Long time lurker, first time poster. While there is nothing wrong with Flotilla's on an individual basis, especially with the inability to now use them as lifeboats, it's pretty clear that flotilla derived activation advantage still dominates the current meta.

I have a simple fix for this. Have flotilla's activate in the squadron phase rather than the ship phase while keeping all of their other rules the same (i.e behaving like a ship with command dials/orders etc however they activate during the squadron phase before or after other unactivated squadrons.

This will result in people either building lists to have an activation advantage in either the capital or squadron phases or alternatively building a more balanced list aiming for a moderate number of activations in both phases. It may even see the return of the occasional large ships (shock/horror) or carriers to push fighters around (rather than flotilla swarms) to competitive lists without preventing someone building a competitive list around squadrons. It also opens up the potential for FFG to bring out more flotilla's dedicated to assisting squadrons. It'd be thematic for instance for a gunship style flotilla for it to have an offensive slot 'flotilla only' upgrade card that grants the flotilla 'escort' at range 1 or with a title that boosts it out to 'close range' or a flotilla only upgrade card that grants a front arc restricted use of flechette torpedos.

Thoughts?

11 hours ago, TrozOz said:

It may even see the return of the occasional large ships

I thought that according to the data presented by several people that large ships were fairly represented in tournaments.

Although the post acknowledges the recent changes made to the game, it still argues for a "fix" ontop of the recent changes, which have yet to be tested by the community at large. I'd suggest a simple stop to further "fixes" to the game until the recent changes hav been playtested. As you've noted, the flotillas may perhaps dominate the current meta but that may shift when the changes have been implemented.

8 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

I thought that according to the data presented by several people that large ships were fairly represented in tournaments.

Although the post acknowledges the recent changes made to the game, it still argues for a "fix" ontop of the recent changes, which have yet to be tested by the community at large. I'd suggest a simple stop to further "fixes" to the game until the recent changes hav been playtested. As you've noted, the flotillas may perhaps dominate the current meta but that may shift when the changes have been implemented.

This.



I agree that may be a good fix down the line if the current fixes don't balance things out a bit.

The commander having to NOT go on a flotilla is going to make that 18-23 points look more attractive as addition to a more robust and more upgraded ship. It should rein in the activation arms race a bit.

I'd also expect a change to Relay if something else is needed after the recent FAQ changes have time to do their work. Flotillas as activation padding are attractive because they punch above their weight.

My thought on flotillas was that they were ships that would operate in the rear...they kinda follow what the capital ships are doing and go from there. Yet in this game people use them to go first, hide the big stuff in the rear, out activate then ambush with the big guns. Flotilla fodder.

Having them activate with squadrons would be more sensible.

9 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

My thought on flotillas was that they were ships that would operate in the rear...they kinda follow what the capital ships are doing and go from there. Yet in this game people use them to go first, hide the big stuff in the rear, out activate then ambush with the big guns. Flotilla fodder.

Having them activate with squadrons would be more sensible.

The whole point of a Navy is to protect the transports.

Exactly, and having them activate last makes the most sense. The option to just delay the big stuff is silly, gamey, and it just spoils the fun.

22 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

The whole point of a Navy is to protect the transports.

No, the point of the Navy is to defend against the insisdious crab people who occupy the ocean floor.

12 hours ago, TrozOz said:

Long time lurker, first time poster. While there is nothing wrong with Flotilla's on an individual basis, especially with the inability to now use them as lifeboats, it's pretty clear that flotilla derived activation advantage still dominates the current meta.

I have a simple fix for this. Have flotilla's activate in the squadron phase rather than the ship phase while keeping all of their other rules the same (i.e behaving like a ship with command dials/orders etc however they activate during the squadron phase before or after other unactivated squadrons.

