I'm sorry. I'm being facetious. I get your complaint, but I watched a 2 ship fleet clobber its way to the top of a SC event.... which had fleets with activation advantages.... it really depends on the fleet, the player, and a little luck. This guy was good, and could negate high activation through quality. 'nuff said.

5 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm sorry. I'm being facetious. I get your complaint, but I watched a 2 ship fleet clobber its way to the top of a SC event.... which had fleets with activation advantages.... it really depends on the fleet, the player, and a little luck. This guy was good, and could negate high activation through quality. 'nuff said.

That's great I'm glad to see big ships getting some love and tournament wins. It has definitely seemed to be getting somewhat better with wave 6, although it doesn't look like wave 6 had a whole lot to do with the winner there.

9 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

I took his statement to be directed at people who rely solely on last first to win. I don't see anything in your highlighted parts to contradict that.

No you didn't come out and tell him to play better. That's me being guilty of reading too much into what you said here...

This is just not true. A skilled player will make the best of any situation. You don't rely on a gimmick to win. You win because you outplay your opponent. This is why objectives are extremely important.

There are fleets that are designed to go first or second and they will consistently win because the play knows how the fleet is supposed to work.

...my bad I completely misread this. Maybe it's just me getting my back up and seeing hostility that isn't there if so then I apologize. I do agree with spacecowboy that having a mechanic as easily abused as last first is getting really old and would love to see some way to eliminate that. I also agree with you that a die roll as opposed to a bid would seriously neuter objectives and with this point "First player should have first, second player should have last."

Don't worry about it. It's all good. I've misread things plenty of times as well

And I'm already predisposed to being blunt and up front with my opinions so some people get rubbed the wrong way. One of the outcomes of being a scientist.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Don't worry about it. It's all good. I've misread things plenty of times as well

And I'm already predisposed to being blunt and up front with my opinions so some people get rubbed the wrong way. One of the outcomes of being a scientist.

No problem man. I have a tendency to get too defensive. I've never had a problem with your bluntness before and you had every right to come back at me for saying you said something that you didn't actually say.

@Space_Cowboy17 I challenge you to beat @Megatronrex with a 3 ship build. I bet you can do it.

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

@Space_Cowboy17 I challenge you to beat @Megatronrex with a 3 ship build. I bet you can do it.

I know he can and has.

Just now, Megatronrex said:

I know he can and has.

Then I am confused. Git Gud is entirely appropriate here. If he can beat you, then he is only practice away from doing it in a competitive setting!

Just now, Ginkapo said:

Then I am confused. Git Gud is entirely appropriate here. If he can beat you, then he is only practice away from doing it in a competitive setting!

Now I'm confused. He is good. He's won every tournament that he and I have both played in except for one. He won the SC at Giga Bites back in June and I think that was the biggest SC so far so definitely qualifies as a competitive setting. In fact he's the only person I've played more than once and have never beaten. I have been able to limit him to 6-5 victories the last couple of times we've played so I'm improving slowly. Any Git Guds directed at me are entirely appropriate even when I win every match at a tournament I still lose on points.

Git Gud doesnt just mean become a good player. It means get better, always strive to be stronger.

If SC can win massive tournaments etc using high activation then he can win massive tournaments using low activation. Git Gud, get stronger, get better.

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Git Gud doesnt just mean become a good player. It means get better, always strive to be stronger.

If SC can win massive tournaments etc using high activation then he can win massive tournaments using low activation. Git Gud, get stronger, get better.

Maybe it means something else in table top gaming than I'm used to from video games but "Git Gud" is almost always used in a derisive manner there. Cowboy's definitely not saying he can't win I think he's saying the game is losing steam for him because so many people (and maybe this is just a local meta problem) are running 6 and 7 activations killing 1 squadron or 1 small ship and spending the rest of the game running away from combat. I know I play against a guy that uses this against me every week. I can beat it almost every time but that doesn't change the fact that it is super boring to play against. I know I hate spending the time to set up and clean up to have 1 or 2 rounds of 1 ship shooting.

The point of the coin flip, and the activation pass idea is to make it so first player cannot be built for. I think it is better for the game if everyone builds to be able to take 1st or 2nd and still be confidant in their fleets ability to win.

the validity of my ideas should not hing on my ability as a player. My point should stand or fall on its own merit.

Activation advantage for the sake of hunting first/last is a detriment to the game and is the source of most if not all complaints about armada. The solution that I have put forward is to pass activations to insure the 2nd player gets to go last. This directly addresses this problem.

The flip for first idea is aimed at blocking people from building a "must go first," or a "Must go second," fleet in the interest of creating a balanced meta where all fleets plan and prepare to be able to fight both.

Who would not want this? It directly addresses the major issues present in the meta that people hate.

Me being a good or bad player has no relevance to my argument or the solution I am posing.

What ore the negatives to this approach? Equal activations is by definition fair.

