case talking here is poorly contructed fleets that really could use extra activations. 3 ship lists, 4 ship lists.

Ex. a list with ISD Demo 3 Gozanti and a minimal fighter force isn't going to be THAT much better if I remove Ayn pieces for more flots. (Hmm. does that even fit...). Although one could argue 5 Goz + Demo is a list, its not great.

At that point you ARE losing firepower and threat areas.

I think you are going too far. Rather, look at it like this.

Dual ISD Dual Raider. Drop an ISD for 3 flots and some Tie/F. 4 activation/4 deployments to 6 activation/8-9 deployments. You lose some firepower, but the remaining firepower is more effective since you have a better understanding of the game state. You can wield your firepower more effectively from the start as well since you have more deployments.

I don't think Caldias is saying you need to add more flotillas if you already have 2-3. But take any prewave 4 list and drop a ship for at least 2 flotillas and see the difference. It's not a universal increase in effectiveness, but it is noticeable.

Tbh I never really had an issue with flotillas until they could activate squadrons from clear in the corner with zero risk to them due to relay.

I think people are missing The fundamental reason on why changing variables to the equation produces drastically different results, hence why playtesting is very hard to do.

Flotillas + relay ships + squadron ball + bid for second = a game that is pretty sh*tty to play.

What made Yavaris not op was it had to get close to use...you could shoot back and hurt it...now you have a pair of vcx and there's no problem...vcx is expensive but with an 18 activation...it's no problem at all.

32 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think you are going too far. Rather, look at it like this.

Dual ISD Dual Raider. Drop an ISD for 3 flots and some Tie/F. 4 activation/4 deployments to 6 activation/8-9 deployments. You lose some firepower, but the remaining firepower is more effective since you have a better understanding of the game state. You can wield your firepower more effectively from the start as well since you have more deployments.

I don't think Caldias is saying you need to add more flotillas if you already have 2-3. But take any prewave 4 list and drop a ship for at least 2 flotillas and see the difference. It's not a universal increase in effectiveness, but it is noticeable.

I think we actually completely agree with each other.

1 hour ago, Gottmituns205 said:

Tbh I never really had an issue with flotillas until they could activate squadrons from clear in the corner with zero risk to them due to relay.

I think people are missing The fundamental reason on why changing variables to the equation produces drastically different results, hence why playtesting is very hard to do.

Flotillas + relay ships + squadron ball + bid for second = a game that is pretty sh*tty to play.

What made Yavaris not op was it had to get close to use...you could shoot back and hurt it...now you have a pair of vcx and there's no problem...vcx is expensive but with an 18 activation...it's no problem at all.

You are correct that complex equations do not scale linearly with the number of variables, but rather exponentially. However, I think you are drastically overstating the severity of the flotilla/relay issue. In exchange for Yavaris being out of the line of fire, my opponent has spent 30, maybe 45 points if he consistently expected a squadron token on protecting that ship, 30/45 points out of his squadron allowance, and he has relieved himself of Yavaris 's firepower against a starship (99 times in 100) to boot. As an Imperial player who prefers to play fast and loose with light squadron screens, I love that. That's 30/45 points not in bombers, and Yavaris in the corner just means she's already cornered when the Star Destroyers arrive. As @moodswing5537 can attest, his Yavaris probably earned him 45 extra victory points hammering away at Impetuous (and probably a piece of Wayfarer , Motti's lifeboat). And it meant that Yavaris evaded Gryphon (an Imperial -1) for an additional two turns past when he usually expects to lose the ship. Unfortunately for him, that only got him to turn 5, when Gryphon cornered her and the Imperial gunners opened up at point blank range. When you bring a GR-75 intending to relay the entire game, Expanded Hangar Bays isn't 5 points, it's 20 points, and 15 of those are out of 134, not 400. Tag in that you definitely can't use BCC without redundancy, and probably not Slicer Tools and only maybe Comms Net, and that's a trade I think is perfectly fair. Relay flotillas are one of the most annoying things I've yet faced in this game, but they are far from insurmountable.

I don't see a specific problem with flotillas, but spam in general to abuse a certain mechanic at times (see ramstrosity or 8+ gozanti)... hard to regulate that tho, it's a legal build. Given the changes in X-wing, having a flotilla limit (say 2 or 3), and/or no more lifeboats... and making ET exhaust when overlapping a ship are things we could hope for to cover that.

27 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

You are correct that complex equations do not scale linearly with the number of variables, but rather exponentially. However, I think you are drastically overstating the severity of the flotilla/relay issue. In exchange for Yavaris being out of the line of fire, my opponent has spent 30, maybe 45 points if he consistently expected a squadron token on protecting that ship, 30/45 points out of his squadron allowance, and he has relieved himself of Yavaris 's firepower against a starship (99 times in 100) to boot. As an Imperial player who prefers to play fast and loose with light squadron screens, I love that. That's 30/45 points not in bombers, and Yavaris in the corner just means she's already cornered when the Star Destroyers arrive. As @moodswing5537 can attest, his Yavaris probably earned him 45 extra victory points hammering away at Impetuous (and probably a piece of Wayfarer , Motti's lifeboat). And it meant that Yavaris evaded Gryphon (an Imperial -1) for an additional two turns past when he usually expects to lose the ship. Unfortunately for him, that only got him to turn 5, when Gryphon cornered her and the Imperial gunners opened up at point blank range. When you bring a GR-75 intending to relay the entire game, Expanded Hangar Bays isn't 5 points, it's 20 points, and 15 of those are out of 134, not 400. Tag in that you definitely can't use BCC without redundancy, and probably not Slicer Tools and only maybe Comms Net, and that's a trade I think is perfectly fair. Relay flotillas are one of the most annoying things I've yet faced in this game, but they are far from insurmountable.

