4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

You could replace (mechanically) the words "Boarding team" with "Overload Pulse Torpedoes" and, basically... It works. There's not much specifically "Boarding" about it... Now, if it were "take control of the enemy ship", then we've got problems.

Actually, seeing it that way makes me feel much better. Mainly because part of why I play is "feel" and therefore things I don't get or like, while I recognize they are legal, make it less fun for me. But I am obviously not against people taking them.

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

There's been a fairly vocal minority that doesn't like the current ramming rules basically since I started playing the game. They became more vocal with the release of W2 and Large ships when they couldn't figure out how to drive their MC80s in such a way as to not get stuck forever nose-to-nose with ISDs.*

Couple that with extraordinarily frustrating fleets like this popping up on occasion, and ramming is kind of a bugaboo right now.

REBEL FLEET (392 points)
1 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
2 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
3 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
4 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
5 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
6 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
7 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
8 • GR-75 Medium Transports - General Rieekan (48)

* I actually don't entirely disagree personally. I just think the ramming rules are like democracy: the worst option except for all the other ones. I have yet to see a proposal for alternate rules that was an improvement.

I didn't like the ramming rules before (and, again, I agree that there really isn't much better that can be done), but I think that lists that purposefully use ramming are bothersome. The above list obviously, but ET demo too. I think they whiffed on the ET ruling. Fixing that would, IMO, fix a TON of the problem.

Saying it makes me realize that there IS something to be done for ramming. Fix that please FFG. No ET rams.

Making ET exhaust upon landing on a ship (or obstacle as well perhaps) would pretty much remove the ramming problem being game breaking.

Well there is more ramming in Armada than there is in X-wing. Even with ramming it doesn't affect the meta that much.

As for boarding, my only concern is that it doesn't do enough to be taken, much like the overload torpedoes. They almost reminded me of early missiles and torpedoes in the first waves of X-wing. Those jut became point sinks and server to give your opponent more MOV and reduce the number of ships you can take.

5 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

REBEL FLEET (392 points)
1 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
2 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
3 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
4 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
5 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
6 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
7 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
8 • GR-75 Medium Transports - General Rieekan (48).

Ram my 6 decimators if you could

1 hour ago, Daht said:

Making ET exhaust upon landing on a ship (or obstacle as well perhaps) would pretty much remove the ramming problem being game breaking.

Maybe I should read again the rule but I think this wouldn't work.

ET trigger while resolving a navigate command. The navigate command is resolved during the determine course step. The overlapping takes place during the move ship step when the ET is already exhausted so this rule would do nothing.

I reckon the ramming rules are the best they can be. They (appropriately) disadvantage low hull ships (a double ramming corvette is losing 50% of its hull to an ISD losing less than 20% - so no Rogue One double ISD death apocalypse here) and i reckon they're an important part of ship combat. I don't build ram dedicated fleets but i'll destroy the target ship anyway I can, including blocking it in and ramming it to death.

Perhaps most importantly, i fully expect and agree that my opponent should do the same.

I haven't suffered a Rampocalypse, so I might be living in blissful ignorance here, and don't see a problem with it per-se

But, how much of the problem is double ram engine tech ships, and how much is down to Rieekan getting them to the target? Would it make a difference if Rieekan's effect had a range that meant he needed to accompany the ramming ships and so could be targeted rather than issuing suicide orders from the other side of the board and sipping cocktails?

Personally I have more of an issue with a suicide Rieekan Yavaris than a ramstrosity list. You can block rammers, shoot them out of the sky or RBD the damage away, not to mention worst case its 2 damage and the other offending ship will be half dead afterwards.

Given the choice between a Rieekan Ramstrosity list or a Rieekan All Star Bomber list with Yavaris, i'll happily take the former.

I hate the ramspam list as much as the next person. The combination of Rieekan with the fact that you have literally no intention of shooting anything is just silly. Luckily it has a hard time winning tournaments because it tends to bleed points. I know someone brought it to the Stele Open and I'm almost positive it didn't make the top 6.