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The point of the coin flip, and the activation pass idea is to make it so first player cannot be built for. I think it is better for the game if everyone builds to be able to take 1st or 2nd and still be confidant in their fleets ability to win.

the validity of my ideas should not hing on my ability as a player. My point should stand or fall on its own merit.

Activation advantage for the sake of hunting first/last is a detriment to the game and is the source of most if not all complaints about armada. The solution that I have put forward is to pass activations to insure the 2nd player gets to go last. This directly addresses this problem.

The flip for first idea is aimed at blocking people from building a "must go first," or a "Must go second," fleet in the interest of creating a balanced meta where all fleets plan and prepare to be able to fight both.

Who would not want this? It directly addresses the major issues present in the meta that people hate.

Me being a good or bad player has no relevance to my argument or the solution I am posing.

What ore the negatives to this approach? Equal activations is by definition fair.

My question is what fleet, if built and flown well, CANT win in either first or second depending on the other players bid? Why does a coin flip invalidate the "strategy" (right or wrong, mind you) that my fleet needs X points less than yours to beat you, so I want to have the ability to choose when I go?

You also have 2 different ideas you're talking about. You can debate the merits of passing activations, or you can talk about flipping for first. A majority of this thread is countering you on the flipping for first mechanic, as, again, you CAN build fleets that can win either going first or second. I disagree with you on the passing thing, but I'll stand by the opinion that a coin flip or dice roll for first isn't needed. Why do you think it is needed? Without bringing RTS or real life into it, what's wrong with fleets that bid for first and go first? Yeah they have many activations and you hate flying against them.

Until something empirical datawise is shown (that going first is always better or whatever), all we really can say is "fly different" because your example of ships hitting you and flying away, never to be hurt again is so far, only happening to you. I've fought a lot of MSU swarms, some with 20 point bids. You can't treat that fleet the same as one with 3 ISDs in it, they're different things who want to hurt you in different ways. I've been out activated by twice as many ships as I brought. There's always more activations or a higher bid. You can build and bid to what you think is enough, but there's always a chance someone will outdo you. If you (general you) designed your fleet as a "must go first" one and you get out bid, well that's really on you for NOT designing a way to win if you're forced to go second.

16 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

The point of the coin flip, and the activation pass idea is to make it so first player cannot be built for. I think it is better for the game if everyone builds to be able to take 1st or 2nd and still be confidant in their fleets ability to win.

the validity of my ideas should not hing on my ability as a player. My point should stand or fall on its own merit.

Activation advantage for the sake of hunting first/last is a detriment to the game and is the source of most if not all complaints about armada. The solution that I have put forward is to pass activations to insure the 2nd player gets to go last. This directly addresses this problem.

The flip for first idea is aimed at blocking people from building a "must go first," or a "Must go second," fleet in the interest of creating a balanced meta where all fleets plan and prepare to be able to fight both.

Who would not want this? It directly addresses the major issues present in the meta that people hate.

Me being a good or bad player has no relevance to my argument or the solution I am posing.

What ore the negatives to this approach? Equal activations is by definition fair.

How does randomly determining who goes first fix anything? All you do is prevent half of the fleets that want to go first, from going first.

We both agree second player should go last, since that prevents last/first.

As it is right now, the players that bid hard get to determine who goes first or second. I think it requires a great amount of skill to look at your opponents list and understand what they are capable of with first or second, and then determine how your list will fair against it. I built a list that I thought wanted to go second. Turns out I went first every game because I realized I could not let my opponent go first with MC80s and ISDs, and I only had a 10 point bid and 4 ships.

Fleet building is a whole lot easier when you can say "Well I'll just go to 400 and let the guy with 20 point bid go first, and with this addition here, I can deal with whatever they bring at me." It takes a skillful player to understand the meta and how to bring an answer to it.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

We both agree second player should go last, since that prevents last/first.

Yay something you me and @Space_Cowboy17 all agree on. Is this a sign of good things to come? Or is this the end times?

honestly the coin flip is not as big a deal by a long shot compared to the activation equality issue. If the pass mechanic was instituted I would be willing to pass on the flip.

As long as Last/first is off the table first player is not as huge of a deal.

My suggestion for the coin flip is in the interest of forcing balance in list writing and solid mission selection. If you can't gauge how likely you are to go first, you MUST build with an eye toward being strong as both first and second. The bid system can often result in lists that are very certain they are going first, they may lose that one time they get out bid, but it makes the other games where they don't get out bid very unfun for their opponents because they are facing a one trick pony in a one trick contest...

BTW there is an annoying assumption that this I have been burned by this Last/first thing a lot. I have not. I have played around it and win most of my games, but the issue is that I see poor players around me doing well in events based almost entirely on the fact that they are running 6-7 ships in a list. Those same players do poorly when asked to fly a 4 ship list, but activation advantage is elevating their performance.

When bringing more ships magically makes you do do better in events that should tell you that it is an issue that needs to be addressed because it is a mechanic that allows weak players to beat or hang with their betters with out actually putting in the time to become skilled players themselves.