I should have elaborated more, relay flotillas really work best when they are going second, and you have to come to then. It's at that point it truly becomes annoying because the squadrons are attacking you at a much further range and the carrier isn't under threat. Granted this is countered readily by squadrons, but then it's rock beats paper beats scissors when we keep doing down that chain.

The issue gets even more silly/complex when you throw in gonzo's with defenders being used with Jendon and you have to come to them. It allows him the ability to engage you and your ships well before you can engage his with your capital ships, and when you're facing a camper player time is everything because draws mean a win for him. He's delayed you, he's chewed up your squadrons or ships, and his activations remain unmolested whilst you're fighting a battle by turn 2.

Yet then we go back to the original issue in the cycle: cheap activations make the game stale...now we're just piling more on.

Just wait for boarding actions, and then this gets really silly...I dare say large ships might become even rarer in a land of gr75's hammerhead rammers, and whatever else.

I'm not calling this a recipe for being broken, but I'm seeing the warning signs that the FAQ should be coming sooner rather than later.

The only nerf I want is a Rieekan point increase.

1 hour ago, TallGiraffe said:

The only nerf I want is a Rieekan point increase.

Just be patient Sloan will make it all ok

1 hour ago, TallGiraffe said:

The only nerf I want is a Rieekan point increase.

The only Rieekan nerf I want is that he only affects ships and named uniques, not the new generic uniques.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

The only Rieekan nerf I want is that he only affects ships and named uniques, not the new generic uniques.

Pure Curiosity:

I've been trying to work out how to put such a thing into "Rules Distinction", and getting nowhere... Because, of course, Generic Unique is a colloquial term, and doesn't provide any actual distinction as far as rules are concerned... Things are designated "unique" by the presence of the Dot by their name, so Rieekan works on them that way... They also have different names to the Basics, so that doesn't work either...

Do we run the risk of stating something like "Squadrons with Defense Tokens", on the off chance we never see an "Ace" Squadron without them?

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Pure Curiosity:

I've been trying to work out how to put such a thing into "Rules Distinction", and getting nowhere... Because, of course, Generic Unique is a colloquial term, and doesn't provide any actual distinction as far as rules are concerned... Things are designated "unique" by the presence of the Dot by their name, so Rieekan works on them that way... They also have different names to the Basics, so that doesn't work either...

Do we run the risk of stating something like "Squadrons with Defense Tokens", on the off chance we never see an "Ace" Squadron without them?

Pure discussion:

I think i borrowed that term loosely from Xwing, where they do use the term "named" pilot. In this instance it wouldn't be bad to have a clarifying FAQ that explicitly states which unique squadrons are exempt from Rieekan, esp considering it would be a heavy handed errata.

You could also simply say: Rieekan affects ships and squadrons with named pilots.

Honestly, I was extremely surprised that FFG released and wanted the new generic unqiues to interact with Rieekan, who was already really good, and squadrons (let's not argue about overpowered) were definitely viably strong in Wave 3-4.

--

Another note about rules based on existing precedent: FFG has had to use clarifying examples to state what constitutes a "Tie Fighter" in Youngster's FAQ. They will also have to do so for the Tie Aggressor. The Dengar crew card explicitly denotes named pilots. There is no strong reason to beleive that players cannot learn to make the simple distinction that named-unique equals having a character name. There are at least no edge cases. Its either Tycho Celchu, or Green Squadron. They're very obvious flavor-wise.

10 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

The only Rieekan nerf I want is that he only affects ships and named uniques, not the new generic uniques.

Even with those rules, he can still be a super powerful fleet admiral. Not sure if Sloan will help.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

Pure discussion:

I think i borrowed that term loosely from Xwing, where they do use the term "named" pilot. In this instance it wouldn't be bad to have a clarifying FAQ that explicitly states which unique squadrons are exempt from Rieekan, esp considering it would be a heavy handed errata.

You could also simply say: Rieekan affects ships and squadrons with named pilots.

Honestly, I was extremely surprised that FFG released and wanted the new generic unqiues to interact with Rieekan, who was already really good, and squadrons (let's not argue about overpowered) were definitely viably strong in Wave 3-4.

It would have to be a heavy handed errata then, and then would also have to be constantly updated in the effort that they ever did another CC-style addition at a later date again - or even included such types of squadrons in future Squadron Packs... Which is why I'd be looking for a plausable single term that can be applied to them - again, in Rules-Legalease - to make that kind of work , because depending on a constantly updated FAQ is - as we all well and know at this point, is sheer lunacy.

Not to say that I disagree with the desire - I think that'd be interesting, and honestly, as far as changes go, its a secondary - but I havn't run through many thought-implications of what it would actually mean... I get easily stuck on the actual rules mechanics of making something like that work , and pass a continuing muster of rules....