10 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

That's why I want an AA Flotilla. Triple blue AA on a fragile platform. Strong against Squadrons, weak against ships. Oh, and a 0 or 1 Squadron value.

Area denial for squadrons, but with built-in weaknesses.

Strong against squads, weak against ships is good.

Just make sure that your hypothetical ship isn't cheap enough that it's more effective at AA than it's weight in TIE-INT or X-Wings + support ships. A 3 blue AA ship is effectively 3 x-wings or squints + an expanded-hangar flotilla (since you should be able to shoot 4 squads at a time). So, somewhere around 60 points, if the anti-ship values are around 3-5 dice in the primary arc. (adding some dice to compensate for the squads better ability to get through defense tokens.)

If we strip off anti-ship effectiveness to bring the thing down to a standard flotilla, it might be balanced around 45 points.

Better, in my mind, would be 3 dice, 1 blue/2 black. Somewhat more damage, but less area covered, so could probably be balanced in the 30 point range. (I'd need to sim it out to be sure) That would be a good close-in AAA escort for an ISD/MC80. The squad admiral has to face the tough choice of killing the ISD & getting savaged by the escort or escorts, or picking the escorts apart & hoping to get his carriers out of the way of the charging bull. The Gunship admiral has to choose his maneuvers carefully to get unobstructed shots without leaving himself unprotected by the escorts.

I just want to say a few things.

@Blail Blerg , @Norsehound , and the many others I've talked to and who have expressed deep concern about Rieekan Aces over the past several months: we need to balance our concerns with other concerns. A defeatest attitude to this issue is ultimately of no service to anyone on either side of the issue.

Second: there are many players who aren't seeing these issues come up in your local gaming groups. This does not mean that FFG shouldn't consider aspects of the game that affect competition or players in groups that prefer competition rules. We can coexist in the same general meta, with a recognition of problems that affect each of our needs.

Third: it is indisputable that some cards and models are having an outsized impact on how the game is played even outside competition. When players believe that one set of cards is affecting the game more than they should, that is not inherently a defense of other cards that may also have an outsized influence.

Fourth: By its nature as a miniatures game with models and upgrades spread out across multiple releases, there are always going to be things that are currently more effective than others because the selection of player options expands. We aren't terribly concerned about old meta staples like the Clonisher, and suddenly we are terribly concerned about Yavaris. This is the nature of living, vibrant games with strong developer support. Just because a change has unforseen consequences in the future doesn't mean that it's a bad idea at the time of release.

5 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I just want to say a few things.

Fourth: By its nature as a miniatures game with models and upgrades spread out across multiple releases, there are always going to be things that are currently more effective than others because the selection of player options expands. We aren't terribly concerned about old meta staples like the Clonisher, and suddenly we are terribly concerned about Yavaris. This is the nature of living, vibrant games with strong developer support. Just because a change has unforseen consequences in the future doesn't mean that it's a bad idea at the time of release.

I'd like to agree wholeheartedly to the entire post, and add this note to Cactus' 4th point: As a physical game, the ability of developers to rebalance issues is limited, and takes time. If we were playing Armada Online, FFG could instantly adjust B-wings to now cost 15 points, or change the crits on their (and only their) anti-ship dice to appear 23.1% instead of 25% of the time, or whatever is needed. (and adjust it back if they overcorrect) Tabletop Armada needs to wait for a new wave, and the player-base needs to see some results of that new wave on the table.

And there's also the danger of what happened when FFG nerfed Emperor Palpatine and TIE/x7s - Imperials virtually disappeared as a competitive faction. Man, that last Worlds tournament was... not well balanced betwixt factions.

20 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I just want to say a few things.

@Blail Blerg , @Norsehound , and the many others I've talked to and who have expressed deep concern about Rieekan Aces over the past several months: we need to balance our concerns with other concerns. A defeatest attitude to this issue is ultimately of no service to anyone on either side of the issue.

Second: there are many players who aren't seeing these issues come up in your local gaming groups. This does not mean that FFG shouldn't consider aspects of the game that affect competition or players in groups that prefer competition rules. We can coexist in the same general meta, with a recognition of problems that affect each of our needs.

Third: it is indisputable that some cards and models are having an outsized impact on how the game is played even outside competition. When players believe that one set of cards is affecting the game more than they should, that is not inherently a defense of other cards that may also have an outsized influence.

