35 minutes ago, geek19 said:

No. No they do not. Because Advanced Gunnery and Ackbar exist.

what's your point? Advanced Gunnery lets you attack 2 times at different targets on one ark so your 3rd attack goes to another arc, and Ackbar only lets you attack 2 times with extra dice out of side arcs so loosing your 3rd attack.

7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Not really.

Most people are advocating for only their position. No position needs to be penalised. And I've seen plenty of arguments for systems which enhances one specific way for the game to be played - but that is going to be at the expense of someone elses. What if someone likes and enjoys the 5+ activation play - you're now taking it from them - even if they had nothing to do with what happened at Worlds - even if they don't play it all that well - even if they do play it well and give it a right good go for their opponents. What right do we have to take that option from them by focusing on smaller activation plays?

Its the main reason why I havn't really lobbed in with a specific rules amendment to "fix" this situation...

Because I feel its mostly impossible to do so simplistically and in a straightforward manner.

Again, part of that is there is no one single specific problem identified. I can count 5 or 6 separate "problems" being rattled off at the moment, all trying to be given the same amount of headspace and "nerf-talk"...

So yes. Impossible to "fix" in a simplistic and straightforward manner.

At least, its well outside of my expertise in games design, anyway... All I really feel is we can be presented with more options , and then find ways to incentivise people to take those options. But while #WinningIsEverything, that's harder to do without artificially skewing the game as well. I mean, I personally can't see most of the issues as presented as problems... Because I'm not involved in the areas where there are problems.

Maybe someone will take it to the Sentry Box Store championships and pants everyone.

Maybe that will happen.

I highly doubt it though, because the problem here has already self-corrected - they'll be that-guy, after all...

As a group, we value creativity in our list builds - because we're one-upping each other.

A Pass rule would not stop anyone from taking 5+ ship lists it only removes there ability to play the out activate tactic forcing them to use other tactics

the Pass rule would be the easy to introduce as it is in IA. it just need to be included in the next tournament regulations and is not as completed as people might think

the game does have other problems, I might add some new threads about that latter but nothing needs a nerf just a little balance to the game and a pass rule could go a long way to doing that

I am sorry x wing nut but it is harder than that.

It still comes back to choice. Freedom to choose in the rules of the game if I want to take a 1 and 5 or 2 and 2 etc.

Why would anyone bother to take low cost fillers if the opposition can simply pass. You are giving up quality for quantity. The pass mechanic takes this away. I firmly believe like others this will limit list builds.

As a side note while reading the posts in here an idea came to me about a new type of ship. Remember the mickey ears gozanti, could be intel jammer or something that limits all ships to rang 5 of the admiral or they don't get there dial (or wait till end like we do with squadron phase before activation), it could also limit upgrades to same or you don't get the benefits.

For mine, I think just introduce the pass rule in the errata the same as IA.

No silly upgrades and overcomplicated changes etc needed.

Honestly all it does is create some more options for low ship count lists in turns 1 and 2. sometimes 3. but once combat is joined you usually want everything you can activating and shooting before it gets killed.

Worst case scenario - if it "ruins" the game after a season they can errata it back out again!

3 hours ago, Radaeon said:

I am sorry x wing nut but it is harder than that.

It still comes back to choice. Freedom to choose in the rules of the game if I want to take a 1 and 5 or 2 and 2 etc.

Why would anyone bother to take low cost fillers if the opposition can simply pass. You are giving up quality for quantity. The pass mechanic takes this away. I firmly believe like others this will limit list builds.

As a side note while reading the posts in here an idea came to me about a new type of ship. Remember the mickey ears gozanti, could be intel jammer or something that limits all ships to rang 5 of the admiral or they don't get there dial (or wait till end like we do with squadron phase before activation), it could also limit upgrades to same or you don't get the benefits.

Well that is the point isn't it? Why would anyone want to take a low cost filler -just- for the activation. In my opinion, eliminating that concept as a thing in armada is good. Any game where using something just for "filler" is almost mandatory is in bad shape.

With the change we would rather see flotillas used for utility, bcc, comms net, slicing and so on. They would still have a place, one where they didn't necessarily just hug the map border, but none would have to take them naked just to have a fighting chance.

MSU would still be viable as well, as stated before these put out very consistent damage (trc90s do more damage avg at long range than a vic or isd) from multiple sources, overwhelming defence tokens.

3 hours ago, Radaeon said:

I am sorry x wing nut but it is harder than that.

It still comes back to choice. Freedom to choose in the rules of the game if I want to take a 1 and 5 or 2 and 2 etc.

