Can you explain your findings one more time? didnt follow.

43 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

FFG... doesn't really do well for fixing imbalanced games. In fact, I'd venture to say they're BAD at it, if we view their historical record, and their usual method of 'fixing' things only unbalances them worse. Netrunner? X-Wing? Whatever it is that squad-based game is called? And have you played the Edge of the Empire RPG? I seriously went back to the WEG d6 game, bought copies on eBay and everything - and then the group self-destructed just before I converted everyone's characters over.

I just moved to Armada because I felt, eyeballing it, that this was a much more fun game with a better thematic tie to the Star Wars universe, and the Corellian Campaign reminded me of a long-ago RPG campaign where the GM said that Luke failed, the Death Star killed the central Rebel leadership, and we had a splinter of the fleet to try and reunite and reignite the spark with.

But after testing both flavors of Rieekan (ramming and squads), it's... pretty brutal. The answers for it require you to double down so hard that it leaves you vulnerable to more balanced lists, and even IF you double down you still have trouble beating it.

Good on you to actually test the issues. A lot of people are saying its fine and also not testing either of them, and also saying it doesnt even show up in their local groups... which means they dont have any inkling of it. Which is different from saying, it didnt show up, but what's the fuss about. I can def appreciate that certain groups are going to be more healthy or casual for whatever reason

3 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Can you explain your findings one more time? didnt follow.

Basically, he's saying:

There were 10 players who brought lists with Rieekan, Yavaris, and 125+ points of squadrons.

Out of those 10 players, 7 of them placed in the final cut, and 3 of them were in the Top 4. Only one of those players were in the bottom quarter - basically washed out. That's a very strong showing for a very defined archetype.

As far as testing goes, it's a matter of being able to play against yourself. I had to proxy some of the components, because I don't have ALL the pieces, but when you're able to do that it's fairly trivial to tell if something is unbalanced, because one side is struggling constantly and the other side is breezing along with no hard choices to be made.

2 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Basically, he's saying:

There were 10 players who brought lists with Rieekan, Yavaris, and 125+ points of squadrons.

Out of those 10 players, 7 of them placed in the final cut, and 3 of them were in the Top 4. Only one of those players were in the bottom quarter - basically washed out. That's a very strong showing for a very defined archetype.

As far as testing goes, it's a matter of being able to play against yourself. I had to proxy some of the components, because I don't have ALL the pieces, but when you're able to do that it's fairly trivial to tell if something is unbalanced, because one side is struggling constantly and the other side is breezing along with no hard choices to be made.

not quite. These are regional results, not worlds. (assuming you are referring to Worlds when you say final cut.) Since I don't have full lists for worlds, I can't make good conclusions about it. So, 7 lists out of 10 were in a the top 4 of one of the 15 regionals that we have results for. 1 of 10 ended in the bottom quarter of a regionals.

I did the same analysis on the data, but only using 1 or 2 of the criteria to see if the results were mainly due to one factor, which is why I'm commenting about all 125+ squad points lists, non-rieekan yavaris lists, etc.

The only difference between the Rieekan, Yavaris Aceholes dominance & Clonisher build dominance that I see so far, is the timing. Instead of the new hot list appearing as a surprise winner in a major event, then being copied ad nauseum, the list appeared leading up to a major event, and was then copied ad nauseum in a major event. The fact that it hasn't happened already is what surprises me, almost as much as the desire to hit it with a Nerf bat, when every other "OP list" from the past was dealt with by the waves that followed.

Personally, I think this may be the result of people's negative experience with X-wing being projected onto Armada. I don't play X-wing, so that may be why I am not worrying.

FFG stated from the beginning of Armada, that they learned a lot from mistakes made with X-wing.

I'm not saying that the Nerf bat people are wrong, just that I don't see a need for a rule change to fix it. I also don't have an issue with the ramming rules, but there are plenty of people who, vocally, want a hard rule change there.

The point is, there is no "burden of proof" required for opinions. However, if a balance issue exists, the least invasive solution required to fix the problem should at least be attempted before exploring a rule change.

This isn't X-wing. The fact the FFG has had to make rules changes there is incentive for them to not make the same mistakes in Armada.

Maybe I am wrong, and the Rieekan Y &As will continue dominance, but only time will tell.

