So just throwing this around but what if you had more ships/squadrons you end up having more activations per turn in phase? Since a lot of flotillas are brought in to bring more activations what if the activations per turn was increased so that lists with fewer ships/squadrons still have reactions against flotilla corvette swarms. Also it can shorten the length of turns so that games don't take so long. Here is a basic proposal as an example. Numbers could be adjusted.

• 1 -4 ships/ 1 squadrons: 1 activation per turn
• 5-8 ships/ 2-6 squadrons: 2 activations per
• 9-12 ships/ 7-15 squadrons: 3 activations per
• 13+ ships/ 15+ squadrons: 4 activations per

So what do you think, or how would you adjust the numbers say around (2-4) 2 activations (5-7) 3 activations?

22 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So just throwing this around but what if you had more ships/squadrons you end up having more activations per turn in phase? Since a lot of flotillas are brought in to bring more activations what if the activations per turn was increased so that lists with fewer ships/squadrons still have reactions against flotilla corvette swarms. Also it can shorten the length of turns so that games don't take so long. Here is a basic proposal as an example. Numbers could be adjusted.

• 1 ships/squadrons: 1 activation per (for obvious reasons)
• 2-6 ships/squadrons: 2 activations per
• 7-12 ships/squadrons: 3 activations per
• 13+ ships/squadrons: 4 activations per

So what do you think, or how would you adjust the numbers say around (2-4) 2 activations (5-7) 3 activations?

What's wrong with the current system?

I actually do think that the squadron game should be slightly sped up by making squadrons activate in 4s instead of 2s during the squadron phase (or just having each side activate all unactivated squadrons at once). The ships though are in a more awkward position. If you say that ships activate in multiples, then you end up with a radical balance shift in one direction of the other. For example, you'll get two ships activating in tandem which makes certain ship and ability combinations impossible to avoid, such as Overload Pulse/Avenger, or big damage shots such as two Gladiators or MC30s.

Just imagine the frustration of two CR90Bs double ramming an expensive large ship in addition to full combat damage from SW7s or similar. Several ships would become essentially unplayable.

3 minutes ago, geek19 said:

What's wrong with the current system?

Nothing really, just some games go to time (taking over a half an hour per turn). So thinking of ways to speed up the game and this idea came up. Also the whole people playing for more activations (playing Odd over Even to get that 1 extra activation). So I figured this could help move things along and even out the mass flotilla meta.

4 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I actually do think that the squadron game should be slightly sped up by making squadrons activate in 4s instead of 2s during the squadron phase (or just having each side activate all unactivated squadrons at once). The ships though are in a more awkward position. If you say that ships activate in multiples, then you end up with a radical balance shift in one direction of the other. For example, you'll get two ships activating in tandem which makes certain ship and ability combinations impossible to avoid, such as Overload Pulse/Avenger, or big damage shots such as two Gladiators or MC30s.

Just imagine the frustration of two CR90Bs double ramming an expensive large ship in addition to full combat damage from SW7s or similar. Several ships would become essentially unplayable.

Well you have to have some alternation even for squadrons. That is an idea though.

As for double CR-90s ramming you already get that with the 2 ship activations per. I'd figure this way say it helps with the reaction on going 2nd with a smaller fleet. You get to see 3 ships activate and move compared to your two and you can act accordingly through the order shoot move sequence. However you do bring up a good point on combos that are per activation and not per round. Which is also why I set it up so that the activation jump is not unless you have a large number of ships >6 which is still a rare sight at least for what I have seen.

1 minute ago, Marinealver said:

Nothing really, just some games go to time (taking over a half an hour per turn). So thinking of ways to speed up the game and this idea came up. Also the whole people playing for more activations (playing Odd over Even to get that 1 extra activation). So I figured this could help move things along and even out the mass flotilla meta.

Well you have to have some alternation even for squadrons. That is an idea though.

