3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

It is a carrier. A way better carrier than two Gozantis.

Am I the only one here who remembers the value of a strong Imperial fighter alpha strike?? A 5-6 activation alpha strike with Flight Controllers is a huge deal, you guys! I take whole ISDs at 110 points just for that... Give me the same thing at even 2/3 the price and I'll snap it up.

I agree. Taking the QF with Flight Controllers and 1-2 Goz for the same price as an ISD I is great. 1 activation becomes at least 2.

Ironically, it kinda proves the point the point people are trying to make about flotillas being everywhere...

I do hope the QF replaces the ISD I as a super carrier. I never really cared about facing an ISD I AND it's complement of fighters.

29 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

So I don't think the question is just how do I kill flotillas. It's got a lot more pieces than that. The question is, how do I kill flotillas...

Before the main fleet action starts

Without hampering my own combat effectiveness in that fleet action

While remaining effective if I don't face flotillas

Even if the flotilla is across the board and running away

Or otherwise mitigate the activation advantage they provide.

Totally agree and this was something that I was saying before in this thread. However another important consideration is not only activation advantage but squadron activation advantage as well. One of the squadron-mitigation strategies for low-squadron fleets was always to kill the carriers or to force them to be out of range for squadron activation. Now I don't think this strategy is feasible anymore (Lets see how often will we encounter Boosted Comms on ships). Some may argue that this is an intended change, however in my opinion this change significantly limits potential fleet strategies and fleet archetypes.

I personally don't believe that flotillas are overpowered or that activation advantage provided by flotillas needs to be dealt with, my worry is that the game may devolve into mainly a squadron combat with the occasional ship engagements.

33 minutes ago, pt106 said:

Totally agree and this was something that I was saying before in this thread. However another important consideration is not only activation advantage but squadron activation advantage as well. One of the squadron-mitigation strategies for low-squadron fleets was always to kill the carriers or to force them to be out of range for squadron activation. Now I don't think this strategy is feasible anymore (Lets see how often will we encounter Boosted Comms on ships). Some may argue that this is an intended change, however in my opinion this change significantly limits potential fleet strategies and fleet archetypes.

I personally don't believe that flotillas are overpowered or that activation advantage provided by flotillas needs to be dealt with, my worry is that the game may devolve into mainly a squadron combat with the occasional ship engagements.

So you think fleets will use squads to fight each other?

Using BC you can stay outside of ship engagement?

The QF will allow for a more "Rebel-like" style of carrier builds? You won't need an ISD I which likes to get up close.

Interesting outlook. I do think the QF will replace ISD I for the carrier role. Not like the Vic is capable of doing it much anymore. I think the upgrades associated with the next wave will open up a lot of new builds.

I have confidence that if the only dice getting tossed becomes squadrons v squadrons FFG will release stuff that swings the pendulum back the other way. Like when squadrons were dead and big ships couldnt find the table because they got super out activated and black dice were everywhere they released something to alleviate those issues. I forget what it was tho, but I guess it worked cuz those arent issues anyone is complaining about anymore.

Game balance is a moving target. There will always be something thats not working exactly as the designers hoped or the players want.

2 hours ago, geek19 said:

Also Repair Crews isn't good, but I'll see your point about slicer tools or comms net.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I would contest this.... On my dual ISD fleet they've kept ISDs alive many times.... which... at 120 points plus upgrades each is pretty darn handy if you ask me lol

My 193pt Mc80 Assault Cruiser agrees with you wholeheartedly Darth Sanguis! She loves her little 22pt friend

1 hour ago, Englishpete said:

Let me explain better, I think many people view the Quaser as a carrier and as such I do not think it will see much play over 2 x Flotilla. Do I think it can be used, hell yes, your viewing someone who plays 3 x Interdictors as Gunships for blue dice consistency.

My comment was based on the broad meta choices in the area I play in, where Flotillas are used heavily to push squads and for activation.

I know. I'm right up the road I recommend giving the Flechette Raider with some moderate (60-80 points) squadron support a shot. It really does a lot to counter those giant squad blobs.

38 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I know. I'm right up the road I recommend giving the Flechette Raider with some moderate (60-80 points) squadron support a shot. It really does a lot to counter those giant squad blobs.

100% agreed. A pair of Flechette Raiders and 6 TIE Fighters has been quite sufficient for me in most circumstances. You're going to take some damage from enemy squadron blobs, of course, but when don't you usually take at least some damage from a 130+ points investment your opponent made?

