Late to the party, but I am digging all the changes they made. Overall very positive, and seems to bring most stuff back inline with the cost making sense (e.g. TRC). Also makes a lot of stuff less auto include, which should help list diversity some.

I can't claim to have read the whole thread, but I get the distinct impression these were the playtests holding up the previous FAQ, which got shoved out when they realized how long this was taking.

I for one am ecstatic about the TRC nerf. It wasn't an issue in Ackbar environments, it was the thing letting Cracken TRCR90 fleets run away with games. I don't think BCC is that huge, though it is worth noting, and I never had an issue personally with lifeboats, it'll just require some adjusting. Rieekan and Rhymer probably deserve two-ish points knocked off their costs after that, but they'll still see plenty of use. Rhymer jumped from alpha strike to range insurance. Sloane probably was the catalyst there. I look forward to Wave 7, since I expect there will be some cause for this there too.

Wait, if Demo can't attack after an Engine Tech move, is this a slight buff to Fleet Ambush? Maybe?

7 hours ago, Harrs_Canter said:

To be a bit clearer, if, for instance, two ships are destroyed in the same round, you can only apply the effect to one ship. For example, a Liberty and a GR-75 are both destroyed. You can keep the Liberty and use it or remove the GR-75 and vice versa. But if the Liberty has already attacked and then destroyed, it can still be used to ram other ships.

I think, that the Rieekan nerf isn't very wise. I really don't know how many ships and unique squadrons normally die in one round but if you play a Rieekan-list and lets say your Luke Skywalker Squadron is shot down in Round five. According to the text he remains in the play area. When your MC80 Command Cruiser explodes till the end of the round, he's gone. If you play against Rieekan you should try to kill a little squadron before the capital ships to make Rieekan a fool? In the card text it doesn't say, that the player can decide if he wants to benefit from the effect. But when you'll play it this way, which time do you have to decide?

The Rieekan nerf needs its FAQ.

Just saw it now. And first i had to hit myself to check if i am dreaming.

I am not , these changes are great. We always said Rhymer should be not medium range. And finally they changed it.
And this is good and in time with the upcoming wave 6. Sloane and Quasar would become really insane with the old Rhymer. And the Hammerhead with Rieekan and maybe even with TRC.

All i really miss is a change in the relay. This distance 3 is way to big.

And (for the last time), this really is the prove, that the 8 Gozanti list was broken . They had to nerf it, so no one can play it anymore.

Thanks ffg for clarifying Rapid launch bays. Ffg always be balancing. It maybe slow in some games but good to know they are always considering it

14 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And (for the last time), this really is the prove, that the 8 Gozanti list was broken . They had to nerf it, so no one can play it anymore.

The 7 gozanti version 1 raider is just as strong though...

Rhymer - I am glad to see this card changed. I really hated Rhymer. I remember losing a Neb B to a Rhymer alpha strike and thinking there was literally nothing I could have done to prevent it. Now a squadron cover will go a long way. It does remain to be seen whether the nerf was a bit of a sledgehammer... Close range offers only a very marginal advantage over distance 1.

Demo - don't really see this changing much, at least in the way we'd been using it. I think we've probably only used Engine Techs once with the Demo, so I imagine Demo will still be an auto include in most Imperial lists.

TRCs - man I hated this card, mainly because it was all my Armada buddy ever used. Requiring TRCs to be exhausted is a minor distraction I think but it will at least prevent double arcing pain. MS-1s might see a use now, although they're blue dice and limited to medium range, so it's very likely TRCs will have been working a turn or two before.

Rieekan - good I think, and particularly for the competitive tourney environment. We'd not really used Rieekan much to be fair.

2 hours ago, Triangular said:

I think, that the Rieekan nerf isn't very wise. I really don't know how many ships and unique squadrons normally die in one round but if you play a Rieekan-list and lets say your Luke Skywalker Squadron is shot down in Round five. According to the text he remains in the play area. When your MC80 Command Cruiser explodes till the end of the round, he's gone. If you play against Rieekan you should try to kill a little squadron before the capital ships to make Rieekan a fool? In the card text it doesn't say, that the player can decide if he wants to benefit from the effect. But when you'll play it this way, which time do you have to decide?

The Rieekan nerf needs its FAQ.

Not really. It is in the RRG:

Quote

• Resolving an upgrade card effect is optional unless otherwise specified. All other card effects are mandatory unless otherwise specified.

As long as Rieekan does not say "must" it is optional.

So each time a unique squadron or ship is destroyed, the player can decide to use Rieekan and keep it on the field until the end of the Status Phase of the turn.