As for double CR-90s ramming you already get that with the 2 ship activations per. I'd figure this way say it helps with the reaction on going 2nd with a smaller fleet. You get to see 3 ships activate and move compared to your two and you can act accordingly through the order shoot move sequence. However you do bring up a good point on combos that are per activation and not per round. Which is also why I set it up so that the activation jump is not unless you have a large number of ships >6 which is still a rare sight at least for what I have seen.

At this point, the better option would be to enable the pass mechanics from other FFG games. In your system, a 2 ship fleet vs a 4 ship fleet still has to have its entire fleet go before half the enemy fleet activates.

11 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

At this point, the better option would be to enable the pass mechanics from other FFG games. In your system, a 2 ship fleet vs a 4 ship fleet still has to have its entire fleet go before half the enemy fleet activates.

Essentially this is a pass mechanic. But as I said the problems with the pass is every ship is expected to move. Also if you have a pass you have to give your opponent a pass too, which goes completely against one of the goals for this amendment and that is to speed up the game.

No, pass mechanics should not be introduced into armada. Game is long enough without them.

2 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Essentially this is a pass mechanic. But as I said the problems with the pass is every ship is expected to move. Also if you have a pass you have to give your opponent a pass too, which goes completely against one of the goals for this amendment and that is to speed up the game.

No, pass mechanics should not be introduced into armada. Game is long enough without them.

Yes, but pass mechanics mean that the second player isn't at a tremendous disadvantage.

Let's go back to your example:

Player 1 has 4 ships: 2 cheap ships, and two powerful combat ships. Lets take a version I've played, and we'll say two Gozantis, a Clontrooper-style Demolisher, and a heavily kitted ISD2. He has a deep bid and goes first.

Player 2 has 2 ships, and several squadrons.

Player 1 activates his first two cheap ships. They fly off into deep space, away from the combat.

Player 2 has to activate both his ships, and they both move forward into combat range of player 1.

Player 1 moves his ships into combat range, with Demolisher ready to double arc both enemy ships. For good measure, Demolisher broadsides the ship most likely to get severely hurt by the ISD2.

After the squadrons get a few attacks, the next round begins.

Player 1's ISD unloads into both ships, killing the first one and heavily damaging the second. Then Demolisher double-arcs the surviving ship.

Player 2's game is immediately finished. Their squadrons never even activate during the second round.

In the pass mechanic system, player 1 moves both Gozantis, then the fleets are even. Player 1 activates his ISD. Player 2 activates his first ship. Player 1 activates his Demolisher, and does damage to the first ship. Player 2 activates his second ship, and gets a chance to shoot at Demolisher if its in range.

In the subsequent round, Player 1 finishes his triple tap with Demolisher and moves it, and Player 2 has the option of moving their damaged ship to escape if it's alive and also in range of the ISD. Then player 1 has the chance to move their other ships to intercept or escape player 2, and at any time until the end of the round player 2 can take their final single activation to escape, play the objective or attack.

In the second scenario, Player 2 ALWAYS has the last move of the round, if they want it. This prevents the first scenario from occurring, as both of player 2's ships can try to maneuver out of combat or even attempt to destroy one or both incoming combat ships.

1 minute ago, thecactusman17 said:

Yes, but pass mechanics mean that the second player isn't at a tremendous disadvantage.

Let's go back to your example:

1. Player 1 has 4 ships: 2 cheap ships, and two powerful combat ships. Lets take a version I've played, and we'll say two Gozantis, a Clontrooper-style Demolisher, and a heavily kitted ISD2. He has a deep bid and goes first.
2. Player 2 has 2 ships, and several squadrons.
3. Player 1 activates his first two cheap ships. They fly off into deep space, away from the combat.
4. Player 2 has to activate both his ships, and they both move forward into combat range of player 1.
5. Player 1 moves his ships into combat range, with Demolisher ready to double arc both enemy ships. For good measure, Demolisher broadsides the ship most likely to get severely hurt by the ISD2.
6. After the squadrons get a few attacks, the next round begins.
7. Player 1's ISD unloads into both ships, killing the first one and heavily damaging the second. Then Demolisher double-arcs the surviving ship.
8. Player 2's game is immediately finished. Their squadrons never even activate during the second round.
9. In the pass mechanic system, player 1 moves both Gozantis, then the fleets are even. Player 1 activates his ISD. Player 2 activates his first ship. Player 1 activates his Demolisher, and does damage to the first ship. Player 2 activates his second ship, and gets a chance to shoot at Demolisher if its in range.
10. In the subsequent round, Player 1 finishes his triple tap with Demolisher and moves it, and Player 2 has the option of moving their damaged ship to escape if it's alive and also in range of the ISD. Then player 1 has the chance to move their other ships to intercept or escape player 2, and at any time until the end of the round player 2 can take their final single activation to escape, play the objective or attack.
11. In the second scenario, Player 2 ALWAYS has the last move of the round, if they want it. This prevents the first scenario from occurring, as both of player 2's ships can try to maneuver out of combat or even attempt to destroy one or both incoming combat ships.

Well for one your example has put a 4 ship list against a 2 ship list where for the ships there would not be a change. However as I said I'm trying to speed up the game not slow it down with passes, that is a full round of players saying pass or what not without anything going on. If you want to continue the debate on passing here you go.

I am still against it, we need the game to move faster not slower because of 2nd turn imbalances.

And I'm saying your system speeds the game up by killing the second player almost immediately.

There are balancing issues you aren't considering that are very integral to the system. The truth is, the delay mechanic is one of the lesser issues that increase game time. The greater issue (by far) is squadron activations and how long it takes to fully activate each squadron.

Also does having a pass rule really slow it down this dramatic amount you're suggesting?

Player 1 -'Ok I've moved my non-committal flotilla'

Player 2 - 'Ok sweet, you still outactivate me, and I don't want to move yet, so I'm going to avail myself of the new pass rule. It's your activation again'.

Player 1 - 'Sweet. I'm going to activate Gozanti 2...'

That adds what? A minute at the most, being extremely generous?

What is this obsession with having faster games?

Armada is supposed to be a game, where you can put some thought into your moves before you make them, not this hurry, hurry, hurry, I want to quickly activate all my units thing.

Of all the games ( FoW, Armada etc...) I played, I have observed the following pattern in regards to game speed:

New players are initially slow to make their activations, as they are still in the phase of trying to discover the finer points of the rules.

Veteran players due to their obvious experience, can more quickly spot and decide what to do and should/can't do.

So two Veteran players with alot of sqds. should be able to play a game just as fast if not faster, than two new players with very few sqds.

4 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I actually do think that the squadron game should be slightly sped up by making squadrons activate in 4s instead of 2s during the squadron phase

Absolutely no, that would make rogues+initiative too powerful. Imagine alpha striking with 4 YT-2400 during the squadron phase. And then ready to be activated again right after with some squadron commands and initiative.

Just now, xerpo said:

Absolutely no, that would make rogues+initiative too powerful. Imagine alpha striking with 4 YT-2400 during the squadron phase. And then ready to be activated again right after with some squadron commands and initiative.

OK, so I'm not saying that my suggestion is 100% the way to go, but I need to point out the following:

1. As far as it matters, you're already getting out-activated in the squadron phase by anything with Rogue. That's the whole point of Rogue.
2. The squadron system is, overwhelmingly, the most time-intensive part of competition Armada. By orders of magnitude. If you haven't played a low/no squadron game recently, try it. The game will barely pass an hour and a half at most with good positioning and decent rolls.
3. Squadrons need a fix to promote faster play.

19 minutes ago, Kiwi Rat said:

What is this obsession with having faster games?

Armada is supposed to be a game, where you can put some thought into your moves before you make them, not this hurry, hurry, hurry, I want to quickly activate all my units thing.

Of all the games ( FoW, Armada etc...) I played, I have observed the following pattern in regards to game speed:

New players are initially slow to make their activations, as they are still in the phase of trying to discover the finer points of the rules.

Veteran players due to their obvious experience, can more quickly spot and decide what to do and should/can't do.