The CRambo90 itself, however, is a tool more of you need to embrace in non-Rieekan lists. I gave @Ginkapo's suggestion a chance and found them to be amazing pieces of utility when taken as a pair. They go really well with Madine. One of the other consistent complaints of late has been flotillas. Guess what? With blue dice and ET ramming, the CRambo90 is the perfect flotilla hunter. I'm frequently ramming one turn and then finishing off the flotilla with a double arc of blues at the top of the next turn. Come to the dark side. We kill lifeboats with ease.

4 hours ago, Truthiness said:

I hate the ramspam list as much as the next person. The combination of Rieekan with the fact that you have literally no intention of shooting anything is just silly. Luckily it has a hard time winning tournaments because it tends to bleed points. I know someone brought it to the Stele Open and I'm almost positive it didn't make the top 6.

The CRambo90 itself, however, is a tool more of you need to embrace in non-Rieekan lists. I gave @Ginkapo's suggestion a chance and found them to be amazing pieces of utility when taken as a pair. They go really well with Madine. One of the other consistent complaints of late has been flotillas. Guess what? With blue dice and ET ramming, the CRambo90 is the perfect flotilla hunter. I'm frequently ramming one turn and then finishing off the flotilla with a double arc of blues at the top of the next turn. Come to the dark side. We kill lifeboats with ease.

But doesn't that bother you? Purposefully ramming? I get that ramming occurs, but making it a part of your plan just bothers me. I feel icky when I use it as I did against @SkyCake.

6 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

But doesn't that bother you? Purposefully ramming? I get that ramming occurs, but making it a part of your plan just bothers me. I feel icky when I use it as I did against @SkyCake.

Why should it bother you?

It is a tactic, and its a tactic that is inherently net-loss to net-balance. You need to severely engineer circumstances to make it net-gain.

Very much like relying on Raw Red Dice vs Rerollable Red Dice.

9 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Well there is more ramming in Armada than there is in X-wing. Even with ramming it doesn't affect the meta that much.

X-Wing's version of ramming is blocking. Remember way back when they released the large based ships and the whole 'blocking should be removed from the game' discussion started? Now's there's thousands of X-Wing players who don't even realise it was ever an issue!

9 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

But doesn't that bother you? Purposefully ramming? I get that ramming occurs, but making it a part of your plan just bothers me. I feel icky when I use it as I did against @SkyCake.

It's a viable tactic in a somewhat abstract space combat game. Just about every space combat game I've played has had rules for it. Real life navies have used it. Embrace it. Use it... Kill those Flotillas!

Why should we be concerned?

The hammerhead doesnt look like it can take engine techs. Frankly I think it will be worse than CRambo90 at ramming.

42 minutes ago, HoundsTooth said:

X-Wing's version of ramming is blocking. Remember way back when they released the large based ships and the whole 'blocking should be removed from the game' discussion started? Now's there's thousands of X-Wing players who don't even realise it was ever an issue!

It's a viable tactic in a somewhat abstract space combat game. Just about every space combat game I've played has had rules for it. Real life navies have used it. Embrace it. Use it... Kill those Flotillas!

No, blocking is just fine, learn2play lol. As for blocking if that is what made you left the game there are now hundreds of ways to mitigate blocking from advanced sensors to upgrades that let you take an action to free action. But if you have issues with people getting in your way in Armada then How do you play a game? That is like arguing in Go when someone put a piece where you want to put your piece. Of course your opponent meant to put it their. It is a good posistion and it is better to those who get there first!

It is called strategy, and complaining about it on the forums is poor strategy indeed.

The way I look at it, boarding actions discourage ramming as much as fuel it. As it stands ramming, particularly E Tech ramming can be important, it is the single best way to deal with admonition (having bid and a Corvette with first last means judicious admo death be ram)

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Why should it bother you?

It is a tactic, and its a tactic that is inherently net-loss to net-balance. You need to severely engineer circumstances to make it net-gain.

Very much like relying on Raw Red Dice vs Rerollable Red Dice.

Why shouldn't it?

