3 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Just to know. Despite weird fleets as Tokra's one how many of you end a game loosing after killing every enemy ships but flotillas? Or winning after loosing all your ships but flotillas?

I ask cause I just see it once and I am curious about it.

That's a great question. I think the reason why 2+3 is so good. If they do take out your combat ships... you are still only losing 4-7 at the worst.

My personal experiences with Traditional MSU... it's very hard... lose one ship without trading up and you'll probably out from a top finish.

3 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

@EggzavierOh my... I'd like this to be a PETA-free discussion! We just had the Kentucky Derby finish in America!

5 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

Ok. So worlds isn't a problem for you right?

There are also plenty of lucrative objectives that mean you have a really good chance at at least a narrow win even if all your "real" ships are dead if they lasted long enough to get you points. Superior Positions, Fighter Ambush, Precision Strike, etc.

13 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't have an issue if the same archetype does well. JJs and Brik's fleets last year were different enough that I was fine that 2 bomber lists made it to the top. But I do have an issue if the same fleet does well. Rieekan aces, whether with a Pelta, Biggs or GH, is doing too well IMO. Mothma MC30s might be a good counter to it, but the skill threshold is way to high for most players to do well with.

Even more concerning to me is why does the best counter to a Rebel list have to be another Rebel list?! lol

Just now, Wes Janson said:

Even more concerning to me is why does the best counter to a Rebel list have to be another Rebel list?! lol

I honestly don't think Mothma MC30s is a counter to Rieekan. Rieekan's ability affects the game state, and there really is no counter to it, per se other than just winning the bid and choosing to go 2nd. Mothma MC30s can certainly beat a Rieekan list, but so can anything else. Rieekan is just really attractive due to his ability being extraordinarily forgiving to mistakes, and I think his squadron game might be a little too good due to undercosted uniques being available post-CC.

4 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

Even more concerning to me is why does the best counter to a Rebel list have to be another Rebel list?! lol

Rebels are better than Imperials. I thought this was established with the OT. Imps are incompetent and had the DS destroyed twice by squads. Rebels always win.

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Ok. So worlds isn't a problem for you right?

12 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't have an issue if the same archetype does well. JJs and Brik's fleets last year were different enough that I was fine that 2 bomber lists made it to the top. But I do have an issue if the same fleet does well. Rieekan aces, whether with a Pelta, Biggs or GH, is doing too well IMO. Mothma MC30s might be a good counter to it, but the skill threshold is way to high for most players to do well with.

To be fair, from what I hear Rieekan Aces also requires skill, so while it did well at a (The?) major tournament, I still think Worlds meta should only be considered a meta of Worlds. Yes the fleet type held most of the top spots, but then only the best get to those spots, and the best decided to bring that list. It doesn't mean that that list defines Armada, nor does it mean that that list is unbeatable. For example my only opponent recently made one, and I beat it with 2 ISDs and 15 TIEs. He's run it 4 different ways now, and as Imps I beat it each type. Now I'd say we're both average-to-low skill players, and I would consider myself to be marginally better than him (current score is 5:22 in my favor, but most games were close), but I think I can claim that the average players wouldn't play too well with Rieekan Aces, just like they wouldn't play too well with Mothma MC30s. As such, Worlds meta doesn't really bother me. If squadrons take skill to play well, and RA even more, then it's likely that few people are playing it proficiently enough to spark these sort of debates, and since the best go to Worlds, of course an unusually large number of these players are prevalent.

So overall I don't think that flotillas, Rieekan, or anything else should be nerfed and have all the casual, 'lower skill required' fleets be punished for the abilities of the best.

21 minutes ago, Q-DOWg said:

That's a great question. I think the reason why 2+3 is so good. If they do take out your combat ships... you are still only losing 4-7 at the worst.

My personal experiences with Traditional MSU... it's very hard... lose one ship without trading up and you'll probably out from a top finish.

My expectation is that most of the time 2+3 fleet would still win despite losing all combat ships due to objectives and the fact that it will likely bomb, rieekan shoot and ram ships that the opponent sent in to get the kill.

EDIT: however I feel that changing tabling rules won't completely solve the problem as it'll only introduce a 21 points tax (to put rieekan on a lifeboat cr90b)

32 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Ok. So worlds isn't a problem for you right?

I had this big long reply that I decided to turn into a PM to avoid derailing this thread, but then I accidentally deleted it and i'm at work so I can't rewrite it. (It was good though, sorry.)

Long story short, I'm optimistically troubled by the results of worlds.

But I don't think it justifies the Cassandra levels of doomsaying regarding the iceberg that we all missed.

