2 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

Of course it took time to learn to play with a clock. It takes time to do anything, including learn the game to play to a skill level like all the guys in Dras's area where they knock out games in under a 2 hour limit.

The tourney rules for each game declare a 2 hour limit.

Did FFG not intend the majority of games to be finished?

I thought tourney rules were 135 minutes. That's how we've been playing them here in the Midwest.....

Just now, geek19 said:

I thought tourney rules were 135 minutes. That's how we've been playing them here in the Midwest.....

Caveat: Fleet Patrols are Tournament outline rules - and are 2 Hours.

Analysis Paralysis, or AP, is a serious condition. Speak with your doctor if you have:

Hemming and hawing, staring blankly at a situation on the game table, or the inability to make a blasted decision.

As to CC. I've played two organized campaigns. Won both, team captained one, carried the team in both, but only because I worked WITH my team to make sure their games and our overall strategy played out well. Turns out brazen attacks on Corellia round one do pretty well, since as long as you win by a point, you win the system. Pro tip. It is after all the only time you will have the most even chance, and your opponent will have the least experience with his or her fleet.

Clocks! No! What are you even thinking!? I'm in the camp where 90 minutes is a common game, at least before concession. We have a fairly proficient group and play pretty consistently fleets we have practiced with and outside of experimental fleets where we ponder all the possibilities of what we are toying with we've never gone past two, maybe two and a half hours. I'm a very analytical gamer and I know I over analyze a ton. But even I don't spend that much time once I know what I'm doing with a given fleet. And squadrons are a fast activation for us. We borrowed from a FLGS house rule for another game that stating intent after measurement proves possiblity of a position, that the stated intent of a position is used in all cases where it is stated. If not stated, it is fair game as it stands. My God did that speed things up. Even when not using it in tournaments most of us still have fast squad play. For Pete sakes they only move and/or shoot. But to satisfy the fact that it is another minute of action, that's why I say ditch the 1/3 rule and say 150pts Max squad count for 500pts. For Imps that means two more TIE stands, For rebels two more Z-95 squads at best. If two squads it's slowing your game down by more than 5 minutes a round at any point, I have serious questions about what's taking so long.

My reasons for this are honestly a bit more rational and tested than my shoddy zings though. Many gameplay factors get compounded when you up the point value, but first I look at what exactly do you really get? Generally a single squadron, and/or two small ships. Or you move one moderate cost ship up to a bigger cost ship and bring a single additional moderate cost ship. At worst you get three more components by jamming in flottilas and a light ship. Whoop. Because the next thing I look at is how does it fit the board? Most games leave a fair chunk of the board unplayed. So there's certainly room. Does it fit in the deployment zone and how? Sure but getting it in a formation with the other ships is wonky. The gap between obstacles becomes a bit more of a factor as well. Third is the question of group fire, won't I just have too many guns able to shoot per round. Yeah, if everything goes my way I could. But the footprint of ships is bigger than oft credited, and the penalty for ramming is a bit steep and will really disrupt your own plans, so actually getting to group all those guns on a single target isn't actually easier. If anything, it's harder. But it will be certainly a more target rich environment, and that means you'll still likely be shooting something. Which brings me to the last bit, things die quicker. Starting off with a trifle more will mean that when the lasers do start flying things will start to disappear quicker. Getting you usually to less things to do faster than normal games.

I never suspected it to be popular opinion in the end. But I do honestly believe that the games current structure could very easily handle a marginal points cap increase. I believe it would add thematic scale to fleets, make games ultimately go faster, and increase strategic options available to players.of Strangely played larger games we did play faster for some reason too, if that's really a community concern. Larger than 500 though it does look to get pretty weird though, I'll admit that.

On 7/7/2017 at 8:24 AM, svelok said:

Squadrons are capped for many good reasons. For example:

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

Tell me about it. I've played a 7-round 3 on 3 game where we each brought 500 pt fleets...

We played from about 2/2:30 PM to almost 10 PM.

Played in my first tournament a few weeks ago. In my first game, we barely started the fourth round when the TO called on us to finish our current round. That was over the 2-hour mark. I was pretty frustrated by the slow pace. In my second game, we finished all six rounds and were chatting after 90 minutes. My first opponent talked through every move of every ship/squadron. My second opponent was more definitive in his moves. Both were probably equally good players (and much better than me). Both opposing lists were squadron heavy. Both gave me about an equal drubbing.

My impression is that it's not the game engine that plays slowly.

On 7/8/2017 at 11:57 AM, RobertK said:

Played in my first tournament a few weeks ago. In my first game, we barely started the fourth round when the TO called on us to finish our current round. That was over the 2-hour mark. I was pretty frustrated by the slow pace. In my second game, we finished all six rounds and were chatting after 90 minutes. My first opponent talked through every move of every ship/squadron. My second opponent was more definitive in his moves. Both were probably equally good players (and much better than me). Both opposing lists were squadron heavy. Both gave me about an equal drubbing.