So two Veteran players with alot of sqds. should be able to play a game just as fast if not faster, than two new players with very few sqds.

Game speed is critical.

This may not be obvious if you don't play it competitively, but X-Wing games are expected to get roughly a dozen rounds into play at least before time expires in only a little over an hour. That's twice as many rounds as Armada. Minimum. A round where nobody shoots or has an unusually complex set of actions is expected to be finished, in its entirety, in about 2 minutes including dial changes. A game where both players agreed to merely not fly off the board could go to an easy 20-30 rounds in an hour.

In a combat round, it's expected to take about 5 minutes. Between both players. Maybe a little longer for very unusual combinations.

A combat round of Armada can reasonably be expected to take 10-20 minutes, especially if most of the attacks are from moving squadrons. This is despite fewer overall mechanical interactions. This has to do with a number of factors involving the shooting, squadrons, and maneuver systems. But the most time intensive, by far, is the squadrons. Squadrons that have to be independently maneuvered and then do combat actions, in addition to special actions. then add in area-of-effect special abilities which requires precision flying.

In Worlds 2017, with an extended time clock, the top two players nearly went to time on round five with 16 squadrons on the board and five ships each.

3 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Game speed is critical.

This may not be obvious if you don't play it competitively, but X-Wing games are expected to get roughly a dozen rounds into play at least before time expires. That's twice as many rounds as Armada. Minimum. A round where nobody shoots or has an unusually complex set of actions is expected to be finished, in its entirety, in about 2 minutes including dial changes.

In a combat round, it's expected to take about 5 minutes. Between both players.

A combat round of Armada can reasonably be expected to take 10-20 minutes, especially if most of the attacks are from moving squadrons. This is despite fewer overall mechanical interactions. This has to do with a number of factors involving the shooting, squadrons, and maneuver systems. But the most time intensive, by far, is the squadrons.

So do you want Armada to be just as fast as X-wing???

Just now, Kiwi Rat said:

So do you want Armada to be just as fast as X-wing???

I want the game to resolve turns quicker than it does now. I think the current setup makes pickup games harder to organize and turns off many casual observers. Further, in most cases, the mechanics do not excuse the slow pace of play in competition. The only one that drastically slows the game down is, again, squadrons. If you speed up squadron play by 50%, you would decrease competition game time by a third.

No game should take more than an hour and a half. At top tables, two hours. That's 6X 15 minute rounds. Perfectly reasonable for a competition setting. It would also allow for better low-attendance competition events and an additional tournament round.

2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

OK, so I'm not saying that my suggestion is 100% the way to go, but I need to point out the following:

1. As far as it matters, you're already getting out-activated in the squadron phase by anything with Rogue. That's the whole point of Rogue.
2. The squadron system is, overwhelmingly, the most time-intensive part of competition Armada. By orders of magnitude. If you haven't played a low/no squadron game recently, try it. The game will barely pass an hour and a half at most with good positioning and decent rolls.
3. Squadrons need a fix to promote faster play.

Fair enough, most of the time is indeed spent in squadron managing. But what makes game slow are the players themselves, Ive played against 134 squadron points with super fast activations and positions because the guy knew what to do exactly with each squadron. Is not like you need to react to something inmediate. While the opponet is activating something you are already thinking what are you going to do with your own stuff and do it right away with a minor margin of error, if you are a smart and quick player.

In the other hand, playing against that kind of guy (I think there is thread about them somewhere) makes not only the squadron phase a huge task of patience, but also the whole game at every single stage of it.

2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I want the game to resolve turns quicker than it does now. I think the current setup makes pickup games harder to organize and turns off many casual observers. Further, in most cases, the mechanics do not excuse the slow pace of play in competition. The only one that drastically slows the game down is, again, squadrons. If you speed up squadron play by 50%, you would decrease competition game time by a third.

No game should take more than an hour and a half. At top tables, two hours. That's 6X 15 minute rounds. Perfectly reasonable for a competition setting. It would also allow for better low-attendance competition events and an additional tournament round.