Fourth: By its nature as a miniatures game with models and upgrades spread out across multiple releases, there are always going to be things that are currently more effective than others because the selection of player options expands. We aren't terribly concerned about old meta staples like the Clonisher, and suddenly we are terribly concerned about Yavaris. This is the nature of living, vibrant games with strong developer support. Just because a change has unforseen consequences in the future doesn't mean that it's a bad idea at the time of release.

Perhaps, but I've been waiting for decent upgrades to resurrect the VSD-VSD-ISD core build I've enjoyed, but haven't been able to fly, since Ackbar destroyed it in mid wave 2. Every wave since then has enhanced every other build but imperial med-heavies.

Nothing has been done to make medium-large ships more self-sufficient against fighters except to take other fighters. Nothing has been done to prevent the creeping escalation of activations. Nothing has been done to increase the resiliency of big ships as small ship attack advantages (TRCs, APTs) have increased.

The result of these things that hurt few-ship/large-ship builds has been allowed to escalate at the expense of an aspect of the game that helped me get into Armada in the first place... an aspect that is very much part of what goes into the design of the Imperial faction. With Wave 6, over half of the Imperial unit selection will be medium-heavy ships. Of the ones we have now, only the ISD is the most reliable.

All I can do is keep going forward with the game and try to look forward to the things in front of me. So fighters are the name of the game today... I guess I can try pairing the new Quasar with the Arquitens I've been flying to maybe make a list I like. It won't have the luster and majesty of my triple super capital list, and I won't stop longing for it. But it will have to do, because the game is worth sticking around for. And maybe someday something will change... I'm confident FFG is not going to let this dominating meta archetype stand for long. We'll have to see what their solution is.

19 hours ago, Green Knight said:

If FFG is looking at "stuff", here is a list from me:

Sane agreement:

1) Relay squadron should be in range of ship activating thru it. I like relay but why does it break core squadron activation mechanic regarding distance?
2) No stacking effect / multiple re-roll. You should get only ONE re-roll.
3) End double ramming. Single ram = canon. Double ram = violation of physics hard .
4) Rieekan squadrons OP. Should affect ships only.

Insane recommendations:

Attack strength of big ships should be 50% greater - I don't think squadrons are a problem. They should be lethal. But big ships have just become big juicy targets without corresponding lethality.

OR

Game Redesign:

1) Command Phase - same
2) Attack Phase - ships activate following original rules/initiative, use commands, attack/push squads, but are not removed from board if damage=hull until end of phase (Rieekan everything).
3) Movement Phase - surviving ships move following original rules/initiative
4) Squadron Phase - same
4) Status Phase - same

Activation order matters because firing first is always an advantage (due to crits), however it resolves the "drive-by" scenario in which MSU lists first-last large ships. Does it really make sense for an ISD to take fire from a CR90, move up to it, the CR90 to fire again, and then just fly away unmolested? If all ships fired before moving, small ships would have reason to fear large ones. They may fire first, but there will be retaliation. Plus it makes sense because LASERS. It also makes Rieekan's effect only a bonus in the movement phase where ramming happens, thereby maintaining his intended purpose.

Or don't change anything and we'll see whats in the new releases! What do I know?!

7 hours ago, Norsehound said:

I'm confident FFG is not going to let this dominating meta archetype stand for long. We'll have to see what their solution is.

Yup. That pretty much encapsulates the sum total of my feelings on this subject.

I've been calling for a Turbolaser upgrade that adds 1 blue to AA. This denies the Raider of another AA. Prevents flotillas from taking it, and thus prevents spam AA flots. The cheapest ship would be a CR90A, but you'd rather have TRC in most cases. Turbo slot is the best fit because it is a highly contested slot. I don't want an upgrade that becomes an auto include because that's how you kill a game.

8 point Turbolaser: Increase AA by 1 blue.

ISDs drop XI7 for 3-5 AA dice (Kallus+CF). Vic Is would have an even better role with this upgrade. Libs get the biggest buff, much needed IMO, with H9 and AA since you can force Scatter aces to take 1 damage post Brace.

Changing the card text to "Whenever you attack a squadron, you may add 1 blue die to the attack pool" would give a buff to QLT. Counter 2 on an ISD or MC80?

It doesn't break the squadron game. You can't run without them, but it does alleviate the need to always run 60+ points of squads. It doesn't kill Rieekan aces, but it can take the bite out the fleet. When it loses it's bombers, it won't have much punch left.

8 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I've been calling for a Turbolaser upgrade that adds 1 blue to AA. This denies the Raider of another AA. Prevents flotillas from taking it, and thus prevents spam AA flots. The cheapest ship would be a CR90A, but you'd rather have TRC in most cases. Turbo slot is the best fit because it is a highly contested slot. I don't want an upgrade that becomes an auto include because that's how you kill a game.

