Would this work as the game progresses?

Say both players start with 3 activations then in one activation First player loses 2 ships. Can first player now keep passing until he has last activation and then first next turn?

This is my out look for a pass rule.

"If you're out numbered by 2 or more ships, you get ONE pass per turn. Just ONE, use it wisely

If you stop being out numbered by 2 or more ships you don't get to pass any more."

Having less ships even if they are bigger ships in a fight has always been a tactical disadvantage and this game reflects it.

4 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

Power creep is a negative aspect. It may be hard for some people to understand this, but Demolisher and Major Rhymer have had significant impacts on introducing new ships and abilities for Imperials. No doubt Rieekan/Yavaris will do the same for Rebels.

I'm pretty sure that Yavaris is at least part of why Rebels dont have access to relay 2. Rieekan may also be why rogue squadron lost escort.

Double up.

2 hours ago, Irokenics said:

Would this work as the game progresses?

Say both players start with 3 activations then in one activation First player loses 2 ships. Can first player now keep passing until he has last activation and then first next turn?

If the rule is worded along the lines of 'if your opponent has one or more extra activations then you may pass this activation, if activations are equal you may not pass' then first player would never be able to pass in such a way that they had last activation. Say in your above example 1st player has lost two ships and only has one remaining.

They can pass 1-3, 1-2, but after passing twice it would come back to them and be even 1-1, forcing them to activate.

Basically any wording of a pass rule dependent on extra activations should make it impossible for first player to have last activation. Which is the point.

5 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

Pass upgrade can only be used on Medium and Large Ships.

There problem solved

But what's stopping you from taking 1 large and one med ship, or 2 med ships, and then spamming flots anyway?

How about each large ship allows you to take 2 flot, each medium ship can support 1 flot, small ships none?

47 minutes ago, Caldias said:

But what's stopping you from taking 1 large and one med ship, or 2 med ships, and then spamming flots anyway?

Aresius ran pretty much this exact concept in the World Cup and he's running again for the summer tourney (minus a "pass" mechanic obviously). He has a supped up Lib, 5 flotillas, and a bunch of squadrons. It's not the end all be all. There are a lot of points in ships that can only attack other ships via squadron commands. It's good, but let's not get carried away. He lost in the Quarters of the World Cup and he lost his first round game of the Summer tourney.

I must be alone in this, but I feel myself abandoning flotillas of late. There are a lot of accuracy options out there now. My Imperial builds just don't use the Gozanti at all. It doesn't feel worth my time. Too fragile and too expensive for just a bland activation pushing around 2-3 squadrons. Admittedly, I'm also making squadron heavy builds that don't need a BCC (Defenders or Sloane). It's with Rebs that I'm having a harder time giving up flotillas. They don't have any carriers that offer more than a flotilla. I blame this on the lack of weapons team slots for Rebels. Without flight controllers, it's just a numbers game, which flotillas win with ease in terms of cost efficiency.

1 minute ago, Truthiness said:

Aresius ran pretty much this exact concept in the World Cup and he's running again for the summer tourney (minus a "pass" mechanic obviously). He has a supped up Lib, 5 flotillas, and a bunch of squadrons. It's not the end all be all. There are a lot of points in ships that can only attack other ships via squadron commands. It's good, but let's not get carried away. He lost in the Quarters of the World Cup and he lost his first round game of the Summer tourney.

I must be alone in this, but I feel myself abandoning flotillas of late. There are a lot of accuracy options out there now. My Imperial builds just don't use the Gozanti at all. I doesn't feel worth my time. Too fragile and too expensive for just a bland activation pushing around 2-3 squadrons. Admittedly, I'm also making squadron heavy builds that don't need a BCC (Defenders or Sloane). It's with Rebs that I'm having a harder time giving up flotillas. They don't have any carriers that offer more than a flotilla. I blame this on the lack of weapons team slots for Rebela. Without flight controllers, it's just a numbers game, which flotillas win with ease in terms of cost efficiency.

Right, I should've elaborated. I meant the above but also taking this theoretical pass officer or whatever.