Not really an option without a) rules rewrite, and b) dedicated mapsheets, but what I would have liked to try would be for the entire map to be printed with hexes slightly larger than current squad bases. Ships moves as normal, but squads move into & by hexes. squad abilities have a hex range instead of a ruler range. (current range 1 = 2 hexes, all other brackets= 1 hex each) No fussy exact placement trying to get this squad placed engaging that, that, and that squad while not engaging that other squad. A dot in the center of the hex would serve as the official position for LOS measurement.

Another advantage is that minor nudging while toggling fighters in the scrum is no big deal. exact position doesn't matter.

46 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

Not really an option without a) rules rewrite, and b) dedicated mapsheets, but what I would have liked to try would be for the entire map to be printed with hexes slightly larger than current squad bases. Ships moves as normal, but squads move into & by hexes. squad abilities have a hex range instead of a ruler range. (current range 1 = 2 hexes, all other brackets= 1 hex each) No fussy exact placement trying to get this squad placed engaging that, that, and that squad while not engaging that other squad. A dot in the center of the hex would serve as the official position for LOS measurement.

Another advantage is that minor nudging while toggling fighters in the scrum is no big deal. exact position doesn't matter.

Huh. Never considered that. Neat idea.

To the OP: First player getting a double activation because they brought 4 ships would be broken as the second player gets completely shafted.

For the squad play takes too long guys: I hate giving this response, but get some time in and start thinking about your response during your opponent's activation. The squad play isn't slow: you (or your opponent) are. I run 134 in squads by default since the game came out and my ship activations easily take longer than the squads. I know where I'm going with the squad and who I'm attacking before I even flip that squad dial.

I get get that two players at worlds had a squad game go long at the final table. Could that just be because they were thinking out each move as it mattered a lot and that Rieekan was making squads stay longer than they should?

3 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I want the game to resolve turns quicker than it does now. I think the current setup makes pickup games harder to organize and turns off many casual observers. Further, in most cases, the mechanics do not excuse the slow pace of play in competition. The only one that drastically slows the game down is, again, squadrons. If you speed up squadron play by 50%, you would decrease competition game time by a third.

No game should take more than an hour and a half. At top tables, two hours. That's 6X 15 minute rounds. Perfectly reasonable for a competition setting. It would also allow for better low-attendance competition events and an additional tournament round.

Maybe you should stick to X-wing then.

Alternativly stick your Armada models on top the X-wing stand pegs, for laughs and make some fire arc cardboard pieces to go with them, while you are at it.

And teach FFG how to make a fast paced Star Wars Capital ship game

25 minutes ago, Kiwi Rat said:

And teach FFG how to make a fast paced Star Wars Capital ship game

A SW armada capital ship game with the scale of the ships of SW: Rebellion would be awesome.

1 minute ago, xerpo said:

A SW armada capital ship game with the scale of the ships of SW: Rebellion would be awesome.

Yeah why not

Then we can finally get that SSD we all have been panting for, in a game manageable size

Simple answer to OP question: No.

Too complex for no payoff.

6 hours ago, Church14 said:

Huh. Never considered that. Neat idea.

To the OP: First player getting a double activation because they brought 4 ships would be broken as the second player gets completely shafted.

For the squad play takes too long guys: I hate giving this response, but get some time in and start thinking about your response during your opponent's activation. The squad play isn't slow: you (or your opponent) are. I run 134 in squads by default since the game came out and my ship activations easily take longer than the squads. I know where I'm going with the squad and who I'm attacking before I even flip that squad dial.

I get get that two players at worlds had a squad game go long at the final table. Could that just be because they were thinking out each move as it mattered a lot and that Rieekan was making squads stay longer than they should?

Hooks on, you're saying two contradictory things here. You're saying:

1: Players shouldn't be taking long because they should already be planning maneuvers during prior turns and enemy activations

2: You need to carefully analyse the board state and move with extreme precision and consideration against skilled opponents.

My response to this is of course you should.

