Just want to kick the dead horse again. I want to play with the following change to standard play:

500pts/150 Max squads

Reason? I has ships. Wants play. Needs big fleet feels.

Have you played the CC Campaign? It's a pretty fun way to play.

350 is better, because you can play more games.

No upper/lower limit on squads, though. Because SQUADS SHOULD BE BETTER BALANCED VS SHIPS. Ya know - you get the value of the points you spend, balanced whether ship or squad.

I say 600p but that is the kind of normal game that I like to play with... not really interested in the game going faster.

I think 600p are kind of the upper limit for a 3x6 gaming board, you do need room to maneuver or games become a bit boring.

For tournament games then 400p are probably a good mix... 300p seem boring to me. For casual play you can use as many points as you wish.

Is it Tuesday already?

I've done a 1500 pointer with Destraa on a 3x9, fun times. I think max fun is around 600-800. And yes, I would like tourneys to go to 500!

5 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

Have you played the CC Campaign? It's a pretty fun way to play.

I think that's why he wants to up the standard game size.

It's just like hearing Runewars players suggest 250 and 300 point standard games. My issue is that the cards were balanced/costed for 400. Some do not scale and some scale too well.

Also, time. I don't want tournament rounds to go past 2 hours. 2:15 is already too long. If you got to 500, we need to increase to 2:30 or 2:45

For casual play: go have fun. We can't and don't want to stop you

36 minutes ago, Church14 said:

It's just like hearing Runewars players suggest 250 and 300 point standard games. My issue is that the cards were balanced/costed for 400.

Which cards? The ones in the original game or wave 1, when a standard game was 300 points?

3 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Which cards? The ones in the original game or wave 1, when a standard game was 300 points?

I think a lot of people forget that it wasn't always 400pts.

I'd love to play 500pt tournaments but even at 400pts a lot of people have trouble finishing before time and making tournaments longer doesn't appeal to most players or the stores that host the games.

8 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Which cards? The ones in the original game or wave 1, when a standard game was 300 points?

Game was always intended to be 400.

For example: Home One vs Defiance titles. Home One would suck at 200 and 300. Is good/okay at 400 but requires you to build for it. At 500+, it becomes a no-brainer. Defiance on the other hand - is great at <=400. A cheap extra 1-2 dice. At 500, the larger number of dice thrown total means a single added die is not as significant. Shaving all the +1 die upgrades to get another full ship becomes more cost effective.

My other concern with increasing points and not increasing map size is that it just becomes an exercise in mass fire tactics.

7 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Just want to kick the dead horse again. I want to play with the following change to standard play:

500pts/150 Max squads

Reason? I has ships. Wants play. Needs big fleet feels.

It'll never happen.

I don't think it's an unrealistic goal to have though.

I'm just convinced the player demand for it will never exist. The only way to make sure 500 points fit the time frames at a competitive level would require a number cap on squadrons, and based on what I've seen of the competitive crowd, they'd lose their minds.

Locally we play 600 point games with no squads from time to time, those matches fit within the 135 minute competitive frame easily, so it's safe to presume the adding ships doesn't necessarily slow as much as adding squads. (Honestly in terms of time consumption I'd hold 334 points of ships and upgrades as faster than 134 of squads, but I don't have enough data to really make a solid claim there, just what I've experienced personally)

If 500 point games were to ever work I believe the point total for squads would be less relevant than a strict cap on numbers. You gotta figure when players have a hard time finishing within that time frame with between 8-10 squadrons, adding 1-2 squads to that and increasing the total points allowing more ships, would just make it worse. The only way to guarantee time frames would be met is to lock squad totals at 6 or less, no matter what was taken or points spent.

I just don't see our squad focused friends ever havin' that.

Ever.

500 points is fine where it is, CC is fun, if not the most difficult thing to organize ever. lol ( I can barely get our weekly group together.... asking them to keep track of stuff from week to week? HA! That'll happen. )

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

Game was always intended to be 400.

You have proof of this? I don't remember seeing it said in any FFG releases - but I could have missed it.

Edit: Indeed he did! See below.

5 hours ago, xanderf said:

No upper/lower limit on squads, though. Because SQUADS SHOULD BE BETTER BALANCED VS SHIPS. Ya know - you get the value of the points you spend, balanced whether ship or squad.

Squadrons are capped for many good reasons. For example:

A match between two fleets both with 300+ points of squadrons would take forever.

The game is thematically about ships supporting and supported by squadrons - there's a reason we have a maneuver tool for ships while squadrons just sort of mill about, a reason most squadrons rely on being activated by ships to even properly function, and a reason most squadron-heavy builds leverage certain key upgrades on ships to work most effectively. This emulates what's seen on the big screen, where squadrons and ships operate in tandem; not exclusively one or the other.