Why would anyone bother to take low cost fillers if the opposition can simply pass. You are giving up quality for quantity. The pass mechanic takes this away. I firmly believe like others this will limit list builds.

As a side note while reading the posts in here an idea came to me about a new type of ship. Remember the mickey ears gozanti, could be intel jammer or something that limits all ships to rang 5 of the admiral or they don't get there dial (or wait till end like we do with squadron phase before activation), it could also limit upgrades to same or you don't get the benefits.

The Pass Rule is what will give more freedom of choice in list building then not having one. At this point in the game I feel I don't have a choice but to take 5+ ship lists to compete

My biggest hate for flotillas is that people see them as low cost fillers just to get more activations. These ships can still fill a roll in any fleet as the support ship they are meant to be not the crutch they are now.

Sorry guys I can't agree. I firmly believe a pass rule limits choice. List building is part of the fun of the game. If you want quality then go for it. List building does not need to be artificially restricted.

As for numbers of ships in a list, I can't recall ever playing a 5+ ship list. Most of mine would fall into 4 and they have always been competitive.

As for low point flotillas I use them from time to time and they are great cheap AA dice. A blue with tyron backup or a black is better than a squadron.

The recent worlds has not change this need.

I also feel FFG are giving us more lower cost options which will continue the trend.

the more low cost options FFG are giving us is more of a reason to get the Pass rule in now before 8+ becomes the new norm. I have had lots of fun flying 2 ship rebel lists. that was when 4 was the most players would take. 2 against 5+ just isn't fun anymore

Another thing the pass rule could/maybe do is speed things up a bit in some games. Especially if the trend is more lower cost ships

41 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

Sorry guys I can't agree. I firmly believe a pass rule limits choice. List building is part of the fun of the game. If you want quality then go for it. List building does not need to be artificially restricted.

As for numbers of ships in a list, I can't recall ever playing a 5+ ship list. Most of mine would fall into 4 and they have always been competitive.

As for low point flotillas I use them from time to time and they are great cheap AA dice. A blue with tyron backup or a black is better than a squadron.

The recent worlds has not change this need.

I also feel FFG are giving us more lower cost options which will continue the trend.

On the flip side, choice is artificially limited now in the exact same manner. I don't believe a pass rule will limit choice, all current ships will still be used including flotillas.

But if you believe that a pass rule will limit choice artificially, then the same is true now. You have all the choices, in theory, but in practice any list below 4 activations just isn't viable and is effectively a "non choice".

How is that different?

54 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

Sorry guys I can't agree. I firmly believe a pass rule limits choice. List building is part of the fun of the game. If you want quality then go for it. List building does not need to be artificially restricted.

As for numbers of ships in a list, I can't recall ever playing a 5+ ship list. Most of mine would fall into 4 and they have always been competitive.

As for low point flotillas I use them from time to time and they are great cheap AA dice. A blue with tyron backup or a black is better than a squadron.

The recent worlds has not change this need.

I also feel FFG are giving us more lower cost options which will continue the trend.

You sound like the Australian coal industry... "yes we know our business wrecks everything for everyone but doing anything about it is just restricting peoples choices!"

Ophion - this is not a left wing climate change site so has nothing to do with it. (and yes I am an Australian and don't see any issue with coal)

Ashesfall - It is different as I get to choose now if I want to pad with extra low quality activations or not. A pass rule takes that choice away thus limiting list building choice.

18 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

Ophion - this is not a left wing climate change site so has nothing to do with it. (and yes I am an Australian and don't see any issue with coal)

Ashesfall - It is different as I get to choose now if I want to pad with extra low quality activations or not. A pass rule takes that choice away thus limiting list building choice.

Right but the point that three other people have tried to make to you is that winning fleets trend towards higher activations (right now that's 4+ according to the data).

Or more simply, a five activation fleet is far more likely to win than a two or three activation fleet.

Yes, you COULD choose to build a fleet with 2-3 activations - but doing so isn't a competitively viable choice. If it's not a competitively viable choice than for high level players it's the same as no choice.

You're saying that introducing a pass rule would limit fleet building options. We're saying that fleet building options are already limited - if you want to win tournaments you go high activations.

Honestly, having fewer activations should be an advantage not a disadvantage. I'm all for a pass rule.

39 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Honestly, having fewer activations should be an advantage not a disadvantage. I'm all for a pass rule.

why should it be an advantage?

Its hardly an argument that just because high activation numbers have an advantage now that people that like to play that way have some sort of mortgage on the game and anything that impinges on this is "denying them choice".

At most, a pass rule is just going to alter the relevant balance between one style of fleet and another. Its hardly "denying people the choice".