8 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

1 gr75 with 2 ywings. Average damage is 2. Points per damage is 18.99.

1 gr75 BCC with 2 ywings. Average damage is 2.5. Points per damage is 18.40.

2 gr75s BCC with 4 ywings. Average damage is 5.5. Points per damage is 16.73.

A 2 red dice salvo from a trc equipped cr90a. Average damage around 3. Which equals 17pts per damage.

These numbers are only for specific circumstances. No relay is included. A TRC Corvette is still unrivalled for damage.

Note, squadrons naturally overload defence tokens.

Try this with Bwings with two dice plz?? 14 pts for two dice. That's a much better assumption. You have Ywings which are 1 blk for 10 points. Being pays only 4 points for the extra blue, and has mobility mitigated by FCT, which shouldn't be considered in its value as its equal to any sort of extra upgrades you'd put on a ship to make that ship work. Next, is Gold Squadron good value? at 12 for 2 blue? IT should be an auto include for bomber lists, and one of the highest choices for a bombing command.

Also BCC affects all in a multiplicative sense, so the more bombers the better. I'm hoping you're doing double BCC calculations for the 2BCC options.

You should also try these examples where the gr75 gets a squadron token, from Comms net or Ashoka. It doesn't matter that it doesn't get this in the long run, the alpha strike calculation is what matters.

The math you provide here is only part of the picture AND you didn't explain your choices for what you selected nor your method of calculating averages.

In real world, also you tend to get Yavaris double tap off FCT into 3 2-dice ships. PLUS probably 4 more 1-die bombers off a Pelta or 2 GR75s for 7 bombers out of 9 or 10 squadrons. All of this with 2 BCC.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

The math you provide here is only part of the picture AND you didn't explain your choices for what you selected nor your method of calculating averages.

Agreed.

I am not running every possible permutation though.

18 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Agreed.

I am not running every possible permutation though.

You are providing incomplete data, no reasoning to back up your "givens" from that data or how that data was selected. With an assumed intent of using that information to allow people to come to conclusions. You compare it to the cr90, as a follow up reply to squadrons having a high mathematical damage average. What you are doing here is attempted misdirection, which some could consider to be worse than outright lying. Why are you doing this. You are talking like a political media outlet when you do this. Fake news.

I'll also note that CR90s plus TRC are very high value. and MSU players know this. MC30s is my next guess for good value. Although, part of their value comes also as defense, not offensive.

@Ginkapo, the assumptions you are making are naturally contrary to the assumptions @Blail Blerg wants you to make. Clearly B-Wings are always going to get to their targets as easily as Y-Wings and they'll always have 2 Bomber Command Centers they can benefit from and they're usually double-tapping due to Yavaris. Why don't you just accept that when you make assumptions you're wrong and trying to misdirect people but when Blail makes assumptions they're right and he's The Champion Of The Anti-Squadron People's Revolution? FAKE NEWS!

Seriously, though, assumptions are going to be made once you get to any kind of meaningful data-crunching in any kind of miniatures game where you can't account for player skill or movement or a number of factors. I've always been a little puzzled at the assumption that bombers just get through with no problems and can therefore be compared directly to ship-on-ship attacks as though they are equivalent. Certainly we've all seen bombers get through and they can be very effective, but to just assume that happens is a big ask. Earlier on in most games it's not too difficult to achieve this with Intel, but even then it's only bombers shielded within the Intel bubble against targets they can reach without leaving the safety of the bubble. Later on once things start falling apart (due to overstretched bomber groups, dead Intel/Escort squadrons, whatever) then you can't really as a group rely on Intel at all.

There are so many variables regarding the enemy response to the bomber group that you can't even really quantify exactly how that will work and how much you should consider a bomber's contribution. What if the bomber can reliably bomb for 2 turns? 3? What if only 1? How long will the bomber survive if enemy fighters focus on it instead of Intel? What is the enemy flak doing? Are Flechette Torpedoes involved? What particular kind of fighter response are the bombers facing, anyways? What's commanding them? When? How long will the comparison ship survive? Why? What arcs can we count on it getting in? How frequently? Can we count on it double-arcing? Why or why not?

I'm mostly just left with questions. Direct comparisons get confusing.

I specifically didnt draw any conclusions from those numbers. Interpret it how you wish.

15 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

@Ginkapo, the assumptions you are making are naturally contrary to the assumptions @Blail Blerg wants you to make. Clearly B-Wings are always going to get to their targets as easily as Y-Wings and they'll always have 2 Bomber Command Centers they can benefit from and they're usually double-tapping due to Yavaris. Why don't you just accept that when you make assumptions you're wrong and trying to misdirect people but when Blail makes assumptions they're right and he's The Champion Of The Anti-Squadron People's Revolution? FAKE NEWS!