I also don't think spamming flots is a sure fire win, I just think it's the best answer for other people doing the same, in a generalist sense. And cool if you find yourself abandoning them. I myself can't seem to find something I am happy with without at least two, and I for sure am trying out builds without them, or with one. Don't really see anything in Wave VI that is going to change that.

I am also willing to admit that FFG designs a hell of a game, so maybe they'll come up with something amazing no one else has thought of yet to address the activation sameyness. I sure hope so!

I really don't feel like wading into this argument again, so I'm just going to drop in and point out that there is a sizable contingent of competent players that doesn't think the activation mechanic is an problem, and actually enjoys it as it is. And I'm not going to defend that position here: there are threads upon threads of me and others doing so already.

11 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

I really don't feel like wading into this argument again, so I'm just going to drop in and point out that there is a sizable contingent of competent players that doesn't think the activation mechanic is an problem, and actually enjoys it as it is. And I'm not going to defend that position here: there are threads upon threads of me and others doing so already.

And equally, there's a sizeable contigent of competent players who do think it's a problem.

Therein lies the rub.

can I pass on this idea.

No, Armada works just fine with the way activation works now. I get to chose if I want quantity or quality or a mixture of both. If you think it is an issue now wait till hammer heads get here.

People are suggesting point costs where you will be able to run a ton of them.

32 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

can I pass on this idea.

No, Armada works just fine with the way activation works now. I get to chose if I want quantity or quality or a mixture of both. If you think it is an issue now wait till hammer heads get here.

People are suggesting point costs where you will be able to run a ton of them.

I'm just trying to clarify your point, your suggesting that its not a problem and no fix is needed.

Then proceeding to tell us hammerheads will further complicate the activations issue that you say needs no fix?

9 hours ago, Sniperbon said:

Having more (or purposely designing a fleet) where you will have more activation's than the other player seems like a really "beardy" way of playing the game because its not tactical. It takes away the tactical skill of the game from the player if you have more activation's. If I have two or more activation's than you, I will always move my big ships last (or most important ship) and make sure you're ships will move into range first, thus giving me prime shots/maneuverability.

Why it is not tactical?

Activation game was since the learning scenario.

I think is a good idea they added this since the beginning.

It gives me an incentive to play small ships.

However, it is true that right now is a powerful tactic and, probably, the easiest one, but I think we don't need to destroy it.

- Getting obstruction benefits while the ship remain activated.

- Getting some benefit each time an enemy ship activates. Some kind of reactive actions as reading defense tokens, moving/recovering shields...

- Doing things (not necessarily attacking) after moving. What a missed opportunity here with Tractor Beans!

- Getting benefits against non activated ships. The reverse of Defiance.

Link this things to command values, engineering values, or sizes.

If we got some interesting upgrades of this nature we could start a fair war against activation game. Not just remove it from the game.

yes, I am saying there is no issue.

And I am also saying I don't currently have an issue with the future potential game changes that hammerheads may have inrelation to activation. (I do have potential issues with ram spam however).

Yes I also believe if the point costs of hammerheads (as suggested on the form) are correct then hammerheads will make the perceived issue with activation imbalance more complex.

Hope that clears it up.

23 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

yes, I am saying there is no issue.

And I am also saying I don't currently have an issue with the future potential game changes that hammerheads may have inrelation to activation. (I do have potential issues with ram spam however).

Yes I also believe if the point costs of hammerheads (as suggested on the form) are correct then hammerheads will make the perceived issue with activation imbalance more complex.

Hope that clears it up.

I got to say it really doesn't clear it up.

22 hours ago, Barney said:

Rather than a pass mechanic, how about flotilla's activate in the squad phase with an exception that each large base ship in your fleet allows you to activate one in the ship phase?

i haven't any experience in playing this, just throwing it out there as another option.

What happens when other cheap ships come out? I don't think those hammerheads will cost a lot so I don't think that will make a differences

Since we are, some what, at a "Lets find a Pass rule"

Here is an Idea:

For each Flotilla you have in your fleet, your opponent gets a pass token.

