1 hour ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but I still don't see a need for a Nerf or other rules change, beyond additional counters in future waves.

I still think this is just the first time the latest "super list" didn't get played out and countered by worlds. As evidenced by the many "I don't see it locally." statements.

Well I have to say that I played against the Original Rieekan Aceholes tm with a few lists myself over the past 6 months. And I have to say that it is hard to counter. You have to engage the ships while squad under GH. But even if you kill one, the bloody thing stays in play no matter what. Surviving retaliation from a Rieekan squad list with yavaris is tough. Especially with dutch double taping 2 guys.

I didn't want to dip into this, but...

If we are doing a wishlist for changes, instead of nerfing existing stuff just make big ships AA fire that bit more potent? A few upgrades to allow crit hits, maybe concentrated fire adds a dice to all AA attacks rather than a single squad? Indeed a red dice upgrade would certainly change things up.

Just something/anything to ensure taking on an ISD/MC80 becomes a dangerous undertaking for massed squadrons that does not have a foregone conclusion.

As for flotillas, they're big ship's friends (and a realistic addition to boot). No to nerfing flots, yes to more anti squad firepower.

I know we have taken the second world world navel conflict as an analagy as to how space opera looks at fighters. But if you look at modern navel combat fighters are even more dominant. There is a reason why high end blue water navy's are composed the way they are and that's because of the very scary power of a modern fighter bomber, one or two modern fighters can and have torn apart even dedicated air defence ships ( this is why the RN has completely unbalanced itself by purchasing a couple of super carriers). Modern fighters have all the advantages against ships which is why navy's can't operate without air cover. So I suppose you could argue it is realistic enough, even though I think we are talking space mountains that have no analog in any age of navel combat, and I would like my ISD to be able to swat a squadron like a fly.

I've been reading these posts about how FFG needs to fix the game etc. and, for whatever reason, felt like adding my two cents.

I'll preface this by saying that I am not a serious Armada player. I play casually.. average probably one game a week.. and don't see major tournaments in my future. I just don't have the time to dedicate to the game to get that good. I will probably end up getting Armada out to play with my kids as they get older as something to have fun with as a family. I realize that the organized play drives innovation and that's great. It's awesome that board games are popular enough that there are actually world tournaments for them. I also feel like the community here is generally supportive and obviously cares a great deal about the future of the game.

But from my perspective, a casual player, the OPness of certain builds really doesn't matter at all. When we play we try our best to have competitive builds.. but in the end we're playing to have fun and not necessarily to be the best and field the very most effective fleet we possibly can. My friend ran a Rhymerball against me for a few games that I could not beat.. just completely wiped the table with me.. but eventually moved on to something different because it's a game and we're flying plastic starships around and that's the fun of it for us. We buy ships and expansions for the ships.. not necessarily because we think they will be the fix to our fleet that will let us dominate.. but because we want something new and exciting to cruise around with in our fake space battles.

I think that you guys are great and I love coming here to read about your thoughts on the game and look at how you build fleets because it helps me be a better player and not embarrass myself when I take my ships out. But FFG has obviously sold quite a few sets of Armada and.. I could be wrong.. but these forums do not represent the majority of Armada players. How many more are there out there like me that love playing the game but don't come in here to post stuff? Those people are playing along happily ignorant of all the "brokenness" and "problems" with the game. They're just playing an awesome game where they get to shoot at spaceships and they love it.

I guess what frustrates me a little is wanting to come in and read about strategy and ideas about Armada's direction only to find people decrying the state of the game and saying that it is ruined. It's a game! It's ok! Even if FFG makes no more effort to support the game from this day forward I still have my ships and cards and I can play and have fun. I don't think anyone should have enough personal stake in the game to get that upset about it. Unless you're playing to put food on the table for your family I just don't get the anger about where the game is at.

And in the end FFG wants to make money.. and to make money they need to release new sets.. and there just aren't as many capital ships as small squadron type ships in the Star Wars universe. So I imagine they will keep releasing hero squads to create new content and giving players ways to make those squads useful. They want people to play and want people to be able to use all the ships so I'm sure they will do their best to balance the game for organized play.