My impression is that it's not the game engine that plays slowly.

Its not the engine. It is the players that move slowly.

And apparently your choices are to accept it, or move to Dras's meta where they don't move slowly.

I've never had a game not go the full six rounds, even in tourneys. 500 is no a huge increase and should be no problem. In a tourney, if your opponent is going too slow, you need to prod him a bit, or get the TO to prod him. I usually pla against @Destraa , and we are usually finished with plenty of time to look around at other games and get a snack......

10 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

Its not the engine. It is the players that move slowly.

And apparently your choices are to accept it, or move to Dras's meta where they don't move slowly.

Or play more and get faster and better, that's an option too.

I don't think you get it.

You have seen several people say this is a problem. Trite suggestions about learn to play better when like me learning to play my battle in 15 minutes, while the other guy takes 1 hour 45 minutes to grind out his 4 turns isn't a useful response.

Is it how you continue to limit the further expansion of the game though.

43 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I don't think you get it.

You have seen several people say this is a problem. Trite suggestions about learn to play better when like me learning to play my battle in 15 minutes, while the other guy takes 1 hour 45 minutes to grind out his 4 turns isn't a useful response.

Is it how you continue to limit the further expansion of the game though.

Right, but trite responses of your own saying that you either deal or move to Dras's meta don't help either. Let's try a different topic: why are your (general your, not attacking you specifically) games going slowly? I'm not blaming you or your meta, but if this is happening with you and yours, something needs to change.

If you've seen this happen with multiple people, why are the turns taking so long? Analysis paralysis? Too long to activate a ship? Fiddly minor adjustments of squadrons to get the perfect location? What specifically is causing turns to take forever?

I do have a suggestion to deal with it. Chess clocks. And I don't believe in Dras's idea that it takes more time.

Does it take time to learn? Sure. But after you do it is problem solved.

Warmachine has some flaws. But it has proven the idea that Chess clocks work for tournament control and for making sure the time on the field is "fair" such as it is.

On 7/7/2017 at 8:24 PM, RedPriest said:

Analysis Paralysis, or AP, is a serious condition. Speak with your doctor if you have:

Hemming and hawing, staring blankly at a situation on the game table, or the inability to make a blasted decision.

Exactly I've played tonnes of games, Armada isn't the only one, and it is NEVER the games fault. A few factors are:

-Familiarity with the game

-Ability to plan and anticipate

- general thought speed of players

The amount of sqauds on the table has next to no effect on the length of the game, players are the single greatest factor. My only games to ever go close to time are with slow players, me waiting 40-50 minutes for next round, then watching 2 guys rush a round before time to try and finish is always frustrating. I fly full squad a lot, I fly against it too, makes little difference (let's not even get into the amount of literal 1hr games I've played. Slow players appear to have trouble parsing decisions on the fly, or not recognizing what non decisions are amd parsing them anyway.

On 7/7/2017 at 8:47 AM, 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 what you're saying is... at 400 points Home One and Defiance are good/okay titles. What abut Independence? At what point max does that become good? Clearly we need to increase to 500 and see.

Some things aren't going to be best as what ever arbitrary point limit is set as a "standard" game.

With that in mind, the point limit needs to be set for a variety of things. The ability to take a good force, that allows all factions an equal opportunity to succeed on the table, a game size that allows it to be finished in a timely manner, and even one that allows a entry into the game at a reasonable cost.

I'd love some reason to see more ships on the board/larger games, but I'm not excited about playing 2 hour matches as it is played currently. Death clocks sound amazing. One of the best parts is watching an opponent eat through their clock.

1 hour ago, Hawktel said:

I do have a suggestion to deal with it. Chess clocks. And I don't believe in Dras's idea that it takes more time.

Does it take time to learn? Sure. But after you do it is problem solved.

Warmachine has some flaws. But it has proven the idea that Chess clocks work for tournament control and for making sure the time on the field is "fair" such as it is.

But you can't say that chess clocks solve the problem when Dras showed they DON'T solve it in his meta. It also doesn't solve the root cause of the problem too!

Why are games taking long? Because people spend a lot of time on their turns. The correct next step here is asking "why are people spending so much time on their turns?", NOT "well let's make them have only a set amount of time to play." Dig deeper, actually figure out WHY the issue is happening, not solve it because you think it'll work your way.

And as a former Warmachine player, I take any suggestions from that game with a high amount of skepticism and necessary analysis before I'm willing to hear it out. That game was fun so badly balanced that I don't think it's a good place to start for anything related to Armada. Anything.

I was also mostly Ignored, anyway.

My statement was not that "Chess Clocks Are Bad."