Turin, one key point you're overlooking in why the Rieekan list won is the interaction between capital ships and fighters. Specifically, how much more damaging squadrons are to attack big ships than the reverse.

Consider: B-Wings with Norra on backup and BCCs. When a B-Wing strikes perfectly it's effectively 4 damage on the facing arc. Bracing that still brings it down only to 3 points because Norra's crit effect is not considered when the brace token is used. This is a frightful combination to employ against capital ships with multiple small fighters that you can buy a lot of.

It goes beyond that though, since in a single carrier's activation you can summon up to 4 attacks on a single ship. Each attack can deliver possibly 1-2 damage if they hit. If you can muster up six attacks in one go (ISD supercarrier, Yavaris with a token), which attacks are you using your redirects and brace for, if you only have three tokens? They just keep coming and coming.

And when a capital ship wants to do anything against fighters, sure it hits all fighters in that arc, but AA is woefully ineffective in this game. Most ships have only one blue die on AA and the only fighters to feel threatened by this are TIE Fighters over three turns. For two dice AA, there's still a wide swing there, and the most successful ship in this regard (the Raider) is also the most fragile.

The one card that could combo as badly as Norra with stacked BCC B-Wings in the universe of fighters is Cluster Bombs. If it triggers, it's 4 directed damage that the target can't evade, either carving out a big chunk of hull or blowing anyone up with hull 4 or lower. It's never taken because of being a one-shot card, and it's problematic to use.

Other cards like Quad laser turrets and point defense reroute are things of ridicule, yet they're the only tools a capital ship has to try fighting off squadrons effectively. Right now, if a capital ship wants to tool up to fight squadrons, it must buy squadrons of its own, lock its dials into fighter commands, and alpha strike/tie up enemy squadrons before bombing begins. And if you go down that route, why not just optimize your squadrons to do the most damage you can and not bother with big ships?

Enter Rieekan, allowing the best squadrons (Aces) to persist after death to continue attacking.

So in my view, we need to have serious and effective anti-fighter cards to allow big ships, if they wanted, to really push back against squadrons. Something like Cluster Bombs, where I can throw hate confetti on squadrons if I want, but be able to do it again or against multiple squadrons. If Cluster Bombs hit every fighter in an arc when triggered, let's see how eagerly Yavaris wants to park all of its squadrons in my front arc before trying it.

That is what will bring the balance back and start to water down fighters. Let capital ships be more effective against them.

11 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

not quite. These are regional results, not worlds. (assuming you are referring to Worlds when you say final cut.) Since I don't have full lists for worlds, I can't make good conclusions about it. So, 7 lists out of 10 were in a the top 4 of one of the 15 regionals that we have results for. 1 of 10 ended in the bottom quarter of a regionals.

I did the same analysis on the data, but only using 1 or 2 of the criteria to see if the results were mainly due to one factor, which is why I'm commenting about all 125+ squad points lists, non-rieekan yavaris lists, etc.

Oh, should probably mention that if I look at non-Rieekan high-squadron lists, the results are not significantly different from the overall regionals population. So, most of the Squad/Ship imbalance that people see is probably due to Rieekan.

So, if I'm following this right, then the compiled data we have indicates that there is good reason to believe that the specific Rieekan/Yavaris/Rebel Aces build that showed up all over the top places at Worlds is overpowered.

However, there is no indication of non-Rieekan squadron builds, of either faction, being more dominant than others.

Which seems like the right conclusion to draw to me. Squadrons - in and of themselves - aren't a problem as the game stands. Squadrons with some force multipliers aren't a huge problem. Squadrons and Rieekan, combined with a number of other force multipliers, are.

Is that a decent interpretation of the data you've collected, @Baltanok?

46 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

So, if I'm following this right, then the compiled data we have indicates that there is good reason to believe that the specific Rieekan/Yavaris/Rebel Aces build that showed up all over the top places at Worlds is overpowered.

However, there is no indication of non-Rieekan squadron builds, of either faction, being more dominant than others.

Which seems like the right conclusion to draw to me. Squadrons - in and of themselves - aren't a problem as the game stands. Squadrons with some force multipliers aren't a huge problem. Squadrons and Rieekan, combined with a number of other force multipliers, are.

