1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

Along the same line as the removal of Intel, I'd also like to see less "aura" effects from special squadrons (like Rhymer or Norra) to diminish the importance of precise squadron placement, which slows down games.

This might be one of the biggest things. Something as simple as the "aura" being reduced to squadrons in base contact would eliminate the fuss over measuring, and make one 16 point squadron slightly less match-defining. Of course, then suddenly the activation slider sticking out becomes an issue when you're trying to maximize surface area.

Speed 3 Victory II, to reflect the improved engines on that model.

9 hours ago, Snipafist said:

this forum editor is silly, and I cannot split up a quote, so I'm just copy and pasting below, Snipafist.

Given the "for funsies" nature of the question, I'd basically tinker with some things:

• I'd 100% support @GiledPallaeon's recommendation for a larger points scale for the reasons he gave.
  I agree, in principle. Having more granularity on stats would be good for more nuance, but at the same time, increasing scales, increases potential mental math. I feel like a 1.5x or 2x multiplier would be the extent of such a coeffieient.
• I'd like to see commanders' point costs inverted into a points bonus because paying for your commander causes unnecessary problems fitting more expensive commanders into smaller fleets; it also creates the perception that your commander can be a "tax" on your fleet rather than an asset and the occasional request to be able to run a fleet without a commander at all to free up more points . For example, suppose Ozzel (using the current points system) provided an additional 30 points towards ships (only, not for squadrons) for your fleet and Tarkin provided 12. They're still both effectively the same "cost," but because they're adding to your fleet rather than subtracting from it, Tarkin feels less restrictive. Furthermore, it's a tiny nudge in favor of more ships versus squadrons. Just a bit, anyways.
  • Yes, this is basically how Warmachine's warcasters/warlocks work and it's one of the few things I still like about that game, so don't point out that I stole it; I know I stole it .
    This is clever. I agree that commanders do feel like a "tax" and this is a good way to remove that.
• Whatever minor nerf they're inevitably going to give flotillas should be carried over provided it's appropriate. I'm still a fan of @shmitty's suggestions of flotillas not counting against being tabled and not being able to be flagships.
  I'm also inclined to agree with this one. Combine this with the new "pass" method I posted earlier and it really does take down the activation issue, I think.
• From a rules clarity perspective, I'm also a fan of @Drasnighta's recommendation of classifying the two hull zone attacks a ship can make during its activation as "salvos" rather than "attacks" because it would clarify what effects apply where exactly. As it stands, you can get confusion when "attack" can mean "an individual attack against one target" or "the entirety of your hull zone attack" with cards such as Slaved Turrets (which originally could be interpreted to mean your ship could make one attack against one squadron and then it was completely finished attacking for the turn). This isn't a mechanical change so much as a clarification change.
  Agreed - good clarification
• When ships overlap, only the smaller size ship takes damage if the two are of differing sizes. A generally minor change to be sure, but it would address most of the belly-aching about the current overlapping rules. It also slightly buffs medium and large ships.
  I have no strong feeling either way on this one.
• Obviously some rebalancing for the "bad" upgrade cards like the infamous Point Defense Reroute.
  Cluster bombs. Nuff said
• Non-destroyed ships that have taken 50% or more of their maximum hull in damage cards and non-destroyed squadrons that have taken 50% or more of their maximum hull in damage at the end of the game count as 50% of their victory points. Encourage players to be aggressive against each other! There's a time and a place to try to avoid an ISD altogether, of course, but not having your plastic spaceships fight because you for sure can't 100% destroy the other spaceship is sad. Crippled enemy ships are still of strategic benefit even if outright destroyed ones are obviously superior.
  Also a good idea
• Interactions between ships and squadrons are a constant source of complaints. The following are by far the most experimental suggestions (and thus the most likely to suck), but something along the lines of:
  • When a squadron attacks a ship, the ship may make a Counter attack using its anti-squadron armament. This may require some anti-squadron armament changes to get the balance correct but effectively when you make a bombing run on an enemy ship, you're exposing yourself to a lot more danger and the ship's laser/flak turrets aren't just going to ignore you.
  • Squadrons all gain the effects of Grit permanently (they aren't prevented from moving when engaged by only one enemy squadron) and Intel is removed altogether. Let's break this down a little bit:
    • Remember back in wave one when squadrons were awful because tying them up with just 1 or 2 enemy squadrons was too easy and they couldn't kill ships fast enough after they slapped their way through? Remember how excited we were about Intel squadrons? Notice how much we all groan about the necessity of Intel squadrons nowadays for heavier squadrons fleets? Wouldn't it just be better if the basic rules just made it so a squadron couldn't be prevented from moving by bare minimum squadron opposition but you could still rely on a limited combat air patrol to keep your opponent's bombers honest instead of it usually coming down to "how quickly can I kill the Intel squadron?"
      • This also limits the nonsense shenanigans of a single Rieekan zombie ace tying up numerous enemy squadrons as well.
    • Heavy might require some rewording so as to not cause confusion with the interaction with the Grit effect, as it presently does (where one X-Wing and one Y-Wing turn off Grit, for example).
    • The basic goal being "if you want to protect your ships, bring at least a few fighter squadrons and use them to engage and destroy enemy squadrons as a group rather than relying on silly tricks; similarly, if you want to deliver your bombers, interact with enemy fighters to clear a path rather than just leaning on a bubble that allows you to ignore them."
      • This isn't to say I'm super salty about Intel, just that it can create a kind of boring game state where the squadron mini-game is leaning fairly hard on the specific positioning of and opponent attempts to destroy the super-special squadrons that allow many of one player's squadrons to ignore the other player's, which is kind of uninteractive and not fun. I get why it was done, but maybe we could just patch up the basic rules so we don't need to bring HWK-290s or Jumpmasters in fleets running lots of bombers to overcome that mechanical problem built into the game?
    • Along the same line as the removal of Intel, I'd also like to see less "aura" effects from special squadrons (like Rhymer or Norra) to diminish the importance of precise squadron placement, which slows down games.
  • Relay squadrons must be within squadron command range of the ship Relaying through them. You can go ahead and use Boosted Comms and a Relay to command from downtown, but commanding from the other end of the table is silly.
  • All the above would assuredly require some points adjustments for squadrons overall to make them better fit their altered interactions with ships. Perhaps a small bump, perhaps not?