I am still a bit skeptical about the Quasar with respect to survivability, but still hopeful about the new capital ship.

Defensive stats:

1 brace

1 redirect

7 shields (2 on front and sides; 1 on the back)

You had better be keeping this thing in the back, and using your 4 squadron commands through 2 lambdas, or else you are getting melted by a Demolisher with APTs.

400 poinst are not enough! We need 1200 points championships!!!

32 minutes ago, Democratus said:

If you watch the Star Wars movies, it's pretty clear that squadrons are king.

New Hope: Squadrons blow up Death Star

Phantom Menace : Squadron blows up Federation flagship.

Rogue One: Squadrons disable Star Destroyer

In the Star Wars universe, does a Star Destroyer ever do anything more impressive than ram a transport?

The whole franchise shows again and again that Star Destroyers are not very good ships and fighters are the answer to nearly every tactical problem.

So... I take it you feel the Rieekan fighter swarms are the epitome of Star Wars Armada play then? Maximum fighters and little else but enhancements to that fighter ball?

Glad we cleared that up. I wonder how I ended up with three redundant Imperial Star Destroyers then. Next I'll hear Hammerheads should auto-defeat ISDs within distance 1 of each other because the movies do it too?

It's also statements like these that caused Blail to explode. We want some acknowledgement over the dissatisfaction of this element of the game, dismissal tells us our concerns and opinions do not matter.

4 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

All the pieces coming together, dancing across the table. Such a difficult and intricate dance that X-Wing just can't compare to.

Is that a good enough reason to enjoy ALL that Armada offers?

Some of us feel one piece is lacking though, and it's a particular piece we really enjoy. The reason I'm sticking it out and not quitting over fighters is because I hold out hope the pendulum will swing back someday. The core of the game is strong... stronger than the green dice for ship survival of X-Wing. If AA ratings for capital ships were buffed to functional levels, we'd be good.

15 minutes ago, Jondavies72 said:

I do feel there is a component to the game which is lacking and therefore almost entirely missing and that's effective anti fighter/bomber fire from capital ships. You should be able to build in relatively effective AAA defences into a fleet. You have some options with a Demo glad 2 and instigator but we need some form of more dedicated AAA ships.... Maybe titles for Neb bs, CR90s, kittens and gladiators. Also some form of more focused AAA turbo laser, ion cannon and ordinance cards for larger ships ( say allowing a focused attack with all dice from an arc onto s single fighter ( a large capital ship should thematically be able to destory a single bomber squadron in a round) or upping the standard AA dice of large base ships against bombers ( we don't want a ship to be able to remove a whole light fighter wing ( Awings, tie fights etc) but bombers should actually have to suffer if they go on an attack run against a major war ship. As is single ISD, MC80 would struggle to down a single bomber squadron in 4 rounds, that's just unthematic.

Even with limited options I do love fielding AAA focused lists supported by a light fighter wing over 134 points of fighters. Give me instigator, demo glad two and 60 points of fighters........and I will do my best, give me a true capital ship ( ISD) with effective triple A and I'm a happy man.

Quasar fire II- 1 red AA. Have that, Demo-AA, and some FC-boosted ties (60-80, say), and it should be a nice combined arms AAA setup. I think it might be possible to squeeze in an ISD & a gozanti to have a fairly solid & balanced battlegroup.

I vote for an upgrade card that gives large base ships 4-5 anti fighter dice against bombers. make it so bombing runs against the big boys becomes risky........

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Armada would be very, very dull wo squadrons.

It would be just as dull WITH squadrons...if they were ineffective.

So I pretty much disagree with all of this.

Except: INTEL. That one was badly handled. If Intel allowed movement of own squads, rather than making enemy squads heavy, you could still screen. But that was probably ruled out by rebel squads (B-wing, looking at you here) being so slow they would be very disadvantaged.