Is that a decent interpretation of the data you've collected, @Baltanok?

If we are to look for that, I'd reckon that Imp lists with BCC would fall under the category of non-rieekan squadrons: Questioning whether its BCC or Rieekan combined with Rebel squadrons that is the problem.

We should then also look for Rebel squadrons with BCC without Rieekan.

Frankly, I am more worried about rebel squadrons currently, only because its taken up all of the last 3 months of trying to fight against so unsuccesfully that i haven't actually gottten meaningful test games vs Imperial squadrons.

However, I'd also note that maybe its due to lower Imperial viability in general. As Rhymer and Imp squads WERE OP at one point in this game.

In that sense, Bwing are unlike anything else in the game... TWO bomber dice, one black. High enough health for any engagement. 3 AA dice are enough to be helpful in any circumstance. Double tapped via Yavaris, and speed weakness mitigated by FCT. Is the Bwing + BCC overpowered? In that 3Bwings, not 9 Bwing, + a few other squadrons really has too much firepower.

Let's look at it another way. Via BCC, your average dmg is something like 2.25 per Bwing attack. x2 for Yavaris, avg 5 dmg. pretty much all the dice coming up with a mimimum of hit.

Comparably, how many times have you thrown rages of fit for "dice luck" with ships? Ships cannot modify all of the dice in the pool sometimes even multiple times with 2 BCC and Toryn. Go ahead. Think. I'm definitely not one of those guys who wants you to be sheep and take my word. Think for yourselves. Remember what your games are like. Ships dice luck vs squadrons with BCC dice luck... vs squadrons with no BCC.

I still think BCC is too much efficiency. BCC should be unique. (is that REALLY that horrible of a nerf? Apparently the sky is falling and Armada is ded. Darth Plageuis can't even bring it back. Let's remember that none of us sqaudron people have actually said this plz. Thanks. That's putting words in my mouth.)

17 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

If we are to look for that, I'd reckon that Imp lists with BCC would fall under the category of non-rieekan squadrons: Questioning whether its BCC or Rieekan combined with Rebel squadrons that is the problem.

We should then also look for Rebel squadrons with BCC without Rieekan.

Frankly, I am more worried about rebel squadrons currently, only because its taken up all of the last 3 months of trying to fight against so unsuccesfully that i haven't actually gottten meaningful test games vs Imperial squadrons.

However, I'd also note that maybe its due to lower Imperial viability in general. As Rhymer and Imp squads WERE OP at one point in this game.

In that sense, Bwing are unlike anything else in the game... TWO bomber dice, one black. High enough health for any engagement. 3 AA dice are enough to be helpful in any circumstance. Double tapped via Yavaris, and speed weakness mitigated by FCT. Is the Bwing + BCC overpowered? In that 3Bwings, not 9 Bwing, + a few other squadrons really has too much firepower.

Let's look at it another way. Via BCC, your average dmg is something like 2.25 per Bwing attack. x2 for Yavaris, avg 5 dmg. pretty much all the dice coming up with a mimimum of hit.

Comparably, how many times have you thrown rages of fit for "dice luck" with ships? Ships cannot modify all of the dice in the pool sometimes even multiple times with 2 BCC and Toryn. Go ahead. Think. I'm definitely not one of those guys who wants you to be sheep and take my word. Think for yourselves. Remember what your games are like. Ships dice luck vs squadrons with BCC dice luck... vs squadrons with no BCC.

I still think BCC is too much efficiency. BCC should be unique. (is that REALLY that horrible of a nerf? Apparently the sky is falling and Armada is ded. Darth Plageuis can't even bring it back. Let's remember that none of us sqaudron people have actually said this plz. Thanks. That's putting words in my mouth.)

Honestly, I think BCC is fine as it is because your spending alot of points to make it work and position etc. We don't really see BCC too much around here in pairs. And we are a very competitive group pushing tournament play, doing well with what we have etc. It seems like a local issue to me cause squadrons still put out alot of damage with just one BCC.

Sorry but do we have a problem that being "Armada is broken"? I am sorry but I don't agree with the statement we need to fix Armada.

The ideas the OP has I think are interesting ideas and in fact I would like to see some them in the game but I don't think Armada is broken and needs to be saved by these.