8

Why not have spam AA flots? A dedicated flak platform supporting big ships would add novelty/ variety and mean big ships aren't again reduced to chasing down squadrons - they can concentrate on trading blows with their opposite number whilst the flak-flot (patent pending ) deals with evil Rieekan zombie hordes. Plus, if big ship does want to have a go at AA, it'll add even more firepower to shredding squads with the flot.

Flak-Flot: For A Brighter Armada.

3 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Why not have spam AA flots? A dedicated flak platform supporting big ships would add novelty/ variety and mean big ships aren't again reduced to chasing down squadrons - they can concentrate on trading blows with their opposite number whilst the flak-flot (patent pending ) deals with evil Rieekan zombie hordes. Plus, if big ship does want to have a go at AA, it'll add even more firepower to shredding squads with the flot.

Flak-Flot: For A Brighter Armada.

Because that would exacerbate the "Must take 3 flotilla in every fleet" problem. A solution to that is "Flotillas do not prevent tabling". Also, that slot would be Offensive Retrofit, which means Raider could take it and toss 3 AA at all squads.

The issue is finding balance. You can't be heavy handed and give everything +1 AA dice because now there is no reason to run squads which takes the diversity out of the game. But it needs to be good enough so a player can identify a problem with their fleet and easily rectify it.

For example: APTs are an auto-include on black dice ships. The counter to APT is DCO. But you can't take DCO on every ship, and it takes the highly contested officer slot. For both of those reasons, DCO is very uncommon and APT is allowed to run rampant.

13 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Why not have spam AA flots? A dedicated flak platform supporting big ships would add novelty/ variety and mean big ships aren't again reduced to chasing down squadrons - they can concentrate on trading blows with their opposite number whilst the flak-flot (patent pending ) deals with evil Rieekan zombie hordes. Plus, if big ship does want to have a go at AA, it'll add even more firepower to shredding squads with the flot.

Flak-Flot: For A Brighter Armada.

I like the idea of flak flotes. No squadron value, ideally, since you dont want to just pour kerosene on the fire. But I think they could be a helpful answer to many issues, depending on implementation.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Because that would exacerbate the "Must take 3 flotilla in every fleet" problem. A solution to that is "Flotillas do not prevent tabling". Also, that slot would be Offensive Retrofit, which means Raider could take it and toss 3 AA at all squads.

The issue is finding balance. You can't be heavy handed and give everything +1 AA dice because now there is no reason to run squads which takes the diversity out of the game. But it needs to be good enough so a player can identify a problem with their fleet and easily rectify it.

For example: APTs are an auto-include on black dice ships. The counter to APT is DCO. But you can't take DCO on every ship, and it takes the highly contested officer slot. For both of those reasons, DCO is very uncommon and APT is allowed to run rampant.

Flak-flotes as in, a new flotilla that has 3+ AA dice, not an upgrade.

8 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

And there's also the danger of what happened when FFG nerfed Emperor Palpatine and TIE/x7s - Imperials virtually disappeared as a competitive faction. Man, that last Worlds tournament was... not well balanced betwixt factions.

That was an over reaction on the part of Imperial players, not a lack of competitive options for them.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Because that would exacerbate the "Must take 3 flotilla in every fleet" problem. A solution to that is "Flotillas do not prevent tabling". Also, that slot would be Offensive Retrofit, which means Raider could take it and toss 3 AA at all squads.

The issue is finding balance. You can't be heavy handed and give everything +1 AA dice because now there is no reason to run squads which takes the diversity out of the game. But it needs to be good enough so a player can identify a problem with their fleet and easily rectify it.

For example: APTs are an auto-include on black dice ships. The counter to APT is DCO. But you can't take DCO on every ship, and it takes the highly contested officer slot. For both of those reasons, DCO is very uncommon and APT is allowed to run rampant.

I keep seeing "raider could then" issues with anti squad stuff. I feel like a lot of the concerns about raiders vs squads power creep were addressed at inception when they didnt get a redirect.

4 minutes ago, ianediger said:

Flak-flotes as in, a new flotilla that has 3+ AA dice, not an upgrade.

If it's priced correctly, maybe. Like 40 sum points.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

If it's priced correctly, maybe. Like 40 sum points.

Price/defenses/upgrade slots/natural armaments would all need to be carefully considered.

