Just now, TallGiraffe said:

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

Rieekan is still NUTS good, but he has a very specific purpose now, as opposed to just being nuts nuts good for squadron fleets. The new version really is more about Rieekan's old intended use: For fleets that wanna go 2nd and want insurance from death.

Sloane is a hard card to use. She requires some rather specific build arounds AND doesn't let you take other commanders, which require you to mitigate weaknesses with more points: SDs wish they had Moffy J, might need a maneuvering upgrade, and small ships wish they had Motti, maybe requiring defensive upgrades or offensive upgrades for higher punch.

That said, she should invigorate the Imperial squadron style. Which I like. I'm very looking forward to swarming soemone with squadrons and Sloane.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Rieekan is still NUTS good, but he has a very specific purpose now, as opposed to just being nuts nuts good for squadron fleets. The new version really is more about Rieekan's old intended use: For fleets that wanna go 2nd and want insurance from death.

Sloane is a hard card to use. She requires some rather specific build arounds AND doesn't let you take other commanders, which require you to mitigate weaknesses with more points: SDs wish they had Moffy J, might need a maneuvering upgrade, and small ships wish they had Motti, maybe requiring defensive upgrades or offensive upgrades for higher punch.

That said, she should invigorate the Imperial squadron style. Which I like. I'm very looking forward to swarming soemone with squadrons and Sloane.

Well it is probably just the Gallant Haven/Yavaris lists I fight. Really hard to counter.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

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....

Take a look at my edited version, based on rules precedent set by Xwing. And a little belief in player intelligence.

Your concept that we can't run with an updated FAQ is unsubstantiated: Let me implore you with this: In Xwing multiple cards have timing changes and total intent changes based on their errata. Ex. Tactician has Limited added to its text.

I would try and consider a "living" rules perspective. That it is also enforced based on common knowledge and sensible interpretation. I know that's far and lost in the Armada subforum, but that's a weird circumstance that I don't even know how to explain such lunacy.

1 minute ago, TallGiraffe said:

Well it is probably just the Gallant Haven/Yavaris lists I fight. Really hard to counter.

Are you one of us? Who suffer from constant squadron irritation? =)

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Are you one of us? Who suffer from constant squadron irritation? =)

I live in the same town as Brickhaus (AKA Worlds runner up) and Ard. Along with other players with similar skill levels.

Ocassionally visited by #ClassicBen

Okay, but that also stems from the fact that X-Wing itself has 3 standards of Pilots, that are generally designated via their names (as was described today in the online article)

Rookie Pilots

Squadron Pilots

Named Pilots

That's a distinction of Name - because the Pilot cards themselves follow that format... "Academy/Rookie" - "X Squadron", or a name. Now, I don't know if that is exhaustive, or of that is something that is done semi-colloquially, but that at least follows the basis of what the name is...

I'm not saying you can't make the distinction - I'm asking how to actually describe those. So I'm following with you, I'm just trying to enable it, in rules speak, for example

For example, if we want to break things into 3 levels, we'd have to have a description of each level that describes them - and does so without flaw, because exceptions are a bastard

Do we look at something like:

Squadron Types:

Basic Squadrons
Follow the basic squadron card. They are not unique in any way, and you only require a single squadron card for all iterations of the squadron.

Named Squadrons
Named squadrons are unique. They are designated only as unique on the squadron card, and have their own squadron disc, but they otherwise have the squadron symbol on which they are based. They often have different keyword and die values than the basics they are based on.

Ace Pilots
Ace Pilots are squadrons that are variations of basic squadrons that no-longer use the squadron silhouette symbol and instead have a portrait of their pilot. These squadrons often feature defense tokens.

At which point, we could errata Rieekan to work with "Ships and Ace Pilots", rather than "Unique Squadrons"....

Does that sound plausable for what you meant?

I mean, its one thing to simply errata Rieekan to say "Ace Pilots", but unless you specify what an Ace Pilot is, in the rules, it doesn't make a difference. same as we need to have a statement as to why Named Squadrons and Ace Pilots are different, becuase they share the commonality of the Unique moniker...

Because we clearly need to add even more rules bloat to Armada with different squadron types....

Have you all considered that you just don't have great success against Rieekan? Or against the players running Rieekan?

No, no, it's that Rieekan's too good, that's the issue.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Okay, but that also stems from the fact that X-Wing itself has 3 standards of Pilots, that are generally designated via their names (as was described today in the online article)

Rookie Pilots

Squadron Pilots

Named Pilots

That's a distinction of Name - because the Pilot cards themselves follow that format... "Academy/Rookie" - "X Squadron", or a name. Now, I don't know if that is exhaustive, or of that is something that is done semi-colloquially, but that at least follows the basis of what the name is...