Out of all the discussions of lists / fleets the one I dislike the most and see more issues with but not mentioned here is the Rieekan engine tec ram fleet. That is far worse.

I also see the reference of fat Han come up as an argument all the time and I personally see it as a weak argument, sorry. For the record I believe there was worse things than Fat Han and turrets that hurt x wing.

Not sure if FFG should or will listen to ideas posted on an Internet forum but posting ideas that could improve the game does not sound so bad to me. So here goes:

Rieekan: Limit his ability to ships. Corellian Conflict introduced many unique squadrons that make his ability too strong, also the synergy with Biggs is cheesy.

Flotillas: I feel that flotillas are a problem, but I admit that I have a hard time explaining why I feel that way. One thing is activation advantage, the other the Hit/Miss character of the scatter token that makes it frustrating to shoot at them at all. Introduce a "Skip" rule of some sort to remove activation advantage from the game, something like: "If you have fewer unactivated ships than your opponent you make skip the activation." This rule would hopefully nerf flotillas and boost larger ships. If that does not solve the problem think about other measures but don't change too much in one go.

Relay: Unlimited range encourages tactics that keep ships completely away from the fight. Rerule relay so that the relay ship has to be in range as the OP sugested. I would even allow "multi-relay" (ship->relay->relay->squad) to extend range even further if the wording was not too difficult. I also like the idea of relay loosing any "special powers" like yavaris and Flight controllers but like the OP said it does not fix the hiding in the corner aspect.

Yavaris: Is not a problem in itself, Relay rerule should fix it.

Cloak: this is not part of the uproars caused by worlds, but I would like it if they made it something that goes against the current "alpha strike is king" approach. the idea is to give squadrons with cloak better defenses as long as they stay cloaked (have not activated).

Option a) If your activation slider is on the not activated side attacks against you are treated as obstructed.
Option b) If you are attacked and your activation slider is on the not activated side you may force attacker to reroll one die.

It seems to me every problem that people have is centered around Squadrons.

Relay and Yavaris are obvious.

Rieekan's main problem seems to be in the squadrons that he keeps alive.

Flotillas - when they fly away from the battle they wouldn't be much of a threat if they didn't have relay and otherwise still moving squadrons.

In my area, very few people use a high amount of squadrons. 90% of all builds that have squadrons tend to have just enough to be a deterrent, so maybe 4 squadrons. I see none of the problem that people complain about, because in most of the games I play - people don't exploit any of these mechanics. And as a result the game is absolute bliss.

6 hours ago, Onidsen said:

So, if I'm following this right, then the compiled data we have indicates that there is good reason to believe that the specific Rieekan/Yavaris/Rebel Aces build that showed up all over the top places at Worlds is overpowered.

However, there is no indication of non-Rieekan squadron builds, of either faction, being more dominant than others.

Which seems like the right conclusion to draw to me. Squadrons - in and of themselves - aren't a problem as the game stands. Squadrons with some force multipliers aren't a huge problem. Squadrons and Rieekan, combined with a number of other force multipliers, are.

Is that a decent interpretation of the data you've collected, @Baltanok?

largely accurate, with 2 caveats:

1. Rhymer may also be over-represented at the top tables, but not as badly as Rieekan Aces. I intend to research this more.

2. We don't really know how much of the over-representation is due to players choosing the builds that appear powerful, and how much is those builds actually being too powerful. In all likelihood, there are some top players who stick with builds they like most of the time, and tinker with them to get the most out the list, while others pick the list type that they believe to be the most powerful, even if the perceived advantage is very small.

God I love it when Baltanok posts.

6 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

If we are to look for that, I'd reckon that Imp lists with BCC would fall under the category of non-rieekan squadrons: Questioning whether its BCC or Rieekan combined with Rebel squadrons that is the problem.

We should then also look for Rebel squadrons with BCC without Rieekan.

