2 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

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.

This is my thought about AA flotillas - it punishes the squadrons that AREN'T being used, and further rewards the squadrons that ARE being used. It's also an example of power creep being used to address a problem in the rules, rather than, ya know, ADDRESSING the problem in the rules.

Adding "All squadrons attacking a ship take an AA hit" means that it's a matter of attrition getting those high-hull Ys and Bs down, so they're still USEFUL and can make several attacks, but it also means that there's risk/reward involved in making those attacks - and doesn't impact the low-hull squadrons any further.

It makes squadron-lite formations viable again. A Raider with Instigator and Quad Laser Turrets becomes a 53-point dead stop for a squadron ball - yes, they can kill it, but they'll take losses on the way, and it might well weaken them enough that attacking the bigger ships is a suicide run.

But there are a lot of potentially good ideas being tossed around to address the problem, many of which have easy errata to issue.

Just now, Eggzavier said:

Mate, that is gonna happen regardless of what Insert Game Company Here releases.

Literally it has been the only thing consistent in any game

Fixed that for you.

13 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

This is my thought about AA flotillas - it punishes the squadrons that AREN'T being used, and further rewards the squadrons that ARE being used. It's also an example of power creep being used to address a problem in the rules, rather than, ya know, ADDRESSING the problem in the rules.

Adding "All squadrons attacking a ship take an AA hit" means that it's a matter of attrition getting those high-hull Ys and Bs down, so they're still USEFUL and can make several attacks, but it also means that there's risk/reward involved in making those attacks - and doesn't impact the low-hull squadrons any further.

It makes squadron-lite formations viable again. A Raider with Instigator and Quad Laser Turrets becomes a 53-point dead stop for a squadron ball - yes, they can kill it, but they'll take losses on the way, and it might well weaken them enough that attacking the bigger ships is a suicide run.

But there are a lot of potentially good ideas being tossed around to address the problem, many of which have easy errata to issue.

Fixed that for you.

Lots of well thought out argument here. I would argue that 53 point dead stop to a squadron ball would be bad for the game, but the broader point regarding the viability of more fragile squadrons is valid. I have no doubt thats why Sloane doesnt work with the traditionally high hulled imperial rogues.

2 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

Lots of well thought out argument here. I would argue that 53 point dead stop to a squadron ball would be bad for the game, but the broader point regarding the viability of more fragile squadrons is valid. I have no doubt thats why Sloane doesnt work with the traditionally high hulled imperial rogues.

Instead it works with high-hull Lambda Shuttles and TIE Defenders.

The reason she doesn't work with Rogues is because of Firesprays and Bossk.

21 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Instead it works with high-hull Lambda Shuttles and TIE Defenders.

The reason she doesn't work with Rogues is because of Firesprays and Bossk.

Sure, but the original version was swarm only. So if they moved to include those I'm guessing theres a reason.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

Sure, but the original version was swarm only. So if they moved to include those I'm guessing theres a reason.

$10 Bet - Future proofing vs an Upgrade/Ace that provides a Swarm Bubble to those that don't have it.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

$10 Bet - Future proofing vs an Upgrade/Ace that provides a Swarm Bubble to those that don't have it.

By what wave?

Didn't really think about it, but if it is active future proofing for that, it would have to be appearing somewhere 7-9, so it would be "By" Wave 10. As an assumptive Guess.

Sure, you're on.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Sure, but the original version was swarm only. So if they moved to include those I'm guessing theres a reason.

On the anti-ship side, they are also excluding the Decimators. So, there isn't the ability to spend a defense token, while also doing damage to the ship. (except in the very rare case of phantoms attacking ships, and rolling a hit/acc on their red dice)

Don't forget that Sloane is not just anti-ship.

Advanced is improved too.

18 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Sure, but the original version was swarm only. So if they moved to include those I'm guessing theres a reason.

They changed it because it gives people a valid reason to take Phantoms.

-edit- and also, as noted above, Decimators. Sloane would have made Decimators utterly ridiculous if there was ever a way to add Swarm to them.

27 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

$10 Bet

20 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Sure, you're on.

Is that $10 American, Canadian, or Australian?

9 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

They changed it because it gives people a valid reason to take Phantoms.

-edit- and also, as noted above, Decimators. Sloane would have made Decimators utterly ridiculous if there was ever a way to add Swarm to them.

They might have changed it for that reason. They might have also decided in playtesting that limiting it to swarm squadrons wasn't doing enough. They might have decided that its fine if it happens to work with defenders and lambdas also because given what you paying for them Lambdas are still not great antiship with sloane and defenders are only really taking advantage of half of her ability.