I said before, a pass rule is going to slightly benefit a small number fleet in turns 1 and 2, maybe 3. But if you are out activated its not going to stop the last/first, and its not going to do anything about relaying flotillas on the other side of the board. And once you are in melee, your are almost always going to be wanting to activate as soon as you can so you can take a shot before the target activates and moves out of the way, or so you can do the same. You usually aren't going to be passing in this scenario.

They can easily bring something like this in via the errata. And let it run for a season. And if it brings completely excessive and unintended consequences and everyone is howling and lamenting the "denial of their choice", then guess what? They can errata it back out! But I don't think that will be necessary. This would be a minor and healthy change.

Choice is not the point here. You always have the choice to build a fleet with fewer more powerful ships or a fleet with more less powerful ships. At least that should be the goal of point costs. Have the "same" power concentrated or spread out.

However right now this is how I "abuse" activation advantage: I have several 18 point flotillas far away from the battle and activate them until my opponent has moved their powerful ships. Then with them being unable to react I move in my heavy hitters.

Relay only made this situation worse because instead of waste activations of my flotillas I can now command squads.

Also being at the receiving end of similar strategies is a really bad gaming experience because there is almost nothing you can do. Most of the time when you are outactivated you are also outdeployed.

1 minute ago, User1138 said:

Choice is not the point here. You always have the choice to build a fleet with fewer more powerful ships or a fleet with more less powerful ships. At least that should be the goal of point costs. Have the "same" power concentrated or spread out.

However right now this is how I "abuse" activation advantage: I have several 18 point flotillas far away from the battle and activate them until my opponent has moved their powerful ships. Then with them being unable to react I move in my heavy hitters.

Relay only made this situation worse because instead of waste activations of my flotillas I can now command squads.

Also being at the receiving end of similar strategies is a really bad gaming experience because there is almost nothing you can do. Most of the time when you are outactivated you are also outdeployed.

This.

Capital Weather - There is just as many people saying what I am saying also.

It is not going to change. There will be no official pass (if I am proven wrong in the near future so be it).

I have said my bit and now finding a new discussion.

On 2017-5-19 at 10:27 AM, ovinomanc3r said:

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

Actually I though on some kind of free maneuver but I was not sure about ram interaction.

He is not going to fix everything but points to the direction I would like to see more.

9 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

why should it be an advantage?

Smaller numbers are easier to coordinate. Generally the larger a fleet becomes the more difficult it becomes to use it efficiently. This is why you didn't see for example the USA in WWII using a single superfleet containing all their vessels.

12 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:

My biggest hate for flotillas is that people see them as low cost fillers just to get more activations . These ships can still fill a roll in any fleet as the support ship they are meant to be not the crutch they are now.

Someone with a better memory than me (i think @Madaghmire ) pointed out that as per the original article, this is exactly what FFG intended as one of the uses for flotillas.

They are intended as an 18/23 point pass with some other great stuff/ abilities.

Rather than nerfing anything, augmenting big ships would be the appropriate positive step forward, and allow new stuff to be added.

4 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Someone with a better memory than me (i think @Madaghmire ) pointed out that as per the original article, this is exactly what FFG intended as one of the uses for flotillas.

They are intended as an 18/23 point pass with some other great stuff/ abilities.

Rather than nerfing anything, augmenting big ships would be the appropriate positive step forward, and allow new stuff to be added.

I've said similar things, but @Undeadguy dropped the mic by linking the article and pointing that piece of it out. I remember because dude was on fire that day.

Or, increasing max fleet points to 450 so fielding a large ship doesn't feel that taxing and requiring THAT many flotillas?

If you are going to do a Pass mechanic, here is what I would do:

If you pass, the opponent gets one free command token of his choice to assign to any one of his vessels.

You may not pass two turns in a row.

You may not pass on your first activation.

You may not pass unless you have less activations remaining than your opponent.

This would give some activation advantage to the MSU fleets, but would not just let them circle two flotillas in a corner to be untouchable. It would also have some trade off if you want to do gain the tactical advantage (the token).

2 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

I've said similar things, but @Undeadguy dropped the mic by linking the article and pointing that piece of it out. I remember because dude was on fire that day.

I just pointed out the obvious. I wasn't trying to be a ****, but when someone says "Hey, flotillas are freaking everywhere so that's a problem", my first response was "Yea, FFG fully intended for this to happen. Check out what FFG actually said, multiple time."

I actually felt kinda bad since everyone just took that and ran, using that to claim flotillas are fine where they are at. Honestly, I was simply refuting a point that supported someones opinion of the game.