Rebel 125+ Squads Non-Rieekan:

BCC: 14 fleets, 1 top 4, 2 bottom quarter

No BCC: 8 total, 1 top 4, 4 bottom quarter

Imperial 125+ squads:

BCC: 7 total, 5 top 4, 0 bottom quarter

No BCC: 11 total, 3 top 4, 1 bottom quarter

Conclusion: BCCs do make fighter lists more effective. However, Rebel BCC lists without Rieekan are balanced, and Rebel non-BCC lists are underperforming. Imperial BCC lists are overperforming, and Imperial non-BCC lists are balanced. (roughly speaking)

B-wings, non-Rieekan: (includes B-Wing aces)

9 total lists, 1 top 4, 1 bottom

Non-B's:

13 total, 1 top 4, 5 bottom.

conclusion: B-wing Non-Rieekan lists are largely balanced. Sample size is too small to make a conclusion about B-wing non-Rieekan lists & the effectiveness of BCCs. The 1 top 4 bwing list was massed Bs with 2 YT13s & 2 HWKs, Pelta & MC30 (Calgary #1).

Shmitty & I did not consistently track multiple BCCs, just the presence of any BCC in a fleet. So I can't make conclusions about how effective it is other than theory-crafting.

personal opinion: I'd support making it not stack. Unique is probably a bridge too far.

Two very simple fixes.

1. Upgrade cards, titles, and all other "modifications" do not work through relay. They only work if the ship with the modification can activate the squadron.

2. Rieekan - must be in range 1-3 for a squadron, 1-5 for a ship to use.

3. I also like the idea of Flotillias NOT counting as starships for the purposes of winning the game.

How about an ACTUAL jamming field card that prevents the opponent from using Relay or possibly even activating their squads at all?

1 hour ago, Baltanok said:

2. We don't really know how much of the over-representation is due to players choosing the builds that appear powerful, and how much is those builds actually being too powerful. In all likelihood, there are some top players who stick with builds they like most of the time, and tinker with them to get the most out the list, while others pick the list type that they believe to be the most powerful, even if the perceived advantage is very small.

Yes, preference bias is always a thing, but dedicated tournament players will usually orient towards what is most effective, making a survey of the top cut lists reasonably effective - if you have a large enough sample size, you'll quickly find the lists where the player is more effective then the component power level and vice versa, because player skill lists will be rare and component power lists will be disproportionately weighted...

Of course, I don't know if there's anything equivalent to listjuggler for Armada...

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

I still think BCC is too much efficiency. BCC should be unique. (is that REALLY that horrible of a nerf? Apparently the sky is falling and Armada is ded. Darth Plageuis can't even bring it back. Let's remember that none of us sqaudron people have actually said this plz. Thanks. That's putting words in my mouth.)

One thing I'd support is instead of rolling independently for each squadron against a ship, rolling all the anti-ship dice being used at once for every squadron either activated or being rolled for during the Squadron phase - not only does this allow efficient use of defense tokens, but reduces the value of BCC, and somewhat lowers the value of high Squadron and raises the value of Squadron Phase activation. However, BCC is correctly priced, compared to cards like Ordnance Experts - it's very expensive, and unlike Relay actually requires the BCC carrier to be at SOME risk.

But someone else's idea of comparing a flotilla/squadron damage output versus regular ships was telling - a GR-75 with Expanded Hangars and BCC pushing 3 B-Wings is 71 points total and pushes 3 blues and 3 blacks at R8 with three dice rerolled. That's not outrageous, and has strengths and weaknesses compared to just buying a ship for that much.

It's when a bunch of OTHER stuff is stacked on top that it starts to feel outrageous.

Looking at all the mechanics as someone who just joined the game (and has spent a LOT of time fixing broken games), I feel as though Intel is the key mistake.

The core of the squadron minigame is "Squadrons fight squadrons, but some squadrons can do bad things to ships, so both sides need at least a few squadrons." That's very thematic to the universe; we see TIEs swarming to battle X-Wings and Y-Wings all the time, and when they break through the snub fighters do bad things to the ships the TIES were protecting.

Intel took a wrecking ball to that core. It turned the whole squadron minigame into a "Kill the Escort, kill the Intel, AND you have to kill the Bombers before they kill your ships too." That's what lets the Biggsball backed by Rieekan, AFFM, and Yavaris soar out of control - it simply wins the Escort portion of the minigame.

If Intel read something like, "Friendly squadrons activated by a Squadron Command within Range 1 may ignore engagement by enemy squadrons" or "Enemy squadrons at Range 1 must be in base contact to engage friendly squadrons" it would still be capable of being played around while still providing a benefit.