Just now, Eggzavier said:

Is that $10 American, Canadian, or Australian?

Dras can choose.

Just now, Madaghmire said:

Dras can choose.

Make sure you make him choose ahead of time.

You know how slippery those Australian Canadians can be

3 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

Make sure you make him choose ahead of time.

You know how slippery those Australian Canadians can be

If I win I get 10 Australian, if he wins its 10 pounds?

3 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

If I win I get 10 Australian, if he wins its 10 pounds?

Something like that, I'm sure.

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

If I win I get 10 Australian, if he wins its 10 pounds?

10 pounds of Canadian Bacon?

2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

10 pounds of Canadian Bacon?

Pfft like i would let bacon out my hands.

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

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."

I mean I get where youre coming from, but this really isnt what I was meaning- about the sky falling down that is.

I honestly think a small size flakk and gunboat flotilla are a needed option when it comes to keeping flotillas a viable and interesting part of the game, and the release of a more flakk oriented- though I agree three dice is to many!- is perhaps part of the solution to the current problem. There are other options- along the lines of flechette torps for example- that it could utilize to provide real cover without directly wiping squadrons out.

So many people hailing Rieekan as this monster... and acting like Imperials are awfu? Seriously?!?!

I honestly think the best list in the game right now is a Vader fleet with at least 4 arquitens. Never seen anyone even come close to it. I may need to actually go to Worlds next year and see for myself what all the hub bub is about.

2 hours ago, Crabbok said:

So many people hailing Rieekan as this monster... and acting like Imperials are awfu? Seriously?!?!

I honestly think the best list in the game right now is a Vader fleet with at least 4 arquitens. Never seen anyone even come close to it. I may need to actually go to Worlds next year and see for myself what all the hub bub is about.

Britt, MI Regional champ, played against a 4 Arq list and tabled it. Defiance Ackbar80 was able to one shot them one per turn. Never stood a chance.

Not to try to discourage you, but there are builds that will straight counter it, and sadly those builds are pretty common.

3 hours ago, Grey Mage said:

I mean I get where youre coming from, but this really isnt what I was meaning- about the sky falling down that is.

Yea my comment was aimed directly at you and I should have clarified. My bad. I just saw the comment and the ones before and the argument formed. You had the perfect quote for me to use so I just went with it.

Like I said, I'm totally fine with talking about additions to the game. But I don't think we need multiple threads discussing how to fix the game and things we need in the game before it's "playable" again.

2 hours ago, Crabbok said:

So many people hailing Rieekan as this monster... and acting like Imperials are awfu? Seriously?!?!

I honestly think the best list in the game right now is a Vader fleet with at least 4 arquitens. Never seen anyone even come close to it. I may need to actually go to Worlds next year and see for myself what all the hub bub is about.

Any squads?

Give us a build Crabbok

Not being mean but there's a bunch of lists I can think of that would run rings on it.

6 minutes ago, Captain Weather said:

Any squads?

Give us a build Crabbok

Not being mean but there's a bunch of lists I can think of that would run rings on it.

Last 2 tournaments I ran no squads. This is an older build here that was able to shut down squadrons pretty easily.

4x Arquitens-Class Light Cruiser w/ Enhanced Armament (1 had Vader)

2x Raider 1 Corvette w/Ordnanc Experts and Flechette Torpedoes

And the one from this past weekend (Small ship only tournament):

4x Arquitens (2 with enhanced Armament, 1 naked, 1 with only Vader)

3x Gozanti Assault (red die) Each with Phylon Tractor Beams, 2 with Slicer Tools, and 1 with Suppressor title

And this one I haven't run yet, but it's very similar to my Campaign build

4x Arquitens with TRC (1 with Tagge)

1 Gozanti Assault

Squadrons:

3x Decimator

1 YV-666

Boba Fett

Bossk

This last list I think I'd update a bit before flying it - it was just an idea and I don't really like Tagge so much. Would probably drop a Decimator and toss Vader on there. Maybe upgrade a few TRCs to Enhanced Armament.

And no man I don't think you are being mean at all. In fact I would LOVE for someone to actually stand toe to toe with my Arquitens. Make me see the light! ha ha! Honestly it's so bad that I just don't want to play them anymore. I show up to a tournament people start complaining. End of this month there's a high payout tournament and I'm actually considering playing rebel bombers (Dodonna, not Rieekan) instead just to change it up. Or maybe 2x LMC-80s.... that could be fun.