Most Wanted is still much too good.

18 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Most Wanted is still much too good.

True. The should get rid of one aspect of it. Either the bonus dice or the double points.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

Not really. It is in the RRG:

As long as Rieekan does not say "must" it is optional.

So each time a unique squadron or ship is destroyed, the player can decide to use Rieekan and keep it on the field until the end of the Status Phase of the turn.

Ah, same thing as "Jamming Field" then?!? It was the same argument. And it was faq-ed the other direction.

But even if you're right, IMO it is mean, that you have to gamble which of your ships and/or squadrons will die at the right time. Maybe it was necessary to nerf Rieekan. But I don't like the way they've done it.

12 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Its also how you "Ask the Question"

When you send in a rules request, you get a response (eventually).

Previously, those responses were from James Kniffen - Head Designer of Armada. You have asked FFG a Question, and that's the answer he gave.

That was then, as a courtesy, shared to the public via the Forum. Once upon a time, when you went to log a question to FAQ< they told you to check the forum first as the first point of call - it was officially the point of calling for answers.

Nowadays, that response system comes from Michael Gernes - who is the Producer of Armada.

To be jokingly-snarky, these names are readily available in the Credits for the Game we play

If you are only playing in a casual environment, then you don't need Rules Rulings anyway - sort 'em out in your group. RAW vs RAI.

When you want to know what FFG says - even if its not in the Rules - then you ahve to come to FFG.

Some of us just share our personal responses.

That helps us, as a group, as a collective, as a Forum, share what we have found as "Rules as Intended" - because we're getting that Intention, effectively, from the Horses Mouth.

You can be free to discuss or dismiss as you see fit, of course - but in the end, a lot of us (but not all of us, of course) consider the Rules Forum an invaluable tool for aiding that discussion, and coming to pertinent conclusions - and sharing those conclusions with the World, even when FFG does not.

To take the issue right now.

The Rules DO NOT STATE that you cannot take Damage beyond what kills you when Rieekan keeps you on the table.

The Rules DO NOT STATE that you can take Damage beyond what kills you when Rieekan keeps you on the table.

So you are left with an intention conundrum, because there is no "RAW" involved. You can't Quote RAW, because there is no RAW dealing with that specific circumstance...

Your ship was "destroyed" when it got a damage card equal to its hull. Trufax.

But now its not "Destroyed" because Rieekan says so. Also Trufax.

To me, for the argument's sake: the only thing that would have stopped me from putting damage cards on it when it was destroyed, was it was destroyed, and removed from the table - if its not on the table, it can't be targeted, and thus, can't take cards...

But Rieekan says it stays on the table. That means another ship can target it, draw line of sight to it, roll attack, roll damage, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The same with Squadrons. When squadrons take damage, you move their base plate so the hull points remaining shows... You'll notice there's no 0. There's no Boom.

When you lose your last hull point, you're removed. Thus stopping you from taking any more.

But Rieekan says otherwise.

You can keep taking damage points. You odn't reset to 0, you just keep taking damage, because you're an eligable target to take damage, because the only thing that stops you from taking damage is not being targeted...

That was a question. Does that seem right?

So we asked, "is that the intention?"

And we got an Answer. From FFG itself. When enough people ask the Question, it should result in an FAQ. But not always.

Coming to the Forum, helps you inform that "Intention". Nothing else.

I don't care who makes the game, not because I don't know how to find the credits, but because I honestly don't care who makes the game.

---

My problem with these interweb rules forums , where designers or official rulez dudez reside, is, that instead of flipping through an official document, you have to look through endless posts where people bark, nag and harass each other and I don't care for that. I refer to official documents.

From the Introduction section of the Armada Tournament rules:

"Tournaments are played using the rules provided in the Star Wars: Armada Rules Reference and FAQ".

So interweb rulings are not official rulings. TO/judges can ofcourse use them how they see fit and this frustrates me.

---

Should there be a place, like the forums, where you can ask questions? Sure, we can't assume FFG will catch all their mistakes og twists on the game. But the second largest problem to me is, that their FAQs are not updated enough. My largest problem is players that keep trying to twist the game to their own advantage, like Jamming Field, which is used in a debate on a local, closed FB group.

In the Rieekan death/no-death issue, we are in agreement. The rules are not precise, because he breaks them in a frustratingly maner and FFG hasn't addressed that yet.

---

I thank you for your long and respectful answer to me. I hope I have returned mine in a similar way.