Seriously, though, assumptions are going to be made once you get to any kind of meaningful data-crunching in any kind of miniatures game where you can't account for player skill or movement or a number of factors. I've always been a little puzzled at the assumption that bombers just get through with no problems and can therefore be compared directly to ship-on-ship attacks as though they are equivalent. Certainly we've all seen bombers get through and they can be very effective, but to just assume that happens is a big ask. Earlier on in most games it's not too difficult to achieve this with Intel, but even then it's only bombers shielded within the Intel bubble against targets they can reach without leaving the safety of the bubble. Later on once things start falling apart (due to overstretched bomber groups, dead Intel/Escort squadrons, whatever) then you can't really as a group rely on Intel at all.

There are so many variables regarding the enemy response to the bomber group that you can't even really quantify exactly how that will work and how much you should consider a bomber's contribution. What if the bomber can reliably bomb for 2 turns? 3? What if only 1? How long will the bomber survive if enemy fighters focus on it instead of Intel? What is the enemy flak doing? Are Flechette Torpedoes involved? What particular kind of fighter response are the bombers facing, anyways? What's commanding them? When? How long will the comparison ship survive? Why? What arcs can we count on it getting in? How frequently? Can we count on it double-arcing? Why or why not?

I'm mostly just left with questions. Direct comparisons get confusing.

You'll note I didn't make those assumptions. Gink did. Ywings.

Mostly also cuz I explain my data.

From your assertion here, you're basically saying that the information presented is of no use, or can be interpreted to have too many givens, again something that wasn't established by the originator.

I'm not the one who put it there you know.

If you want to be anti-data and anti-discussion, so be it. If you want to use data, I think you now have to explain what data could possibly be of any use to you. What pieces of data could you be presented that you'd consider changing your mind. As far as it seems, you just want to hound me when I show that the data presented is not supported nor given enough thought to be used for anything other than what YOU think Gink would like the assumptions to be: see: "@Ginkapo, the assumptions you are making are naturally contrary to the assumptions @Blail Blerg wants you to make. ". Saying that there are no assumptions is just playing the shruggy-face clown while avoiding responsibility for dialogue and discussion, and the defense of your claims.

Blail, data can be read in lots of different ways and they all require interpretation. Anything involving actual usage in a game requires context and a lot of assumptions. Whenever this is done about squadrons and the conclusions aren't what you would like, you come in screaming bloody murder about how the other person has some kind of nefarious motives or they're blind to the "right" reading. You then posit that your assumptions (of maxed out squadron insanity in the best possible circumstances just ruining lives and breaking Armada) are the correct and objective reading and those who disagree with that subsequent interpretation once again have nefarious motives or they're just bad data analysts.

All I want you to understand is that you are also coming at the same information with your own set of assumptions and I'd like you to please tone down the Righteous Defender of the True Data shtick. That's all. It's not that your opinion differs from mine, it's how you express it that means I can't take you seriously.

10 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Blail, data can be read in lots of different ways and they all require interpretation. Anything involving actual usage in a game requires context and a lot of assumptions. Whenever this is done about squadrons and the conclusions aren't what you would like, you come in screaming bloody murder about how the other person has some kind of nefarious motives or they're blind to the "right" reading. You then posit that your assumptions (of maxed out squadron insanity in the best possible circumstances just ruining lives and breaking Armada) are the correct and objective reading and those who disagree with that subsequent interpretation once again have nefarious motives or they're just bad data analysts.

All I want you to understand is that you are also coming at the same information with your own set of assumptions and I'd like you to please tone down the Righteous Defender of the True Data shtick. That's all. It's not that your opinion differs from mine, it's how you express it that means I can't take you seriously.

Data provided is always in context of the discussion at hand. It still doesn't allow for the cavalier use of unsubstantiated data that can then be interpreted by others to mean something if the base assumptions of how that data was created is under scrutiny.

What I'm seeing is posting where people think they should be above scrutiny and not being careful enough with their presentation of numbers. That's irresponsible and obfuscating of issues at hand. No, you're reading the righteous shtick, but these are the reasons I have for the questioning of material that Gink has provided, which we are welcome to do as responses to data.

Perhaps I could request you look at what he wrote and present an appropriate response to it. If there is no appropriate response, isn't that quite telling?

