I can agree with both of these.

A simple errata to increase the cost of each flotilla by like 10 points would solve both issues. Instead of an 18 point lifeboat, it's now 28 points plus the commander. I still don't see the issue with lifeboats though.

And the increase would mean you get less bang for your buck in regards to squadron and ship activations. This way every fleet is penalized for taking a flotilla. A penalty of 10 points.

I'm a firm believe that the best way to change what we have now is to release new content or to adjust the issue. Maybe a point change is unprecedented, but it's a very simple change and it can always be reversed, increased, or decreased.

The squad point thing is weird and uncalled for. Dras is correct in that it only hurts max bomber fleets. If FFG didn't want mass bombers for both sides, overruling the BCC stack rule would help that. Not releasing Norra would have helped if they had any concerns about it. Nerfing Rhymer would also do the trick. But all the anecdotal evidence points to FFG wanting mass bombers to be viable.

I think the best errata is that flotillas are now squadron 1. That solves the issue directly of them being too point efficient as carriers. Now it takes 3 of them to surpass the typical carriers of either faction with expanded hangars.

I am not of the opinion that flotillas need any kind of nerf. I actually think they've been great for the game. If they were allowing one particular build to be unstoppable, that'd be a problem. What I see is flotillas enabling a wider variety of builds than we've ever seen in Armada.

If you really want to nerf flotillas you could either:

1 - Have then not interact with objectives at all. This would make Most Wanted and others less obvious choices.

2 - Have them not count as ships for tabling purposes. Basically if all you have left are flotillas and squadrons, you lose all 400 points.

Those both introduce some additional downside/risk to flotilla use.

This is becoming another complaining thread...

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

This is becoming another complaining thread...

The habitual complainers haven't even shown up yet, so just wait: it will get worse. It always does.

33 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

This is becoming another complaining thread...

To be fair, if these changes are true and actually happen, we will become the complainers haha

I'm cool with whatever FFG wants to change. The game is constantly evolving.

I do have to admit honestly that the single flotilla I have for each fleet I own are best used as bomber delivery systems, hands down. The other upgrades they can take are decent in their own rights, but the simplest ones to fit into any fleet's tactics are obviously Expanded Hangers and Bomber Command, and Toryn Farr as rebels.

I think they are adequately priced for their stats, though. Unlike just about any other ship in Armada, you'd be crazy to field a flotilla naked, especially the GR75's. They pretty much need 2-3 upgrades and/ or a title to be worthwhile in my opinion, and that's all they are going to be good for, and once those bombers are going on their attack run, either the flotilla has to be in danger staying close enough for things like Toryn Farr to work for those points spent on a flotilla to remain relevant.

Luckily my games don't have to deal with using flotillas just to out-activate the opponent. I can see where that would be maddening.

Fake news folks, nothing to see here.

52 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

Fake news folks, nothing to see here.

Whole lot of "it's credible because I want it to be real" up in here...

Has anyone said it's credible yet? I'll be the first to tell someone the point at which it's reasonable to believe something is the point at which there's evidence for it, but the only thing happening in this thread is speculation based on the possibility of it being true, not the assumption that it is.

4 minutes ago, WuFame said:

Has anyone said it's credible yet? I'll be the first to tell someone the point at which it's reasonable to believe something is the point at which there's evidence for it, but the only thing happening in this thread is speculation based on the possibility of it being true, not the assumption that it is.

You of all people should know that rational discussion is a Myth, WuFame

On these forums, you're completely correct.

16 minutes ago, WuFame said:

Has anyone said it's credible yet? I'll be the first to tell someone the point at which it's reasonable to believe something is the point at which there's evidence for it, but the only thing happening in this thread is speculation based on the possibility of it being true, not the assumption that it is.

It's not speculation, but it is hearsay. Obviously hearsay can be unreliable, and viewed as such, but I am being told that there substantial changes to game mechanics being considered, from a credible source.

Hearsay is still evidence, regardless of reliablity.

Look at all these people thinking this is true because they want it to be. Maybe set down the halo for one day, guys?

19 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Not sure if it's true.

19 hours ago, WuFame said:

Worth noting there's no proof of any of it. Just hearsay.

18 hours ago, Church14 said:

For no particular reason, I'll pretend this news is real.

7 hours ago, D503 said:

If this is true,

13 hours ago, Norell said:

Errr.... April's fools?

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

if these changes are true and actually happen

9 minutes ago, WuFame said:

Look at all these people thinking this is true because they want it to be. Maybe set down the halo for one day, guys?

Huh? I think this is a load of crap and die from the moment I read that. My comment about pretending it is real was just to debate the merits of what was posted.

23 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Huh? I think this is a load of crap and die from the moment I read that. My comment about pretending it is real was just to debate the merits of what was posted.

Church, I was being sarcastic with that statement in reply to Ard's statement: "Whole lot of "it's credible because I want it to be real" up in here... "

Literally nobody in this thread has come at this from the belief that it's credible.

The assumption being, if its even being discussed, then someone figures its credible enough to discuss.

Continue to add opinions, and you're adding credibility to the incredible. Because, I mean, if it was worthless, you wouldn't say anything, right?

Its why "White Knighting" is just as annoying and detrimental to a true discussion as "Devil's Advocating" is.

I agree, the white knighting on Armada's behalf is just as annoying. People treated the information presented with a reasonable level of skepticism and were discussing how the changes might affect the game if they were true. Armada is still fun and will continue to be fun without the holier than thou circle jerk coming to it's defense in every single thread.

By all means, argue for the status quo, I'll almost certainly be right beside you. But giving some elitist response looking down on people having a conversation does nothing to foster a community here. I get people are tired of hearing the same old whines, but it's a game about plastic spaceships guys, there's really not all that much to talk about. There's going to be some overlap.

24 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

detrimental to a true discussion as "Devil's Advocating" is.

Sarcasm though adds tonnes to a conversation.

5 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Sarcasm though adds tonnes to a conversation.

That's not what comes out of me when I drink coffee....

8 minutes ago, WuFame said:

That's not what comes out of me when I drink coffee....

We've noticed

6 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

We've noticed

Well you are the expert there.

I heard things.

1. FFG is going to nerf players.

2. Ben's rage is going to be epic.