My issue is that the squadron system currently makes the process of completing those actions incredibly slow paced from a mechanical perspective, with additional steps being added and subtracted throughout the squadron phase on the fly due to combinations of area effect and engagement rules. Squadrons take as much time each to maneuver, shoot, defend, and kill as ships do even though they are theoretically faster at moving, shooting and defending as the ships. And as squadrons are added and removed to the scrum, you often have additional rules that have to be factored into subsequent activations.

Again, the clock doesn't lie. Games of Armada with active, participating squadrons take substantially longer than games without squadrons. In some cases, squadrons take as much time as the ships themselves, or longer, especially in a large squadron fight.

6 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

Maybe you should stick to X-wing then.

Alternativly stick your Armada models on top the X-wing stand pegs, for laughs and make some fire arc cardboard pieces to go with them, while you are at it.

And teach FFG how to make a fast paced Star Wars Capital ship game

As for the "go to X-Wing" statement, all I can offer is that if you can't reasonably finish a 2 player competitive game in under 2 hours, it shouldn't be held up as a competition game. What you do at home or in your gaming group on a free weekend is your business. I'm talking from the perspective of competition play. 2 hour game times are meant for games with vastly more models and discrete actions than Armada has.

Three easiest way to change the game speed is through squadrons. squadrons take as much time to move and fight with as a discrete capital ship (especially ace squadrons). The existing system all but demands squadrons equal to or in excess of the number of ships being fielded.

When you put eight squadrons in the board, you have essentially placed eight full ships on the board. That's how significant of a time impact we're talking about. And just like ships, they can move quickly when unengaged, but as soon as combat begins they quickly bog down with interactions. Unlike ships, squadrons are expected to remain engaged for an additional 1-2 turns, meaning that this slowdown extends to every round where opposing squadrons are still engaged on the board. That's often 3-4 turns, where combat ships all be are rarely engaged more than 2.

2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

Hooks on, you're saying two contradictory things here. You're saying:

1: Players shouldn't be taking long because they should already be planning maneuvers during prior turns and enemy activations

2: You need to carefully analyse the board state and move with extreme precision and consideration against skilled opponents.

My response to this is of course you should.

My issue is that the squadron system currently makes the process of completing those actions incredibly slow paced from a mechanical perspective, with additional steps being added and subtracted throughout the squadron phase on the fly due to combinations of area effect and engagement rules. Squadrons take as much time each to maneuver, shoot, defend, and kill as ships do even though they are theoretically faster at moving, shooting and defending as the ships. And as squadrons are added and removed to the scrum, you often have additional rules that have to be factored into subsequent activations.

Again, the clock doesn't lie. Games of Armada with active, participating squadrons take substantially longer than games without squadrons. In some cases, squadrons take as much time as the ships themselves, or longer, especially in a large squadron fight.

As for the "go to X-Wing" statement, all I can offer is that if you can't reasonably finish a 2 player competitive game in under 2 hours, it shouldn't be held up as a competition game. What you do at home or in your gaming group on a free weekend is your business. I'm talking from the perspective of competition play. 2 hour game times are meant for games with vastly more models and discrete actions than Armada has.

Three easiest way to change the game speed is through squadrons. squadrons take as much time to move and fight with as a discrete capital ship (especially ace squadrons). The existing system all but demands squadrons equal to or in excess of the number of ships being fielded.

When you put eight squadrons in the board, you have essentially placed eight full ships on the board. That's how significant of a time impact we're talking about. And just like ships, they can move quickly when unengaged, but as soon as combat begins they quickly bog down with interactions. Unlike ships, squadrons are expected to remain engaged for an additional 1-2 turns, meaning that this slowdown extends to every round where opposing squadrons are still engaged on the board. That's often 3-4 turns, where combat ships all be are rarely engaged more than 2.

I was aware of some of the contradiction. I'm running number and analysis in my head before I get to activate. It makes my games move quick. I believe most people should do this. It makes games go fast enough to have time to finish off ships and finish round 6 .

The single elimination matches at worlds are different. When winning by 1 or 400 is the same, take more time to figure it out. As long as you aren't intentionally sandbagging.