My Statement was "Chess Clocks Are Bad as a Standard Rule That Everyone Has To Deal With ."

That's what the whole point of my training tool was.

If you think a Chess Clock is going to kick your opponent in the pants, and be useful as a training aid until you get to a point where you are playing games in what you consider a quick manner, and them remove the clock ... I'm all for it. Discuss it with your group and get some sick-*** training on.

... But I don't want to finally be able to travel, and go, and turn up to a Store / Regional / National and be told I have to use a Clock.

Not until Fantasy Flight tells me to.

11 minutes ago, geek19 said:

But you can't say that chess clocks solve the problem when Dras showed they DON'T solve it in his meta. It also doesn't solve the root cause of the problem too!

Why are games taking long? Because people spend a lot of time on their turns. The correct next step here is asking "why are people spending so much time on their turns?", NOT "well let's make them have only a set amount of time to play." Dig deeper, actually figure out WHY the issue is happening, not solve it because you think it'll work your way.

From the looks of it, the problem is number of activations and analysis paralysis. Due to the nature of the game, a bad placement could end the game for you in a loss where the decision to run vs. charge in Warmachine may suck, but you might still end with an assassination that nets you a win.

The fewer points lost determines the victor makes people tend to play defensively to ensure they don't play risky. When they're provided with an "unlimited" amount of time to play, they'll use it to ensure they don't make an error that ends with them losing because of a single squadron placement error.

The deathclock provides two things: the need to hurry and fair table time. Both players should be able to reasonably use the same amount of time for the game. There shouldn't need to be a 30 vs 90 minute skew. The feeling of being rushed forces players to pick and move or risk running out of time and getting a loss regardless.

Ultimately, the design of the game is not suited for tournament play and without adding in requirements to speed up gameplay, I don't see why people wouldn't take all the time they need.

Maybe we are on the wrong foot here.

I’m telling people to avoid Armada because it doesn’t have a meaningful tournament system because you don’t get to finish games.

I’m not alone. Others are saying this also.

Perhaps you guys should find a way to fix this perception. I’ve got a fix. What is yours?

I played 3 games against new players on Saturday and finished all of my games with at least 45 minutes left. The first game finished in a little over an hour. The final game at Worlds went for how long? Like 3 hours before they called time? I think what makes games go fast is familiarity with your own fleet and running less squads. Killing things early helps too since it removes options from your opponent. Hard to tell if skill contributes, since if you are highly skilled you might see a maneuver that can let a ship escape from a situation, so you spend a lot of time thinking about it. A new player has not learned how each ship feels so they just move.

A clock won't help anything. We already have a set time limit of 135 minutes plus extended time to finish the round. If you have a slow player, you should have ample time to think of your own strategy while they are thinking of their own on their turn.

1 minute ago, Hawktel said:

Maybe we are on the wrong foot here.

I’m telling people to avoid Armada because it doesn’t have a meaningful tournament system because you don’t get to finish games.

I’m not alone. Others are saying this also.

Perhaps you guys should find a way to fix this perception. I’ve got a fix. What is yours?

Play faster.

If you're telling people not to play, you're not helping yourself. If Armada never takes off like X-Wing, you can bet we won't get future tourny regs that alter the tournament structure.

More importantly, FFG doesn't give a **** about our ideas. They will not accept suggestions from the community or individuals. They will fix the game as they see fit. If you want to contribute in any meaningful way, you get more people into the game so more data from tournaments can be generated, which in turn will help future balancing.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

So what you're saying is... at 400 points Home One and Defiance are good/okay titles. What abut Independence? At what point max does that become good? Clearly we need to increase to 500 and see.

I dunno. At whatever point value that allows me to take a 3rd MC80 command and a squad screen

10 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I played 3 games against new players on Saturday and finished all of my games with at least 45 minutes left. The first game finished in a little over an hour. The final game at Worlds went for how long? Like 3 hours before they called time?

Didn't go to time, opponent conceded with 10 or so left on the clock, still about 3 hours (but 7 games of Armada in 36 hours might do that to you). The announcers not understanding much didn't help explain this.

8 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

Maybe we are on the wrong foot here.

I’m telling people to avoid Armada because it doesn’t have a meaningful tournament system because you don’t get to finish games.

I’m not alone. Others are saying this also.

Perhaps you guys should find a way to fix this perception. I’ve got a fix. What is yours?

I did.

I fixed the perception of it here, with teaching, training and practice. The side result of it was we got down to playing games in reasonable times .

At the Start, I promoted Leagues where there were additional spot-prizes for on-time games (win or lose!) with spare bits from painting kits.

I donated squadron painting time (effectively 'store credit' for myself) for such purposes.

I pushed the concept that if you're already winning, the only way to win better is to win quicker .

And for us , it has worked.

My only suggestions that I need to add to that is "It worked for us. Do what it takes for you to do the same."