This will result in people either building lists to have an activation advantage in either the capital or squadron phases or alternatively building a more balanced list aiming for a moderate number of activations in both phases. It may even see the return of the occasional large ships (shock/horror) or carriers to push fighters around (rather than flotilla swarms) to competitive lists without preventing someone building a competitive list around squadrons. It also opens up the potential for FFG to bring out more flotilla's dedicated to assisting squadrons. It'd be thematic for instance for a gunship style flotilla for it to have an offensive slot 'flotilla only' upgrade card that grants the flotilla 'escort' at range 1 or with a title that boosts it out to 'close range' or a flotilla only upgrade card that grants a front arc restricted use of flechette torpedos.

Thoughts?

The FAQ just came out. I do not think it is accurate to say that flotilla derived activation advantage still dominates the current meta.

I do think that we still start seeing less fleets with 3 flotillas. It was all too common to see 2 utility flotillas, and 1 lifeboat flotilla.

I am sure a lot of fleets will still take 2 flotillas, but 3 won't be as common. There is also an upgrade rumored to take out flotillas at long range quite easily, so 2 flotillas might not even be a staple.

Furthermore, Commanders are going to be a lot more vulnerable. You can put one on a speedy ship, but the speedy ships can be pretty fragile. You're also taking away fleet firepower by sending off a corvette or raider with your Commander.

Larger ships are indirectly benefited by the lifeboat change, as are some upgrade cards (e.g. QLTs-- come at my Kallus QLT Interdictor bro).

10 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

No, the point of the Navy is to defend against the insisdious crab people who occupy the ocean floor.

Craaaaaaaaab people, craaaaaaaaaaab people. Look like crabs, talk like people....

Just now, geek19 said:

Craaaaaaaaab people, craaaaaaaaaaab people. Look like crabs, talk like people....

Apparently, they have a Shampoo for that.

19 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

No, the point of the Navy is to defend against the insisdious crab people who occupy the ocean floor.

The moon is fat tonight. Dagon stirsss. Maybe he'll rissse.

3 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

The moon is fat tonight. Dagon stirsss. Maybe he'll rissse.

Something seems off about this here, can't tell what though.

Wait! I've got it! This lesbian bar doesn't have a fire exit! Enjoy your death trap, ladies

I think we need to zoom out of our current flotilla fixation and look at the larger issue.

Flotillas came as a DIRECT response to the fact that DeMSU was the dominant fleet pre-flotillas. Dominant in a way that makes Rieekan aces jealous. It completely eliminated any sort of potential for competitively using large ships, which essentially went extinct except for a extremely limited number of exceptions (I can think of 1 person) and people choosing to run them and lose terribly to first/last Demolisher. Flotillas accomplished the goal of returning large ships to use, but had unintended consequences of creating an activation arms race that led to 6, 7, and 8 activation fleets full of the buggers, forcing people to take at least 1 or 2 just to keep up. This was not desired.

Demolisher has now been reduced. That is the important change that came in this errata. I suspect FFG's hope is that by nerfing the root problem harder than their proposed solution flotillas overall will become less prevalent because they are not as necessary as Demolisher padding. Any of the number of "fixes" to flotillas like so many people have been proposing for the last 2 months would only mean a return to DeMSU dominance - including the change proposed in the OP.

Even in the MC30 flotilla spam fleets and DeMSU your commander now has to sit on a 4 or 5 hull ship. That is risky! It will mean that those fleets now have a huge achilles heel you can exploit, and it is likely that they will have to change their profile and reduce flotillas to compensate. That means reduced activations. That means less requirement for flotillas in other fleets.

Of course, it all still has to shake down and we will see what new problems this creates, but for right now I can see a clear logic path for how they arrived at these erratas and believe that they have tread the line carefully without being heavy handed.

EDIT: (sorry for ruining all your fun with a serious response)

Flotilla is a different class of ship, so why not intreduce a new phase for the between ship and squadron phase.

It's a simple solution that set activation problem. Think outside of the box. Not because it was not this way that we can't do it now.

27 minutes ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

Flotilla is a different class of ship, so why not intreduce a new phase for the between ship and squadron phase.

It's a simple solution that set activation problem. Think outside of the box. Not because it was not this way that we can't do it now.

Right, but if we haven't tested any of the MINOR changes, why do we need to do a major change already? Let's see what the new box gives us before we start thinking outside it.