I don't believe that squadrons shouldn't be in Armada, I also don't believe they should be without threat, I just think that despite FFGs best efforts they have creeped into a position of near supreme power. Squadrons, when influenced by outside factors such as flotillas, aces, commanders and various other upgrades have become insanely good for their value.

With the ability to near completely bypass defense tokens with lots of small increments of damage, especially under conditions like BCC, or Toryn, or the effect of Yavaris where the chance to hit spikes significantly, the value of a 10-14 point squadron rises exponentially. Add to that, that the ability to compartmentalize losses, make them far more valuable than what they cost. For example, even if they take down a bomber, they have only reduced the threat by 1-2 points of damage, when there are 5 or 6 of these, and in conjunction with other upgrades, they maintain their threat. Whereas a ship, being able to do 1-6 damage, when sunk loses all that ability at once.

I've said it before, and maybe a fury fed rant about how much I freakin' hate squadron play wasn't the best way to contribute to it, but even if they made it possible to combine ship activated squad attacks into a single pool it would reduce the (at least partially) evident power creep squadrons are gaining without diminishing what they can do to a point where they are no longer worth taking.

6 minutes ago, Jondavies72 said:

I vote for an upgrade card that gives large base ships 4-5 anti fighter dice against bombers. make it so bombing runs against the big boys becomes risky........

Exactly this. So rather than hanging around for two or three turns savaging a big ship to death, those bombers will want to get in, hit hard and get out... so friendly big ships can then exploit their efforts

8 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Some of us feel one piece is lacking though, and it's a particular piece we really enjoy. The reason I'm sticking it out and not quitting over fighters is because I hold out hope the pendulum will swing back someday. The core of the game is strong... stronger than the green dice for ship survival of X-Wing. If AA ratings for capital ships were buffed to functional levels, we'd be good.

It will, we may see more red die AA ships, we may see upgrades that hurt squadrons.

You know what I want to see... An ion upgrade that toggles the activation slider of squadrons on a crit... Far more useful

2 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Exactly this. So rather than hanging around for two or three turns savaging a big ship to death, those bombers will want to get in, hit hard and get out... so friendly big ships can then exploit their efforts

Yes it would add so much to the skill level of using bombers, a large group undertaking a single attack run against a capital ship ( before bugging out) to give your own follow up ship the advantage or staying clear of the big ships and hunting for a weakness in a fleet to take out a smaller escort/support vessel.

My biggest issue with this great game is the fact a group of bombers can park themselves infront of an ISD or MC80 with immunity round after round.

1 hour ago, Democratus said:

If you watch the Star Wars movies, it's pretty clear that squadrons are king.

New Hope: Squadrons blow up Death Star

Phantom Menace : Squadron blows up Federation flagship.

Rogue One: Squadrons disable Star Destroyer

In the Star Wars universe, does a Star Destroyer ever do anything more impressive than ram a transport?

The whole franchise shows again and again that Star Destroyers are not very good ships and fighters are the answer to nearly every tactical problem.

In the EU and Books star destroyers are far more deadly. The movies do not show their raw destructive potential.

10 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

dismissal tells us our concerns and opinions do not matter.

I haven't added anything to this conversation but holy mother of Tarkin man, you are refusing to see accept anything but outright pitchforks and torches being hoisted by the masses as dismissal. Just because some people don't agree with you when you and those who share your opinions obviously feel you are correct doesn't mean they are dismissive. To me, what is "GROSS" is the sheer amount of vitriolic spew over this topic I have been forced to wade through on the first page of the forum I come to to talk about a game I really like. This topic, and one's like it, are hurting that game I like by blowing this issue out of proportion and at that point I don't care what your opinion is anymore, because I am reacting to the way you are saying, not the content of your ideas.

I agree with you that something should be done about squadrons. I have faith it will be a small correction. I believe it will come soon and all of this will be wasted air. I know this will not be the last issue with this game. I know I, nor you, nor any other keyboard warrior with a lot of big ideas has the answer to make this game perfect . Ergo, can we please stop with the endless vomit enducing circle jerk of whining about it and get back to talking about something better?