I'm not saying you can't make the distinction - I'm asking how to actually describe those. So I'm following with you, I'm just trying to enable it, in rules speak, for example

For example, if we want to break things into 3 levels, we'd have to have a description of each level that describes them - and does so without flaw, because exceptions are a bastard

Do we look at something like:

Squadron Types:

Basic Squadrons
Follow the basic squadron card. They are not unique in any way, and you only require a single squadron card for all iterations of the squadron.

Named Squadrons
Named squadrons are unique. They are designated only as unique on the squadron card, and have their own squadron disc, but they otherwise have the squadron symbol on which they are based. They often have different keyword and die values than the basics they are based on.

Ace Pilots
Ace Pilots are squadrons that are variations of basic squadrons that no-longer use the squadron silhouette symbol and instead have a portrait of their pilot. These squadrons often feature defense tokens.

At which point, we could errata Rieekan to work with "Ships and Ace Pilots", rather than "Unique Squadrons"....

Does that sound plausable for what you meant?

I mean, its one thing to simply errata Rieekan to say "Ace Pilots", but unless you specify what an Ace Pilot is, in the rules, it doesn't make a difference. same as we need to have a statement as to why Named Squadrons and Ace Pilots are different, becuase they share the commonality of the Unique moniker...

As far as I'm aware, and I've played 10 waves of Xwing, there are only two types of pilots in xwing, not 3.

Rookie Squadron (Xwing) /Tansarii Pt Vet (Scyk) is simply the name of the generic pilot. All of these do not have dots.
Where as "Deathrain" and Wedge Antilles do have a dot, and are named pilots.
I actually have no idea what you're referring to in the articles. (This is not intended to be confrontational, I'm simply confused).

Armada does have 3 versions.

Generic Squadrons
Generic, non-character-named, unique squadrons
"Ace", character-named-pilot, unique squadrons (flavor assumption - lead by said ace pilot).

You and I both know, current;y its pretty easy to tell apart, cuz all the "Aces" have defense tokens. But then the question is what will FFG do next? Would they create a generic, non-unique squadron with defense tokens? Will they create a unique, named generic with defense tokens?

5 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Because we clearly need to add even more rules bloat to Armada with different squadron types....

Have you all considered that you just don't have great success against Rieekan? Or against the players running Rieekan?

No, no, it's that Rieekan's too good, that's the issue.

Maybe you should consider that you're reading too many assumptions. I seal club with Rieekan squadron lists.

Errata rieekan's text to make it apply only to squads with defense tokens? The generic uniques are thus excluded. Also weakens his uniques by requiring them to hold on to a defense token to for his ability to work.

Imo i don't see rieekan being OP with the gen uniques atm, most lists with him are already filled with uniques anyway. Maybe that might change with further campaigns/expansions down the line.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Maybe you should consider that you're reading too many assumptions. I seal club with Rieekan squadron lists.

But does that actually mean Rieekan is too good?

One of our local top-tier players (won the Sunday Adepticon tournament) runs Rieekan constantly. I've faced all kinds of Rieekan permutations between him and @geek19, who also runs Rieekan on occasion. I've played several dozen games against Rieekan now and once you get the hang of it, it really is not that bad. The main problem I see with Rieekan are opponents who don't adapt and just get steamrolled. If you don't adapt to an enemy commander, you'll get steamrolled, particularly if the commander has a strong effect. With Rieekan it's just that the effect is more binary (it should be dead, but it's still alive!) and so it's clear when it's making a big difference in the game.

7 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

You and I both know, current;y its pretty easy to tell apart, cuz all the "Aces" have defense tokens.

That was part and parcel of what I was asking, man.

Is that good enough as a defining trait? Do we assume that Ace pilots will always have defense tokens?

The whole point of what I was doing was to enable your statements... To take it from "Its easy to tell if you've played a game." to "Rules-Speak".

Rules speak has to apply to someone who doesn't play the game - so they can understand it beforehand.

That's all.

And I was basing my X-Wing off the article that was on the News today, because I don't play it.

46 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?

Wouldn't "Unique Squadron with Squadron in its name" satisfy for and FAQ type document to differentiate them? After all they have already established a pattern that those super ace squadrons are named after their leader alone, and not something like Wedge's Squadron.

Just now, Carvin Marvin said:

Wouldn't "Unique Squadron with Squadron in its name" satisfy for and FAQ type document to differentiate them? After all they have already established a pattern that those super ace squadrons are named after their leader alone, and not something like Wedge's Squadron.

Its a possibility, for sure. Even if it does sound a little redundant... But that's certainly an option.

Man the nurf bat is out in force....wtf is this...the walking dead?