Don't get me wrong, I think those changes are good for the game (BCC and commander), but i'm just not sure that will be enough to counter the activation issue.

4 minutes ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

Don't get me wrong, I think those changes are good for the game (BCC and commander), but i'm just not sure that will be enough to counter the activation issue.

55 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Even in the MC30 flotilla spam fleets and DeMSU your commander now has to sit on a 4 or 5 hull ship. That is risky! It will mean that those fleets now have a huge achilles heel you can exploit, and it is likely that they will have to change their profile and reduce flotillas to compensate. That means reduced activations. That means less requirement for flotillas in other fleets.

I know there is a lot of text, but this is what we need wait and watch for. I know in building fleets I have had to adjust to fewer activations to get a ship I feel comfortable putting a Commander on. Even putting in a Jainas light CR90 to give him a safe place to hide like the olden days means I am sacrificing 2 flotillas if no other part of my fleet remains unchanged.

13 minutes ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

Don't get me wrong, I think those changes are good for the game (BCC and commander), but i'm just not sure that will be enough to counter the activation issue.

But are activations really an issue? Given 2 different fleets, one with 5 flotillas and an ISD and one with 4 different ships all with attack power, you can't really say how one will do until they get played and people actually try them out. It's really not worth creating our what, 12th topic on the forums for this, but activation advantage ISN'T as important as actually using your activations well.

Good god, I thought we might at least get some respite from these ******* threads...

There is zero, zero basis for any claims of meta issues right now. The FAQing FAQ has been out for less than two days! Unless you've catalogued a series of major tournaments with these errata in effect and seen no change in <insert your private gripe trend here>, just... FFS...

*sputter*

The doom and gloom on these forums the last couple of months is what's killing Armada, not the game itself.

19 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Good god, I thought we might at least get some respite from these ******* threads...

There is zero, zero basis for any claims of meta issues right now. The FAQing FAQ has been out for less than two days! Unless you've catalogued a series of major tournaments with these errata in effect and seen no change in <insert your private gripe trend here>, just... FFS...

*sputter*

The doom and gloom on these forums the last couple of months is what's killing Armada, not the game itself.

They must unlearn what they have learned...

2 hours ago, Gottmituns205 said:

My thought on flotillas was that they were ships that would operate in the rear...they kinda follow what the capital ships are doing and go from there. Yet in this game people use them to go first, hide the big stuff in the rear, out activate then ambush with the big guns. Flotilla fodder.

Having them activate with squadrons would be more sensible.

2 hours ago, Frimmel said:

The whole point of a Navy is to protect the transports.

Ha! Reminds me of the Milton Bradley Axis & Allies where a pile of transports defending on 1s from a d6 are more cost effective to gunning down attacks than the actual capital ships

The problem is this one, for 18 points, you have a way to activate a ship in the back of your fleet to out-activate your opponent. 18 point is less than some aces squadron. Ask some person how much they could pay for a ''pass'' upgrade. Some will say 10 points could be high but worth it. For 8 point more, you have a ship that can use AA and can activate your squadron. That's a great bargain

Are they auto include? I think yes. That maybe what's more a concern for me. I think FFG is trying to buff those ''auto-include'' and my solution is radical but at least, solve the problem of activation without touching the ability of flotilla.

But like Obi Wan already said : Be patient young Padawan

3 minutes ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

The problem is this one, for 18 points, you have a way to activate a ship in the back of your fleet to out-activate your opponent. 18 point is less than some aces squadron. Ask some person how much they could pay for a ''pass'' upgrade. Some will say 10 points could be high but worth it. For 8 point more, you have a ship that can use AA and can activate your squadron. That's a great bargain

Are they auto include? I think yes. That maybe what's more a concern for me. I think FFG is trying to buff those ''auto-include'' and my solution is radical but at least, solve the problem of activation without touching the ability of flotilla.

But like Obi Wan already said : Be patient young Padawan

I really think BrobaFett hit the nail on the head here....

2 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

I think we need to zoom out of our current flotilla fixation and look at the larger issue.

