Should the game be increased to 500? It seems to be having good success in the conflict and it enables for a more complete fleet build, also for instance it enables you to get an extra ship on the table something highly valued in a game with many different ships you can't field. With more and more ships, squadrons, and upgrades constantly incoming we need the ability to actually use the stuff otherwise why buy it??

1 minute ago, EbonHawk said:

Should the game be increased to 500? It seems to be having good success in the conflict and it enables for a more complete fleet build, also for instance it enables you to get an extra ship on the table something highly valued in a game with many different ships you can't field. With more and more ships, squadrons, and upgrades constantly incoming we need the ability to actually use the stuff otherwise why buy it??

500 is too much for tournament play. 450 is where it's at.

450 would work, allows for getting that extra ship on the table or a couple more squads

450 is the perfect spot cause it caps so nicely with squads at 150 points. Also extremely jealous that @EbonHawk got that name, I didn't think to even try it.

Not 500. Our group did a 500 point tourney once and it just went on for too long. I could see 450, added benefit of having a round number for squadrons.

500 with a max of 100 pts in squads. Squad dominance fixed and game is much less clunky to manage.

Even my career and conflict games I don't feel like they run much longer than other games and we're all at 500 points, I mean I could maybe see a game that has heavy squadrons we have had people running about 140ish points of squadrons so maybe having a cap on squadrons that about one-third would make 500 points more doable and tournament format?

I think table top games need to use a chess clock. If I don't say "come on pick a ship and activate it" at least 30 times a game it would be a miracle. So many players just seem to stand there and talk about what each thing they can do over and over, seems they need to be pushed into picking one every time.

3 hours ago, Sybreed said:

500 is too much for tournament play. 450 is where it's at.

Agreed for 450 pts. It doesn't add enough pts to bog down the game further with many more squadrons and might encourage to deploy large ships more often.

400 is fine. more just contributes to bloat.

5 hours ago, EbonHawk said:

Should the game be increased to 500? It seems to be having good success in the conflict and it enables for a more complete fleet build, also for instance it enables you to get an extra ship on the table something highly valued in a game with many different ships you can't field. With more and more ships, squadrons, and upgrades constantly incoming we need the ability to actually use the stuff otherwise why buy it??

Never gonna happen

Might be an unpopular opinion, but they really need to lower the time allotment for 400 points. As of right now you have almost 5 minutes of thinking time per turn, per person. FFG went super conservative on time allotment and people purposely use all of it , as is there right. People will play to the time allotment, whether that means playing faster or slower. The real question when it comes to time we need to be asking isn't how many games go to time or get close to it, but how many games don't finish in six turns? In my experience that's few and far in between which means you can lower the time OR up the the points.

Increase to 450, make flotillas count towards the squadron points. Armada saved.

I'm not sure Armada is really in need of saving, but I'm almost certain you can up the points to 450 painlessly if you drop the squadron allotment to 25%.

15 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

I'm not sure Armada is really in need of saving, but I'm almost certain you can up the points to 450 painlessly if you drop the squadron allotment to 25%.

I was saying that in jest, but I do believe some amount of fixing is required, and bumping to 450 and making flotillas count in the squadron count would help big ships make a comeback.

28 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Might be an unpopular opinion, but they really need to lower the time allotment for 400 points. As of right now you have almost 5 minutes of thinking time per turn, per person. FFG went super conservative on time allotment and people purposely use all of it , as is there right. People will play to the time allotment, whether that means playing faster or slower. The real question when it comes to time we need to be asking isn't how many games go to time or get close to it, but how many games don't finish in six turns? In my experience that's few and far in between which means you can lower the time OR up the the points.

Did you watch worlds finals? Each turn took a long time due to a table covered in squads. They didnt make it to turn 6 before time, or were very close to not making it?

Yep, I watched Worlds.

- And I heard the commentators state a list of reasons why they went to time.

Squadrons was one of them, but was not the only one.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yep, I watched Worlds.

- And I heard the commentators state a list of reasons why they went to time.

Squadrons was one of them, but was not the only one.

what were the others?

1 minute ago, Thraug said:

Did you watch worlds finals? Each turn took a long time due to a table covered in squads. They didnt make it to turn 6 before time, or were very close to not making it?

Once again, the issue isn't that the game goes to time. It's how often games don't finish or even get close to finishing (examples: Warhammer fantasy battles only getting to turn 4 in 2 hours). I think we are at the point we need to start stress testing. I love the game, You love the game. But some stores aren't doing tourney's or are finding them difficult to run because of the time allotment. Maybe start pushing that time down until we get to sub two hour rounds and maybe it will help more tourney's take off. 5 minutes of just thinking per player (that's a conservative estimate btw) is way too long for nothing to be happening on the table.

On a personal note, I play fast. That give my opponent way more time to think things through. I get it that Armada is way more "stately" but is is also the only game I've ever played in a tourney where they give you that much time to think. That means sometimes I get to stare at my opponent for 10+ minutes. I'm pretty sure it gets awkward after 8 minutes.

It also included:

That they'd played 6 games (5 Swiss, 1 Elim).
That it was the World Champs, and thus, stuff was on the line, leading to more thought.
That both were using Rieekan which forces you to resolve everything, all the time. No quick removes and done.

Stating that there was a single factor, and it was because of that single factor, isn't right. There wasn't a single factor. Is it the single biggest factor of them all? Maybe - Possibly even "Most probably". But it and of itself, was not the only reason.

I mean, the two of them Played each other on Day 1. One would have to ask if they went to time in that game.....

I think the better question is.

Why should we go to 450-500? What is the major benefit of a points increase. What combinations are we seeking that require the points jump?

Coming from other games, when list building forces you to really trim and choose, the game tends to stay more competitive, as certain combos require sacrifices to pull off. It is nice to be able to fit your favorite gigantic supercombo into the game, but is that what the game needs to stay healthy competitively.

More to the point, does Rieeken need to be able to field two more CRam-90s, or three more unique squadrons? Is that something that will improve the health of the game?

Alternate fix, since squadrons seem to be a concern. Squadrons cap at 25% of list points (and look at how nicely that fits into 400!)

1 minute ago, Alzer said:

I think the better question is.

Why should we go to 450-500? What is the major benefit of a points increase. What combinations are we seeking that require the points jump?

Coming from other games, when list building forces you to really trim and choose, the game tends to stay more competitive, as certain combos require sacrifices to pull off. It is nice to be able to fit your favorite gigantic supercombo into the game, but is that what the game needs to stay healthy competitively.

More to the point, does Rieeken need to be able to field two more CRam-90s, or three more unique squadrons? Is that something that will improve the health of the game?

Alternate fix, since squadrons seem to be a concern. Squadrons cap at 25% of list points (and look at how nicely that fits into 400!)

Because it makes bigger ships more appealing.

OR MAYBE MORE SPACE SHIPS EQUALS MORE FUN!

Just now, ImpStarDeuces said:

OR MAYBE MORE SPACE SHIPS EQUALS MORE FUN!

except if they're boring flotillas.

20 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

Because it makes bigger ships more appealing.

Sure, but how is that bettering the health of the game? Would being able to field two large ships with support flotillas be better than fielding 8-9 ship MSU? Or 166pts of Squadrons?