Should doesn't have to be determined by analytics. It can be feel. It can be aesthetic. It can be any number of possible aspects of the game that make it enjoyable...or not.

It is very different than raw red dice vs. rerollable red dice when considered from an aesthetics or even a universe consistent point of view.

Just now, ryanabt said:

Why shouldn't it?

Should doesn't have to be determined by analytics. It can be feel. It can be aesthetic. It can be any number of possible aspects of the game that make it enjoyable...or not.

It is very different than raw red dice vs. rerollable red dice when considered from an aesthetics or even a universe consistent point of view.

No, but why do you feel bad about that? Do you feel bad about rerolling black dice at close range? Do you feel bad about rerolling multiple times with different effects to maximise what it is?

I'm wondering why you feel bad. The reason behind that. That's all.

Ahh...gotcha.

Probably because I, for whatever reason, don't like the strategy and adverse to it when used against me. Therefore, I don't like to use it against others for its violation of Kant's categorical imperative. I become the problem when I accept its use.

5 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

Ahh...gotcha.

Probably because I, for whatever reason, don't like the strategy and adverse to it when used against me. Therefore, I don't like to use it against others for its violation of Kant's categorical imperative. I become the problem when I accept its use.

Well... I apologize in advance for our Vassal game. I put in 2 Glads with ET for a reason... mainly to prove a point that ET ramming is broke, gimmicky, and stupid. But also because it's insanely powerful.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Well... I apologize in advance for our Vassal game. I put in 2 Glads with ET for a reason... mainly to prove a point that ET ramming is broke, gimmicky, and stupid. But also because it's insanely powerful.

No worries. I have an ET glad myself. I also have two raiders that can ram in a pinch. Watch out!

In a tourney, I certainly understand its use.

13 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

Ahh...gotcha.

Probably because I, for whatever reason, don't like the strategy and adverse to it when used against me. Therefore, I don't like to use it against others for its violation of Kant's categorical imperative. I become the problem when I accept its use.

So to turn it upside like I was kind of mentioning - would you consider it odd at all if I didn't like the idea of Multiple Rerolling Black Dice at Close Range, and thusly railed when it happened against me? Because as a Rebel Big-Ship Player, its not something I use very often at all... But is constantly used against me...

The reason why I keep asking, is "For whatever reason" doesn't give me the why

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So to turn it upside like I was kind of mentioning - would you consider it odd at all if I didn't like the idea of Multiple Rerolling Black Dice at Close Range, and thusly railed when it happened against me? Because as a Rebel Big-Ship Player, its not something I use very often at all... But is constantly used against me...

Probably not an apt analogy.

#1: I don't rail against ramming. I don't like to use it. If someone uses it against me, I don't complain about it. I brought it up here, but am hardly "railing against" it.

#2: Not using it and believing that it goes against the spirit (I recognize that we will differ on this) of the game are different things.

#3: If your dislike of the rerolling is based in the "against the spirit" argument, then how you deal with it is up to you. This, of course, should not take away from the enjoyment of opponents (by complaining, acting poorly, etc.). An appropriate example might be an attempt at a house rule. If others don't agree to it you either keep playing with it or stop playing. Your choice, but don't inconvenience others.

In this case, I think that there is some support in that a decent sampling of the forum seems to "dislike" to whatever degree, the use of ramming, especially ET, as strategy.

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So to turn it upside like I was kind of mentioning - would you consider it odd at all if I didn't like the idea of Multiple Rerolling Black Dice at Close Range, and thusly railed when it happened against me? Because as a Rebel Big-Ship Player, its not something I use very often at all... But is constantly used against me...

The reason why I keep asking, is "For whatever reason" doesn't give me the why

I don't think that is an even argument. OE or Vader are designed to specifically reroll dice. ET is designed to give you a maneuver. The issue is compounded when someone realizes they can exploit the ramming rules with Rieekan and just dish out damage WITHOUT rolling any dice. And the ship doesn't die, so if it activates before it's target, it can theoretically deal 3 damage to a ship.