One thing i do like about it, conceptually, is that its a complete waste to not put it in the fight. Which is one of the major problems with our current flotes.

3 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I keep seeing "raider could then" issues with anti squad stuff. I feel like a lot of the concerns about raiders vs squads power creep were addressed at inception when they didnt get a redirect.

Raider with initiative can do some damage. Plus it can take FT and Kallus and run away at speed 4. The Raider is an excellently designed ship and it's dirt cheap. And with the title, it could take 2 3 dice shots at a squad. Or 5 (Kallus+CF) dice and 4 dice at a single ace with a +1 AA upgrade.

Just now, Grey Mage said:

That was an over reaction on the part of Imperial players, not a lack of competitive options for them.

Palpatine was the only thing keeping TIE Interceptors on the table - Sabine was ruining them, but at least there was the theory of arc-dodging well enough that Sheev could save them. Not bad for a Wave 2 fighter. But honestly, that's pretty far from Armada.

I still like my notion of "Ships fire their AA at attacking squadrons before the squadron attacks."

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Price/defenses/upgrade slots/natural armaments would all need to be carefully considered

I agree, but saying flak-flotilla puts an image of a 20 point ship with 3 blue AA. And now a large portion of the game is dead.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Raider with initiative can do some damage. Plus it can take FT and Kallus and run away at speed 4. The Raider is an excellently designed ship and it's dirt cheap. And with the title, it could take 2 3 dice shots at a squad. Or 5 (Kallus+CF) dice and 4 dice at a single ace with a +1 AA upgrade.

It can, sure. I'm just saying they'd be hard to really break. Because they are still fragile AF. Particularly against squadrons, ironically.

2 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Palpatine was the only thing keeping TIE Interceptors on the table - Sabine was ruining them, but at least there was the theory of arc-dodging well enough that Sheev could save them. Not bad for a Wave 2 fighter. But honestly, that's pretty far from Armada.

I still like my notion of "Ships fire their AA at attacking squadrons before the squadron attacks."

Sabine is a pain, but not uncounterable- no one expects a turret with ruthlessness, and bomb-lists suffer to Ion Cannons *which no one runs because of long standing tradition, but are an effective counter to both it and the castling issues*. I suppose we shouldnt get into x-wing balance in the middle of armada balance though.

Regardless, I had the same thought back in waves 1 and 2 that AA before the squadron attacks would be the deal, but now I dont think it would work, as ship AA has been increasing in effectiveness- just not quickly enough. Quad Lasers dont end up being used because they dont chew through the hull quickly enough, but if htey did people would complain and not use squadrons....

The AA Flotilla is a needed addition, as are an upgrade or two that *effectively* function against squadrons.

I think a bigger issue is the squads at 8 HP. They are harder to remove than a CR 90 for a third of the points at times.

I think adding more AA flotillas pushes 3 hitpoint fighters like the interceptor or the tie fighter further from the game. These were supposed to be the things that would kill fighters, but they are laughably easy to kill. Particularly when you compare them to the 5-8 hitpoint squads that are effectively immune to AAA in a 6 turn game.

Maybe we need an upgrade that makes all of your 3 point fighters count as obstructed against ship anti-squadron shots? or something that gets a bonus of like 2 blue dice against anything that starts with 5-6 or more hit points?

Give us a reason to take the more fragile squads.

Braha'tok Gunship / Tartan Patrol Cruiser for AA Flotilla '2017'

or Non-AA flotillas.

i just want more Flotillas. And small ships. And medium ships.

Im good with fighters and large ships for now.

3 minutes ago, Grey Mage said:

The AA Flotilla is a needed addition

This is the exact mentality I am calling for restraint against. I'm calling it now. When a flak-flotilla or AA based upgrade is NOT released, a ton of players are going to act like it's the end of the world and Armada is dead because they think they have no way to deal with squads.

As it is right now, Armada is growing despite what people think. We, as a community, need to remember new players are joining and reading the forums. The constant "Armada is dead because of X" is a pretty *** first impression for prospective players, or someone who just bought the core set.

Armada does have it's issues, but we can't be going full tilt when things don't go our way or your idea of what Armada should be does not happen. Why would someone buy in when all they see is all the things Armada needs and should be?

FFG will fix the game as they see fit. Discussing additions is fine, but we can't be going full blown "Armada will never be good if I can't have X."

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

a ton of players are going to act like it's the end of the world and Armada is dead

Mate, that is gonna happen regardless of what FFG releases.

Literally it has been the only thing consistent in this game