Or not, it's a free country. You can be as miserable as you like. I am going to enjoy playing some awesome games of Armada.

Personally, I think an AA Flotilla per faction would go a long way towards countering high Squadron lists of any kind.

I'm thinking 0-1 anti-ship, 3 blue anti-squadron.

Don't neuter squadrons, just give them something to fear.

Maybe we should have ships throw their AA attacks independent of their standard attacks?

When you play a game like Tie fighter or one of the battlefronts with spess battles, the big ships don't stop turbolaser fire to shoot at squads, there are smaller short range turrets that shoot independently placed all over the hull. Maybe if a ship could shoot at all squads within their AA range every activation regardless of where their turbolaser attacks go, it would add more risk to squad play?

15 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Exactly this. So rather than hanging around for two or three turns savaging a big ship to death, those bombers will want to get in, hit hard and get out... so friendly big ships can then exploit their efforts

And then Tie Fighters would be useless, all Ties would need more health which means bombers get more health which means...

See the trend yet?

36 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I guess what frustrates me a little is wanting to come in and read about strategy and ideas about Armada's direction only to find people decrying the state of the game and saying that it is ruined.

The problem is that unless something changes people that write about strategy and ideas may just give up and move on to different games.

33 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

If AA ratings for capital ships were buffed to functional levels, we'd be good.

Exactly! I was heavily experimenting with ship AA for several waves and wave 2 it was doable, wave 4 it was hard but still within reach (and very hard but possible for a squadronless fleet that required high skill flying), wave 5 - squadronless fleets can't really survive and low squadron fleets with strong AA are doable but are at disadvantage.

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

And then Tie Fighters would be useless, all Ties would need more health which means bombers get more health which means...

See the trend yet?

The quote he was responding to specifically mentioned that the AA boost would be only against bombers, so as to avoid the trend you mentioned.

8 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

And then Tie Fighters would be useless, all Ties would need more health which means bombers get more health which means...

See the trend yet?

Hi Lyraeus

my suggestion was to have an upgrade ( only for large base ships or maybe specialist AAA ships) that improved the AAA dice against bombers, thus would allow large base ships to defend themselves against the larger more meanful threats ( bwings, Tie bombers etc) while still being relatively ineffective against light fighters ( ties, Awings etc). This would help balance the bomber keyword ( which has had some power upgrade in later waves) but not impact on normal fighters.

balance by not affecting fighters and only improving the anti bomber output of selected ships.

3 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

The quote he was responding to specifically mentioned that the AA boost would be only against bombers, so as to avoid the trend you mentioned.

Becuase you can't without creating a new game to do that or have cards that specify just bombers. Maybe they will do it maybe they wont

15 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

And then Tie Fighters would be useless, all Ties would need more health which means bombers get more health which means...

See the trend yet?

Tie fighters should be useless/ facing certain death if they hang around big ships. They're dogfighters, and if they're unfortunate to get the attention of large capital ship they should melt appropriately. Tie Bombers have that little bit more to get them through, but not enough so they can just park.

5 minutes ago, Jondavies72 said:

Hi Lyraeus

my suggestion was to have an upgrade ( only for large base ships or maybe specialist AAA ships) that improved the AAA dice against bombers, thus would allow large base ships to defend themselves against the larger more meanful threats ( bwings, Tie bombers etc) while still being relatively ineffective against light fighters ( ties, Awings etc). This would help balance the bomber keyword ( which has had some power upgrade in later waves) but not impact on normal fighters.

balance by not affecting fighters and only improving the anti bomber output of selected ships.

You still have those large ships using one of their 2 attacks against those squadrons when more often they can be used better to hit ships. Even with the added bonus you still have to shoot multiple turns to kill just a few bombers

1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

Becuase you can't without creating a new game to do that or have cards that specify just bombers. Maybe they will do it maybe they wont

Good point. I think that any new cards that can be created aren't going to be seen until wave 7 (and most likely wave 8). The only reaction that can be done fast enough is FAQ/Errata.