Armada is going to be fine

18 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

To be fair, from what I hear Rieekan Aces also requires skill, so while it did well at a (The?) major tournament, I still think Worlds meta should only be considered a meta of Worlds. Yes the fleet type held most of the top spots, but then only the best get to those spots, and the best decided to bring that list. It doesn't mean that that list defines Armada, nor does it mean that that list is unbeatable. For example my only opponent recently made one, and I beat it with 2 ISDs and 15 TIEs. He's run it 4 different ways now, and as Imps I beat it each type. Now I'd say we're both average-to-low skill players, and I would consider myself to be marginally better than him (current score is 5:22 in my favor, but most games were close), but I think I can claim that the average players wouldn't play too well with Rieekan Aces, just like they wouldn't play too well with Mothma MC30s. As such, Worlds meta doesn't really bother me. If squadrons take skill to play well, and RA even more, then it's likely that few people are playing it proficiently enough to spark these sort of debates, and since the best go to Worlds, of course an unusually large number of these players are prevalent.

So overall I don't think that flotillas, Rieekan, or anything else should be nerfed and have all the casual, 'lower skill required' fleets be punished for the abilities of the best.

This is an extremely well put post. But the thing is, from a competitive standpoint, you balance things by what they are capable of in the hands of the best players. Because if you don't, then the competitive scene dies. And that is pretty much never a good thing for the long term health of the game.

50 minutes ago, Wes Janson said:

Even more concerning to me is why does the best counter to a Rebel list have to be another Rebel list?! lol

If there's no love and support for medium and heavy ship play, the game is going to reward the side that has better smaller cheaper ships and fighters that are multipurpose. So, Rebel witchcraft. All big ships are good for these days is commanding fighters.

Q... thanks for the review. I've written up my own review of Armada history on Boardgamegeek relevant to how Ackbar blew apart big ship play, but I didn't want to do the legwork to dig up all those champion lists. Thanks for holding that information!

40 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Yes the fleet type held most of the top spots, but then only the best get to those spots, and the best decided to bring that list.

You are mixing a cause and effect here. Its not that the best decided to bring that list, its those who decided to bring that list ended up being best in that tourney.

2 minutes ago, pt106 said:

You are mixing a cause and effect here. Its not that the best decided to bring that list, its those who decided to bring that list ended up being best in that tourney.

Kinda? I mean there are players not in the top of that tournament that I would also consider to be at the top of the skill charts, as it were. But lets not take anything away from the guys who got there this time and say it was the just the list. (And I don't believe you were intending to put that out there, but thats how it comes off) Especially given I think both Justin and Nathan have had top 4 finishes before? At worlds? But I saw a lot of names I had seen before from just keeping tabs of tournament results.

Many of the best players came to the conclusion that this one list was the best way to win, which is in and of itself, troubling.

25 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

This is an extremely well put post. But the thing is, from a competitive standpoint, you balance things by what they are capable of in the hands of the best players. Because if you don't, then the competitive scene dies. And that is pretty much never a good thing for the long term health of the game.

First off: thanks!

You make a good point, and I think people should definitely take into consideration how a fleet performs in the most capable of hands. I am not saying ignore the fleet completely. I am merely pointing out that requesting an outright nerf, errata, or similar game-changing effect affects far more than just the competitive scene, and as such such a blanket 'fix' is, I think, both unwise and unfair. If the list appears to be dominating competitively, then naturally steps should be taken to overcome it. I find it hard to believe that a fleet does not possess a weakness, no matter how well put together or how well flown it is. Now, perhaps changes will be implemented to circumvent the issue: perhaps people will tire of the fleet, perhaps somebody discovers a way to beat it and it is devastated so completely it disappears into the depths of memory such that it is only mentioned in a 'Jeez, remember when Rieekan Aces was unbeatable? Sheesh' type of way. I do not know, and my opponent and I are not good enough to fly it successfully. So while I agree that the list may indicate a certain lack of creativity, I would like to point out the following points to put the matter into a different perspective (or perhaps repeat one, I dunno, but I figured it's worthwhile to state this):

1) This was a Worlds Tournament. So it has the best players, all of whom want to win. This means that they would both select hard-to-beat lists, and be able to play those well. Thus an increased appearance of such lists (even near-identical ones) should not only be the reality, but expected. I understand that the same happened with Demo lists until that was beaten. The latest 'unbeatable' list would naturally flood the world championship of a game: If you're paying to be there, why not take a list that has yet to have a sure counter?

2) Most people do not play in (major) tournaments, nor do they likely have the skill to win them, so defining a game by anything that appears in such a tournament as Worlds is a bit of a mistake in my opinion, as the data is skewed. Now, shmitty helpfully gathers data from other tournaments to balance put the info, but again most fleets designed to be 'competitive' would be based on what the community defines as 'competitive' so they would naturally be based on one another and thus share similar characteristics, which become more and more obvious.
For example, people keep on talking about activation advantage and its importance, so people strive for it, and so turn to flotillas as the cheapest option. Other people then complain about the prevalence of flotillas. But for myself and my opponent, who have never and likely will never play competitively, having a lot of activations isn't so important that we'd by multiple flotillas just for that purpose. We create a fleet based on what seems fun, and nothing is there that doesn't actively contribute to the battle.