A better example of a rule exploit is using Strategic to move a Fire Lanes token underneath a squadron and then engaging that squad. You can compound the issue by engaging a low dice squad like Y-Wings or Tie/B with Cienna. Those squads will NEVER get to move, and it's a free 15 points per round. Unless you decide to stack them, which the rules don't disallow, and score 30 or 45 points per round and your opponent can do nothing to stop it.

3 minutes ago, ryanabt said:

Probably not an apt analogy.

#1: I don't rail against ramming. I don't like to use it. If someone uses it against me, I don't complain about it. I brought it up here, but am hardly "railing against" it.

#2: Not using it and believing that it goes against the spirit (I recognize that we will differ on this) of the game are different things.

#3: If your dislike of the rerolling is based in the "against the spirit" argument, then how you deal with it is up to you. This, of course, should not take away from the enjoyment of opponents (by complaining, acting poorly, etc.). An appropriate example might be an attempt at a house rule. If others don't agree to it you either keep playing with it or stop playing. Your choice, but don't inconvenience others.

In this case, I think that there is some support in that a decent sampling of the forum seems to "dislike" to whatever degree, the use of ramming, especially ET, as strategy.

Well, you're concerned that encouraging it in anyway shape or form is a bad thing... That seems to be that you're against it in its current format, even if you are not "railing" against it, I certainly see it that way - because again ,its stepped in the negativy of it.

Especially since I don't see how it goes against the spirit of the game - since it was in and accounted for since the start, its hardly a new factor in the game itself.

The default of "you can always houserule it" is... not the point at all. In fact, that crushes discussion... Frankly, I'd prefer if the discussion was crushed on a few matters, because they are exceedingly irrelevant.

"A decent sampling of the forum" is also a terrible way to justify something. Since the forum - itself - is a fraction of a sample of the actual gaming population of Armada. I mean, even anecdoctally myself...... Just this weekend I ran a Fleet Patrol Tournament here in Calgary. I had 8 Shows, 2 Wanted-to-Comes-but didn't and myself...

Of those 11 people. Precisely 2 of us are on the Forum. Less than 1/5th. That is a small sample size even of my local area, and I am sure - again, anecdotally, at the very least, this is pushed elsewhere. And honestly, of the 2 of us that are on the forum, the only one who ever posts anything is myself.

The forums are terrible for making any sort of rational judgement, because the forum is based on loud voices. And I'm a **** loud one. How do you separate the legitimacy of one voice from another, even if you wanted to base it on legitimacy... Even the most rational, statistical based threads we have - the Regionals Data Threads - are themselves subject to the power of voices, because the data itself is often misconstrued to a point by certain parties - because parties are rarely defining their variables before they enter the exercise.

You don't like ramming? You don't use ramming? Awesome. Your call completely. The thing is - Ramming is in the game, and ramming will stay in the game. There's nothing we can do about it other than adapt our tactics... Just like Demolisher. Just like Yavaris. For myself the statistic on Ramming is as thus: Rams are Net Damage favour = 0. A Ram does one damage to you, and one damage to them. You are having to engineer a circumstance where that is favourable to you - and that is what you attempt to do with the Ramstrosity list. Its very easy to have a "bad day" and the maneuver ends up having you ramming your own ships while you try to get into the favourable condition and position...

@Undeadguy - Your argument is based on Accident versus Design.

Sure, Vader rerolls dice. OE rerolls Dice.... Surely, they must have considered those possibilities when they wrote the rule "You can reroll a reroll".

If that is "believable", why is it un-belivable that its by design that Engine Techs is a Maneuver, that ends in a ram, that can be re-done as a ram? Can that not be by design? Can that not be the very intention of it?

I doubt any of us have any direct evidence that these things are accidental, rather than by design (and consequently, the other way around)...

Basically, this is the way my brain works on the subject:

"If this is good, and in the rules, and allowed, and may be intentional.... Why is this, which is in the rules, and allowed, and may be intentional - not good?"

Games Designers aren't Gods. They do make mistakes. There's quite a few things that I do question, but in the end - my ability to effect change on them is null. And why worry about something I cannot change?