23 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

But does that actually mean Rieekan is too good?

One of our local top-tier players (won the Sunday Adepticon tournament) runs Rieekan constantly. I've faced all kinds of Rieekan permutations between him and @geek19, who also runs Rieekan on occasion. I've played several dozen games against Rieekan now and once you get the hang of it, it really is not that bad. The main problem I see with Rieekan are opponents who don't adapt and just get steamrolled. If you don't adapt to an enemy commander, you'll get steamrolled, particularly if the commander has a strong effect. With Rieekan it's just that the effect is more binary (it should be dead, but it's still alive!) and so it's clear when it's making a big difference in the game.

I've run Rieekan constantly in squadron lists, and I've faced against it about 15 times. Its the go-to admiral all of these styles, many are prevalent in my area:

Mass squadron

2nd player camp styles plus generally 2nd player lists in general

Ram lists

Small ship spam

You'd have to define "too good" also. Its just being discussed.

I've got more pressing issues I think need nerfed. I just think Rieekan really shouldn't work like this, for this type of case.

Let's work it out the other way: Does Rieekan do "too much"? I'd say that's when something becomes largely the best choice by default where it begins to remove possibilities other underused choices could have been employed instead. Is he taken so much that underused options are much less competitive? Ex. Cracken for similar effect, Madine for opportunity cost and equal value.

Of the admirals, id rate for sheer value:

Ackbar, Rieekan have the highest and most obvious value. Especially data wise.
Then, Dodonna, Mothma, maybe Cracken.
Garm, Madine, Sato are largely un-used. (Sato is used, but mathematically lower value than Ackbar)

I'm generally in the "we're all fine here" camp but if I were in charge of balance I would be taking a long hard look at Rieekan.

11 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Let's work it out the other way: Does Rieekan do "too much"? I'd say that's when something becomes largely the best choice by default where it begins to remove possibilities other underused choices could have been employed instead. Is he taken so much that underused options are much less competitive? Ex. Cracken for similar effect, Madine for opportunity cost and equal value.

Exactly.

Rieekan needs adjusting. Having no repercussions for being destroyed for an entire turn is absurdly rule breaking when the game is based on the simple premise of destroying ships.

If the rule kept you from being removed immediately, but allowed destruction and removal by damage taken in a later activation, it would be fair.

18 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

Rieekan needs adjusting. Having no repercussions for being destroyed for an entire turn is absurdly rule breaking when the game is based on the simple premise of destroying ships.

If the rule kept you from being removed immediately, but allowed destruction and removal by damage taken in a later activation, it would be fair.

Pretty much this. It is above there with demo rule breaking shenanigans. Even if your ship is destroyed, you can still counter attack.

Things that break the game more than usual (all cards do, to some extent):

Rieekan, Yavaris, Demo and Rhymer.

5 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Things that break the game more than usual (all cards do, to some extent):

Rieekan, Yavaris, Demo and Rhymer.

You forgot Relay.

18 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

You forgot Relay.

And Ben

13 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

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.

...... I totally, 100%, respectfully DISAGREE with that bolded part

i quite often fly fleets with two upgraded fighting ships, two gr75 medium transports with repair crews, one gr75 with bomber command centre and a small-medium fighter wing (usually with a few Xs)

fleet example

-2 AFmk2

-3 Gr75

- under 100 points in sqd

-Ackbar

(I'm too lazy to put a actual fleet in right now, so this will do lol)

while I do think having 5 or 6 flotillas is a bit much, I believe those lists to be only relevant to a small percentage of players, and even then it's their own choice if they bring a list with 6 flotillas and a massive bomber wing, my fleet of mc30s and cr90s will soon take care of them

if people honestly are having problems countering flotilla lists ask the community for help, it isn't at the point right now where they need to be nerfed by FFG

23 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

if people honestly are having problems countering flotilla lists ask the community for help, it isn't at the point right now where they need to be nerfed by FFG

People are not having problems with flotillas:

Some people do.

Some people do with some kind of flotillas like lifeboats

Some people don't but they do with activation mechanic.

Some people don't but they do with some players like Ben

Some people only have problems with people playing things they don't like.

Some people don't but they do with FFG

Some people don't but they like trolling.

Some people do not have problems at all.

Some people have all kind of problems.

I am sure that is not all but is a good brief.

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

People are not having problems with flotillas:

Some people do.

Some people do with some kind of flotillas like lifeboats

Some people don't but they do with activation mechanic.

Some people don't but they do with some players like Ben

Some people only have problems with people playing things they don't like.

Some people don't but they do with FFG

Some people don't but they like trolling.

Some people do not have problems at all.

Some people have all kind of problems.

I am sure that is not all but is a good brief.

Hahahahaha