10 minutes ago, Triangular said:

Ah, same thing as "Jamming Field" then?!? It was the same argument. And it was faq-ed the other direction.

But even if you're right, IMO it is mean, that you have to gamble which of your ships and/or squadrons will die at the right time. Maybe it was necessary to nerf Rieekan. But I don't like the way they've done it.

To complicate matters:

JF has now been "un-FAQed".

25 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

To complicate matters:

JF has now been "un-FAQed".

For real??

Mistake or deliberate?? I guess we'll know next FAQ!

30 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

To complicate matters:

JF has now been "un-FAQed".

Thank you. I thought I was going crazy and re-read the **** thing twice and couldn't find it.

13 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Thank you. I thought I was going crazy and re-read the **** thing twice and couldn't find it.

Does that mean I can turn off the jamming field to attack with my squads and turn it on when they're done?

Edit: not trying to derail the thead, maybe I'll wander over to the rules forum.

Looks like mistake to me over jamming fields. if they'd intended to unfaq it, a note would have clarified it entirely. And for as big of a change as it is, it would easily have made the article.

5 minutes ago, Viktor Tanek said:

Does that mean I can turn off the jamming field to attack with my squads and turn it on when they're done?

Yes

4 hours ago, Irishmadcat said:

Thanks ffg for clarifying Rapid launch bays. Ffg always be balancing. It maybe slow in some games but good to know they are always considering it

Finally!

16 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Just a reminder that I predicted why we needed these nerds. And that squadrons are the main cause of the problem (as posed to only flotillas) and that I predicted most of these changes. No flotilla commander. Bcc doesn't stack. Nerf to rieekan (not the same method).

Hahaha.

Another reminder for all the meta slaves that top6/8 of worlds then repeat all squadron finals top2 for euros wasn't a big enough deal for you apologists to care.

Get nerfed.

ive never seen a community so stuck head in the sand.

Haha glorious praise be to balance

Despite all the push back you're getting, I find your methods amusing. Low road it all the way man! lol

13 hours ago, Ophion said:

True. The should get rid of one aspect of it. Either the bonus dice or the double points.

Yes. I know Most Wanted has already been changed early in the history of the game (removing extra dice for squadron attacks on the objective ship). Perhaps disallowing flotillas as being the objective ship to lessen the double points difference between each side's objective ship.

Overall I'm happy with the changes.

Rieekan: I used him at the regionals and recent store championships and I will still take him. With decent escort squadrons like Luke/Wedge and Jan lending braces to CC unique squadrons without defence tokens it is not too bad and shouldn't happen that often in the same turn. Biggs too can really smooth out the rate squadrons are lost. Choosing to Zombify Wedge when you may later loose a ship is more of a challenge and makes him more interesting to play.

BCC stacking: To be honest I have never used or faced it and thought it suffered from diminishing returns. BCC + Toryn still exists for B-wings and Gold squadron.

Rhymer: It is a shame I think but Sloane may have made him too powerful. An alternative change could have been to limit Rhymer's effect to Bomber rule squadrons only but keep Close-Medium ranges. Anyway to sooth the disappointed Imperial players - FCTs & Corruptor still exists and Squall is just around the corner so getting a Rhymer ball into close range should be little problem.

Demolisher: makes sense. I notice that Flight Commander can still do his squadron command after either the first or ET moves.

TRC: Good call. I still like them on Arquitens and with only one shot per turn I may even use them more. Needa & TRC was my first choice but I used to use DTTs for any others. I may move to TRCs all round.

Flotilla Lifeboats. Probably more a hamper to MSU fleets where the added point value of a commander on a combat ship make it a tempting target and a big loss of, for example, Mon Mothma or Mof JJ.

18 hours ago, Triangular said:

I think, that the Rieekan nerf isn't very wise. I really don't know how many ships and unique squadrons normally die in one round but if you play a Rieekan-list and lets say your Luke Skywalker Squadron is shot down in Round five. According to the text he remains in the play area. When your MC80 Command Cruiser explodes till the end of the round, he's gone. If you play against Rieekan you should try to kill a little squadron before the capital ships to make Rieekan a fool? In the card text it doesn't say, that the player can decide if he wants to benefit from the effect. But when you'll play it this way, which time do you have to decide?

The Rieekan nerf needs its FAQ.

Yes, it's true. You now need to plan your battle to make the most of Rieekan's ability. No more immortal escort combo, or flying away from a fight in a flotilla and leaving your entire force to ignore incoming damage in exchange for a board wipe. The only FAQ Rieekan needs is "Yes, really."