Squadrons have many "bubble"-based effects, such as intel and escort. These exist in order to add back the strategy to positioning that is lost by their freedom in movement and firing arc relative to ships. But this also means that squadrons scale much more effectively than ships, which possess very few bubble effects, most of which are relatively minor. Every additional squadron you add is worth more than the last, because it receives the buffs of every earlier squadron's bubble effects. Rhymer is stronger when you can also take Dengar; Soontir is better when you can also take Escort; on perfect rolls Norra only gives herself +1 damage for her 17 point price, but gives +10 damage if she has nine friends.

This doesn't address whether squadrons are or aren't too strong relative to ships - that's not the argument I'm making.

Point is, capping the number of squadrons that can be taken is a natural consequence of the base game design, which results in every additional squadron having more marginal impact than the last.

43 minutes ago, Democratus said:

You have proof of this? I don't remember seeing it said in any FFG releases - but I could have missed it.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/26/let-the-battles-begin/

took on me a bit to find

8 minutes ago, Church14 said:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/26/let-the-battles-begin/

took on me a bit to find

Thanks for tracking that down. I totally concede the point.

12 minutes ago, Church14 said:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/26/let-the-battles-begin/

took on me a bit to find

Did not know this. I stand corrected.

25 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Thanks for tracking that down. I totally concede the point.

You challenged something I had taken for granted for a while (apparently 2.5 years). I realized didn't actually have something concrete to support me and had to go digging. I was half expecting to find out it was another case of tribal "knowledge" not based in actual fact

Just now, Church14 said:

You challenged something I had taken for granted for a while (apparently 2.5 years). I realized didn't actually have something concrete to support me and had to go digging.

Heh - You could have asked, I have it on file

I was throwing the arguments around in the Runewars forums just recently.

Honestly though - Super impressed and happy to see it found by someone else

37 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Heh - You could have asked, I have it on file

I was throwing the arguments around in the Runewars forums just recently.

Honestly though - Super impressed and happy to see it found by someone else

Dras,

if I had a Dras-bat signal, I would use it. Though any spotlight powerful enough to shine from Madison, WI, to Calgary-ish would probably get me on a watch list here.

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

Game was always intended to be 400.

For example: Home One vs Defiance titles. Home One would suck at 200 and 300. Is good/okay at 400 but requires you to build for it. At 500+, it becomes a no-brainer. Defiance on the other hand - is great at <=400. A cheap extra 1-2 dice. At 500, the larger number of dice thrown total means a single added die is not as significant. Shaving all the +1 die upgrades to get another full ship becomes more cost effective.

My other concern with increasing points and not increasing map size is that it just becomes an exercise in mass fire tactics.

So why did they start at 300 points instead of 400, if as you say it was always intended to be 400.

16 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

So why did they start at 300 points instead of 400, if as you say it was always intended to be 400.

"As early as this weekend, you can launch into Armada Core Set tournaments. These require you to bring a fleet of 180 points or less and adhere to all the other standard Armada tournament rules. Then, when the first wave of expansions becomes available, Armada tournaments will shift to the utilization of 300-point fleets. Finally, with the arrival of the second wave of Armada expansion, the game will reach its cap at 400-point fleets."

-https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/26/let-the-battles-begin/


As to why, it's anyone's guess, but I think a smart assumption would be, pre-wave 2, there really weren't enough ships/squadrons to merit a full 400 points...

I think the answer is to have round limits. There is no reason a 6 round game of armada should last more than 2 hours whether you play at 400 points or 500. Games last 2 hours or more because players take to long making decisions. I think each ship activation should have a 2 minute clock. Each squadron activation should get a 1 minute clock. Games will fly if players stop stalling and second guessing their decisions. Just my opinion. Probably wrong but I get frustrated when my opponent takes a few minutes to choose which ship to activate, then ponders over if he's using his dial or taking a token, measures several times or takes a long time to choose his squadron activations. I try hard to decide what I'm doing while the opponent is activating so my decisions are made already once I activate.

No. The current people I play can’t finish a 400 point game in 2 hours. No need to go any further in points. It just means more games that aren’t finished in time.

In fact it’s one thing that I’m starting to dislike about Armada. It needs a death clock option. I dislike that I’m seeing games where I’m playing for 30 minutes, my opponent plays for 90 minutes, and we are calling the game on round 4.

1 minute ago, Hawktel said:

No. The current people I play can’t finish a 400 point game in 2 hours. No need to go any further in points. It just means more games that aren’t finished in time.

In fact it’s one thing that I’m starting to dislike about Armada. It needs a death clock option. I dislike that I’m seeing games where I’m playing for 30 minutes, my opponent plays for 90 minutes, and we are calling the game on round 4.

Totally agree with the idea of introducing a timer into the game. I get super frustrated when my opponent takes double or triple the time activating than I do.