"I will finish what you started"

8 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Try this with Bwings with two dice plz?? 14 pts for two dice. That's a much better assumption. You have Ywings which are 1 blk for 10 points. Being pays only 4 points for the extra blue, and has mobility mitigated by FCT, which shouldn't be considered in its value as its equal to any sort of extra upgrades you'd put on a ship to make that ship work. Next, is Gold Squadron good value? at 12 for 2 blue? IT should be an auto include for bomber lists, and one of the highest choices for a bombing command.

Also BCC affects all in a multiplicative sense, so the more bombers the better. I'm hoping you're doing double BCC calculations for the 2BCC options.

You should also try these examples where the gr75 gets a squadron token, from Comms net or Ashoka. It doesn't matter that it doesn't get this in the long run, the alpha strike calculation is what matters.

The math you provide here is only part of the picture AND you didn't explain your choices for what you selected nor your method of calculating averages.

In real world, also you tend to get Yavaris double tap off FCT into 3 2-dice ships. PLUS probably 4 more 1-die bombers off a Pelta or 2 GR75s for 7 bombers out of 9 or 10 squadrons. All of this with 2 BCC.

Those were pretty simple examples @Ginkapo made. Like 1 black bomber dice averages 1 damage. 1,25 with a reroll. Nothing complex or esoteric about it.

If you want more calculations, why don't you expand on it, rather than whine about it?

Keep in mind too the small sample size of ships available we have compared to Xwing and others. The Rebel Fleet has 8 ship chassis to choose from, stands to reason there will be 1-2 ships which are used more frequently than others. Like in just about FFG wave and subsequent FAQ, we will either get cheap options to hunt flotillas (super ram hammerheads?) or the relay mechanic will be nerfed.

I wonder if the activation issue could be solved by adopting something similar to Wrath of Kings?

"If one player begins their turn and has no models left to activate, their turn immediately ends. Their opponent then takes 1 additional turn, and then the round ends." -- so porting this over to Armada, replace "turn" with activation and "round" with Ship Phase, basically.

While this doesn't really solve the lifeboat issue, it would mean that, say, a 2 activation list would only have to deal with their opponent activating 3 times (if going 1st) or 4 times (if going 2nd), regardless of how many ships the opponent has on the table. Maybe combined with something like "any ship that didn't activate last turn is treated as speed 0 until they are activated"? Maybe this doesn't fix anything (it probably doesn't force a ship into action, so a flot can still scoot along the board edge), but maybe un-disincentive-izes lower activation fleets?

If this has been suggested already, then I, like Tommy Wiseau, am the fool.

Sorry to say, but this is a bad idea. At least for Armada.

It would only result in most playing 2-3 ship lists. And small ships will not be played at all anymore.
Why should i play 3-4 small ships that i cannot activated, and have to face a full geared ISD with my small CR90?

While it's nice to see an original idea thrown out there, this one could be pretty egregiously gamed. I have 7 activations to your 4, so I'm just going to line up my 3 MC30's at speed 4 in front of your ISD, not activate them, wait for you to come to me, then pew pew and gtfo. It solves none of the complaints, and even exacerbates them in some ways.

The inexorable forward movement in Armada makes for an interesting interaction with the alternating activation mechanic that (in my admittedly very limited experience) seems to be largely absent from many comparable games.

No need to apologize - not every idea is a good one

to steal another idea, larger ships (maybe the flagship?) could have an additional ability that would allow it, after it activates, it could activate an additional ship that is 1 or 2 size classes smaller. This could incentivise the smaller ships and higher activation counts. Again, maybe - I'm mostly just spitballing here.

The activation issue is not an issue as it was intended to work this way since the beginning.

Other thing is that right now is one of the most powerful tactic (if not the most). We just need better tools to deal with it, not to nerf it.

Gunnery Team is a good one but it cannot go on every ship and even when it proof its utility it could be not enough.

What those new tools could be I don't know but I hope they were more original than a "pass activation rule". Just think on how different would be the tractor bean if we could trigger it after moving.

There is another option to reduce the impact of to many activations.
Just make sure player one has always the first and player two always the last activation.
Simply by having the player with more ships to move more than one during the round.

If player 1 has 7 ships and player 2 has 4 ships, the activation can be in this way:

1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2.
As soon as one player has twice the ships left compared to the opponent, he has to move two ships at once. if he has 3 times as many ships, he has to move 3. And so on.

This way you make sure that the second player has always the last activation.

This one is not perfect as well. But solves at least one problem of the double tab.