3) Following point 2, since most people don't play competitively, changing the central rules of the games to prevent the few who do play in tournaments from flying the current fad-fleet instead of allowing it to follow the natural cycle of dominate --> die out seems a bit extreme and harsh.

Again, I am a bit divorced from the world 'meta', as I will never affect it and it will never affect me. Still I feel that pointing out opposing opinions is vital if one is to have a proper discussion. Please forgive me if I seem argumentative, that it is not my intent.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

Many of the best players came to the conclusion that this one list was the best way to win, which is in and of itself, troubling.

The lack of list and even faction diversity in the top 16 is what I find most concerning.

The chain of synergies is just so efficient and strong that it seems to choke out other potentially viable options.

Not to mention that the list is one of the best ways to take down itself too, so you can build strong and counterplay at the same time, whereas other lists that counterplay the list aren't as good as compared to other TAC lists.

20 minutes ago, pt106 said:

You are mixing a cause and effect here. Its not that the best decided to bring that list, its those who decided to bring that list ended up being best in that tourney.

I agree with Madaghmire:, I think it's the combo. If it was entirely down to the fleet, then I wouldn't have nearly tabled my opponent 4 times when he flew variations of that list. Instead I think that because people haven't come up with a counter that they claim is 'competitive' against other fleets people see it as the safest choice when aiming to win a tournament, and as I said above, at a competition such as Worlds people are both playing - and paying - to win. Thus the stakes are somewhat high, and so it's understandable that the current 'unbeatable' fleet is chosen. When you have a great skill at flying squads and managing fleets, then it's likely that you would win, since because others have won with the same fleet you have others' experience as well as your skill to use when fighting unfamiliar archetypes, and because nobody has beaten a skilled player flying your list your opponent has no such boon. As such it seems to be a skewed result.

So yes, the fleet helps, and may be a major boost, but it is not the sole reason of the player's success (indeed to say otherwise almost denies them the credit for their success*), and thus it should not be the cause of major rules changes.

*Not that I am saying that that is what you are saying. Please do not take it that way.

7 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Kinda? I mean there are players not in the top of that tournament that I would also consider to be at the top of the skill charts, as it were. But lets not take anything away from the guys who got there this time and say it was the just the list. (And I don't believe you were intending to put that out there, but thats how it comes off) Especially given I think both Justin and Nathan have had top 4 finishes before? At worlds? But I saw a lot of names I had seen before from just keeping tabs of tournament results.

Many of the best players came to the conclusion that this one list was the best way to win, which is in and of itself, troubling.

First of all, I'm not trying to take away anything from the guys that used the list and ended up on top. I'm pointing to a mistake in logic that is easy to make. And the easiest counterexample that I can make is JJ. He is definitely one of the best Armada players, he did not run the variation of that list and he did not end up on top this time.

pt - do you feel you could have made the top tables at Worlds if you were running that list?

3 minutes ago, pt106 said:

First of all, I'm not trying to take away anything from the guys that used the list and ended up on top. I'm pointing to a mistake in logic that is easy to make. And the easiest counterexample that I can make is JJ. He is definitely one of the best Armada players, he did not run the variation of that list and he did not end up on top this time.

This is actually a great point in favor of Rieekan aces being too good.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

This is actually a great point in favor of Rieekan aces being too good.

Actually I think it a bit of a red herring.

2 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

I agree with Madaghmire:, I think it's the combo.

Oh yes, this is definitely true! You need to be a very skilled player to end up in the top of a tourney of this size. Netlisting doesnt really work in Armada. However what I tried to point out is that the list was on all the top tables not because all best players decided that it is their best chance, but because the good players that decided to run something else ended up lower in the tourney.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

pt - do you feel you could have made the top tables at Worlds if you were running that list?

I don't think so. Even with the list that I played I made enough mistakes during the tourney. With the list I'm not familiar with and a playstyle that I personally don't like my chances would be significantly less.

Well, I consider you to be one of the best players of Armada.

I mean, even empirically, if we were to put a judgement on what that took:

1) Eveyrone's better than me

2) You've won a Regionals - that's already "No Questions" territory for me...

So that adds back in that there's a variety of factors - its not just the list, its the practice, its the ability, its the familiarity, right?

1 minute ago, pt106 said:

Oh yes, this is definitely true! You need to be a very skilled player to end up in the top of a tourney of this size. Netlisting doesnt really work in Armada. However what I tried to point out is that the list was on all the top tables not because all best players decided that it is their best chance, but because the good players that decided to run something else ended up lower in the tourney.

A true statement of fact. My point is that that doesn't mean that the list is OP nor should it result in a nerf or errata of any/all of the components that comprise it. That is my primary concern: that the community and game in general not be punished for the inabilities of most people to beat a list archetype.

No intended slight on the players who failed - Lord knows I'd lose to all of them whatever I ran, but their failure should merely encourage more creativity to out-fox the Rieekan-users, not a call of surrender.