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with this one. I do agree that squadrons need an overhaul, and I do think that having all fighters use grit makes a lot of sense and enables smoother play, but I do like aura effects like intel and rhymer. I think they may need a bit of a rebalance, but I think the concept isn't so bad. Squadron Keywords is actually one area where I feel like increasing complexity would be a good thing. More properties for more varied fighter options: I refer you to http://kdyards.com/reference.php here for my own thoughts on keywords.

...and that's what comes to mind right now, anyways. I'm sure I'm horribly misguided and would kill Armada and someone will be by momentarily to tell me how wrong I am but it was a fun thought experiment, anyways ;).

Single range ruler - 1.5 or 2 times the length of the current range ruler with a tad increased bracket density.

Oh I know another one. Make all the **** promo rulers the same length. No more range 1 being longer or shorter than another tourny ruler. FFG should be more consistent in a game where tiny measurements matter.

10 hours ago, Snipafist said:

When a squadron attacks a ship, the ship may make a Counter attack using its anti-squadron armament. This may require some anti-squadron armament changes to get the balance correct but effectively when you make a bombing run on an enemy ship, you're exposing yourself to a lot more danger and the ship's laser/flak turrets aren't just going to ignore you.

I can't remember who it was, but someone asked me to make a new defense token on KDYards: Point-Defense. It reads like this:

Quote

When defending against a squadron you may immediately attack that squadron with your anti-squadron armament. If a squadron is destroyed in this way all its attack dice are canceled. When defending against a ship, roll your anti-squadron armament, for each (hit) result remove one black die from the attack pool.