Flotillas came as a DIRECT response to the fact that DeMSU was the dominant fleet pre-flotillas. Dominant in a way that makes Rieekan aces jealous. It completely eliminated any sort of potential for competitively using large ships, which essentially went extinct except for a extremely limited number of exceptions (I can think of 1 person) and people choosing to run them and lose terribly to first/last Demolisher. Flotillas accomplished the goal of returning large ships to use, but had unintended consequences of creating an activation arms race that led to 6, 7, and 8 activation fleets full of the buggers, forcing people to take at least 1 or 2 just to keep up. This was not desired.

Demolisher has now been reduced. That is the important change that came in this errata. I suspect FFG's hope is that by nerfing the root problem harder than their proposed solution flotillas overall will become less prevalent because they are not as necessary as Demolisher padding. Any of the number of "fixes" to flotillas like so many people have been proposing for the last 2 months would only mean a return to DeMSU dominance - including the change proposed in the OP.

Even in the MC30 flotilla spam fleets and DeMSU your commander now has to sit on a 4 or 5 hull ship. That is risky! It will mean that those fleets now have a huge achilles heel you can exploit, and it is likely that they will have to change their profile and reduce flotillas to compensate. That means reduced activations. That means less requirement for flotillas in other fleets.

Of course, it all still has to shake down and we will see what new problems this creates, but for right now I can see a clear logic path for how they arrived at these erratas and believe that they have tread the line carefully without being heavy handed.

EDIT: (sorry for ruining all your fun with a serious response)

Really, let's give these changes a moment to work.


Things have been tense for so long I think some of us have forgotten to just chill. lol

I'm just going to repeat what others have said play with the new rules before suggesting a change. Stop being negative it really is what is killing the game.

I have had very limited experience with the new FAQ I played 2 games with the new FAQ rules, and done a decent amount of fleet building and in my very limited experience this is what I have found.

In regards to flotillas/activation spam - not being able to lifeboat on a flotilla is big imo because now you have a decision to make do you lifeboat or do you 'toughboat' your Admiral. If you lifeboat the admiral both factions pay the equivalent of 2 flotillas that means less activations and both the hammerhead and Raider are not going to contribute the same way a lifeboat flotilla would. For one that can't pass out tokens or take any of other of the fleet support upgrades. And they're not all that good at commanding squadrons even through relay. Granted you can put on expanded Hangar Bays, but still you're giving up some good fire power especially with expanded racks coming out in wave 6. That in mind I think people are going to go the 'toughboat' route meaning large ships medium ships ships like MC-80 ISDs interdictors etc. Some people might point to clone troopers list but demo also got a nerf, and with bomber Command Center still in the game even with the nerf squadrons will still put out consistent damage and now we start balancing the line between Squadron support and ship activations. It is my belief that because of this we will see a decrease in activations.

In regards to Squadrons being to powerful - well let's just hit this one on the head Reekan Aces not going to be that amazing now Rhymer balls also got the nerf bat in bomber Command Center doesn't stack making damage from squadrons a little bit more manageable instead of a b-wing always rolling 3 damage. And we'll even be times when a dice turns up blank even with a bomber Command Center. Anything Squadron game will be in a healthy spot now still need some Fighters two screen against bombing Wings because they still pose a threat but it won't be unwieldy as I personally felt it was before this FAQ. Again relating back to my previous point I feel that the fighter game will help balance out the activations because if you take more ships you're taking us squadrons and you can't run Squadron less even with Raiders they still need a small screen.

In regards to large ships being dead - really we just have to look back at the other two points toughboating I think will be a thing that is putting your commander on a hefty ship. And with the Squadron game not being completely insane with bombing Command Center stacking that also helps large ships along with the other Squadron nerfs and the nerve to trc's is helpful to Big Ships while still giving small ships a nice little Spike damage it doesn't make it unwieldy for large ships to deal with.

All in all I think these small changes have helped Armada a lot again this is from very limited experience only 2 games and a lot of list building. In short don't knock it till you try it.