13 hours ago, DrakonLord said:

Thanks, I try to stay polite

i didn't say or state that FFG has perfectly balanced armada, nor did I intend to come across that way, but I don't believe armada is anywhere near unbalanced either.

any unbalances do get corrected though..... We haven't even seen what wave 6 will do yet and FFG is tirelessly working on all their games, which do happen to include armada, to keep them as balanced as possible, that's why new waves are still coming and when this wave comes out I expect to see a decrease in "omg reeikan op" and a brand new "this card is too strong"

(once again small phone screen, will post and fix things up later once I get back to my iPad)

Well, you succeeded.

I agree that FFG works hard to balance their games. Unfortunately, their method doesn't match their effort. When you attempt to balance games through introducing new cards/ships, you have the problem of power creep and unintended consequences. While there are problems with errata, unbalancing the game isn't one. The use of cards and ships simply adds new, powerful problems. Hence, flotilla to oppose demo.

I honestly don't see them as "powerful problems" but instead as viable options.

There are aspects of the game that I wish were different. Personally, I wish the ships potentially did damage to anything within distance 1 when destroyed based on size. 3 black for large, 2 black for medium, 1 black for small, & 1 blue for flotillas. It is a house rule I have toyed with since wave 2, for casual games. It would even help counter the heavy squadron lists... But I am not advocating a system wide rules change that I would like just because the community is in "full OP/Nerf panic mode". I'm not that opportunistic. If I offend with that, so be it. Most of the proposed rules changes and nerfs strike me as people using this perceived ballance crisis to advocate changing the parts of the game that they don't like, not to actually balance the game. If balance was the only motivation, we would see far more (or any) suggestions of repricing the ever so unbalanced cards, but the argument really isn't about balance, as much as "I don't like X, Y or Z about Armada, if we Nerf that, it will solve the problem."

Yes there is data suggesting Rieekan Y&As we're dominant at 1 tournament. Worlds or not, that is a very small sample size to make the argument that Armada is somehow unbalanced by this combination.

Remain calm. Concentrate on beating the latest & greatest OP list, and creating the next one. That was the thing that was missing from worlds this year. For once we didn't get a new, meta breaking, list coming out on top. Disappointing? Yes. Indicative of an unbalanced game? Not necessarily, no.

1 hour ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I honestly don't see them as "powerful problems" but instead as viable options.

There are aspects of the game that I wish were different. Personally, I wish the ships potentially did damage to anything within distance 1 when destroyed based on size. 3 black for large, 2 black for medium, 1 black for small, & 1 blue for flotillas. It is a house rule I have toyed with since wave 2, for casual games. It would even help counter the heavy squadron lists... But I am not advocating a system wide rules change that I would like just because the community is in "full OP/Nerf panic mode". I'm not that opportunistic. If I offend with that, so be it. Most of the proposed rules changes and nerfs strike me as people using this perceived ballance crisis to advocate changing the parts of the game that they don't like, not to actually balance the game. If balance was the only motivation, we would see far more (or any) suggestions of repricing the ever so unbalanced cards, but the argument really isn't about balance, as much as "I don't like X, Y or Z about Armada, if we Nerf that, it will solve the problem."

Yes there is data suggesting Rieekan Y&As we're dominant at 1 tournament. Worlds or not, that is a very small sample size to make the argument that Armada is somehow unbalanced by this combination.

Remain calm. Concentrate on beating the latest & greatest OP list, and creating the next one. That was the thing that was missing from worlds this year. For once we didn't get a new, meta breaking, list coming out on top. Disappointing? Yes. Indicative of an unbalanced game? Not necessarily, no.

thank you

Also rememberwe have wave 6 coming soon and with out knowing the new upgrade cards we can't say the rules even need changing.

If the lists dominating worlds this year are the problem the answer is simple I think:

Relay needs to be changed slightly: If a squadron is activated via relay it does not gain the benefit of any special rules from the activating ship. No FCT, no Yavaris, No toggle shenanigans.

1 hour ago, Grey Mage said:

If the lists dominating worlds this year are the problem the answer is simple I think:

Relay needs to be changed slightly: If a squadron is activated via relay it does not gain the benefit of any special rules from the activating ship. No FCT, no Yavaris, No toggle shenanigans.

That won't stop Brickhaus!