When a player wants to make a pass he have to discard a Pass token.

This way low activation fleets gets a certian number of "one use" Pass tokes, that one have to use wisely at the right time.

Hope there is a certain balance to the above idea and that its not to OP.

But please if any have a better idea lets hear it.

Alternative (shamelessly picked up from another TableTop Game) at the start of each round both players count up the number of activation's, the player with the least number of activation's gains a number of pass tokens up to the difference between the two amounts. When it is their turn to activate a ship they may instead discard a pass token. A pass token may not be used as the first activation in a round.

ie you have 5 activation's and I have two, I gain 3 pass tokens so we both have 5 activations during the round.

5 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

I really don't feel like wading into this argument again, so I'm just going to drop in and point out that there is a sizable contingent of competent players that doesn't think the activation mechanic is an problem, and actually enjoys it as it is. And I'm not going to defend that position here: there are threads upon threads of me and others doing so already.

Totally agree, and don't think flotillas or Rieekan are particularly bad either (despite having suffered at their hands many a time).

Most folks seem to want ways to play their super big ships (i very much do) so why not forget passes, flotillas etc and look to some great new upgrades for big ships? Enhanced AA, more efficient ways of melting small ships swarms etc. Lets actually make big ships great again rather than nerfing other stuff. A positive change rather than negative.

I might totally be on board for a "Pass" mechanic if it's done exactly like in Imperial Assault. You can still get Last Activation, but your opponent can pass up until that point. It would stop people from flying 4 extra naked flotilllas "Just because", and would bring large ships back. Honestly right now I have such a hard time justifying the cost of anything that isn't a small ship.

My biggest problem with changing the way activation works in Armada is...What would it do to objectives? I think that the objectives are such a big part of this game, that giving second player any more benefit (or just alternating initiative) would really destroy the current objective system. I don't think I'd be okay with that.

I'm currently in the camp of "Looks ominously at all the GR-75s out there but thinks the game is still in relatively good shape."

Ok caught up on my reading and I think ill add some more thoughts about some of the ideas people are coming up with

9 hours ago, Captain Weather said:

If the rule is worded along the lines of 'if your opponent has one or more extra activations then you may pass this activation, if activations are equal you may not pass' then first player would never be able to pass in such a way that they had last activation. Say in your above example 1st player has lost two ships and only has one remaining.

They can pass 1-3, 1-2, but after passing twice it would come back to them and be even 1-1, forcing them to activate.

Basically any wording of a pass rule dependent on extra activations should make it impossible for first player to have last activation. Which is the point.

If we can have a pass rule above is how it would work best. Aramda does not need a Pass rule like Destiny.

Upgrade/Tokens cant work as they require people to buy product. Now we are going to buy the ships anyway but we should not be forced into buying anything to play the game. the other problems that come up are "Auto Include" and wasting slots and that can ruin list building which is what the new rule is meant to fix and If the card is not worded right then the ability to pass when ever you want just by Exhausting the card could create more problems in play then a rule change.

Some have said that the game is fine how it is but there is A LOT of anger out there about 5+ ship activations and I do believe it is justified. I see a lot of new players experience disappoint when they pick up the game and find out that those big beautiful ship from the movies are not competitive to play and if they want to win which I don't think is a good thing going forward. The same problem is in X Wing and even tho the game is going strong and is very healthy I know a lot of players who have dropped out along the way and a lot who are sticking in there waiting for the fix. I would hate to see Armada go down the same path

I think the Pass rule could really open list building, tactics and strategy I don't think 2-3 ships list will now be able to roll over 5+ ship lists as the 5+ ship list will still have the ability to out deploy the other lists and out fly them just not have the easy tactic of out activating them. I cant see how this could be anything but good for the game. but I would still like to hear more comments other wise

I've wanted to have an upgrade that allows a pass as well, preferably the officer slot. But when I think about what that actually means for the guy who wants to take two ISDs had to give up both his officer shots and still only has four activations

FFG be like "Lol we already introduced a pass mechanic, it's called activating a flotilla! Yayyyy!!! "