14 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

honestly the coin flip is not as big a deal by a long shot compared to the activation equality issue. If the pass mechanic was instituted I would be willing to pass on the flip.

As long as Last/first is off the table first player is not as huge of a deal.

My suggestion for the coin flip is in the interest of forcing balance in list writing and solid mission selection. If you can't gauge how likely you are to go first, you MUST build with an eye toward being strong as both first and second. The bid system can often result in lists that are very certain they are going first, they may lose that one time they get out bid, but it makes the other games where they don't get out bid very unfun for their opponents because they are facing a one trick pony in a one trick contest...

BTW there is an annoying assumption that this I have been burned by this Last/first thing a lot. I have not. I have played around it and win most of my games, but the issue is that I see poor players around me doing well in events based almost entirely on the fact that they are running 6-7 ships in a list. Those same players do poorly when asked to fly a 4 ship list, but activation advantage is elevating their performance.

When bringing more ships magically makes you do do better in events that should tell you that it is an issue that needs to be addressed because it is a mechanic that allows weak players to beat or hang with their betters with out actually putting in the time to become skilled players themselves.

I don't see why it's an issue that inexperienced players are winning games. If they lost every game they played, why would they bother sticking around? Those crutches allow them a chance to do well. More experienced players will have a greater understanding of the game, and thus know how to balance their fleet better, as well as have an answer to killing extra activations. Currently my answer is a Vic II with GT and DC. I can reliably kill 2 flotillas at long range.

I'm of the opinions players should be allowed to run whatever the **** they want. If you want to run 8 ships, go for it. If you want to run 3 ships, go for it. I'm going to run whatever I feel like and we will see what happens.

I know when I was a new player, I gauged my own skills to those of my opponents who had been playing for much longer. I knew I was getting better when I could actually win games without any insight from them or letting me fix a mistake I made. The thrill of beating someone who I know is better than me gave me the drive to keep playing. I don't know why you want to beat these inexperienced players so bad, but crushing them 10-1 under your boot every game does not seem healthy.

6 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't see why it's an issue that inexperienced players are winning games. If they lost every game they played, why would they bother sticking around? Those crutches allow them a chance to do well. More experienced players will have a greater understanding of the game, and thus know how to balance their fleet better, as well as have an answer to killing extra activations. Currently my answer is a Vic II with GT and DC. I can reliably kill 2 flotillas at long range.

I'm of the opinions players should be allowed to run whatever the **** they want. If you want to run 8 ships, go for it. If you want to run 3 ships, go for it. I'm going to run whatever I feel like and we will see what happens.

I know when I was a new player, I gauged my own skills to those of my opponents who had been playing for much longer. I knew I was getting better when I could actually win games without any insight from them or letting me fix a mistake I made. The thrill of beating someone who I know is better than me gave me the drive to keep playing. I don't know why you want to beat these inexperienced players so bad, but crushing them 10-1 under your boot every game does not seem healthy.

One million likes. I am NOT a fan of "the lesser players shouldn't run this," but I like your response better than anything I would say.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't see why it's an issue that inexperienced players are winning games. If they lost every game they played, why would they bother sticking around? Those crutches allow them a chance to do well. More experienced players will have a greater understanding of the game, and thus know how to balance their fleet better, as well as have an answer to killing extra activations. Currently my answer is a Vic II with GT and DC. I can reliably kill 2 flotillas at long range.

I'm of the opinions players should be allowed to run whatever the **** they want. If you want to run 8 ships, go for it. If you want to run 3 ships, go for it. I'm going to run whatever I feel like and we will see what happens.

I know when I was a new player, I gauged my own skills to those of my opponents who had been playing for much longer. I knew I was getting better when I could actually win games without any insight from them or letting me fix a mistake I made. The thrill of beating someone who I know is better than me gave me the drive to keep playing. I don't know why you want to beat these inexperienced players so bad, but crushing them 10-1 under your boot every game does not seem healthy.

QFT.

Mechanics like this benefit the game by giving learning players a path to do well. It's a fun thing to discover, takes a bit of skill to master, but won't consistently win in competition.

A list completely reliant on last/first can be tuned to do very well when it wins the bid while ignoring a wealth of weaknesses, but in doing so will usually crumble when it loses the bid... But because only one player per tournament is guaranteed to win the bid in every matchup, the rest have to be able not only to play as second, but to play as second against the lists that will outbid them-- that is, other people with huge bids.

Basically what I'm saying is, last/first fleets are good and scary, but usually have a pretty low skill cap.

I have the perfect solution. It eliminates and equalizes the whole uneven activations making them equal, as well as ensure no matter what the bid each player has an equal chance to be first player. Finally if also eliminates slow play as a nice side effect so every game is played to completion.

Each table flips a coin. One side is heads, the other is tails. Winner of the coin toss wins the conflict.

Tally results, pick up your tiny spaceships and move to next table.

There now the game is nice and even and each player has an equal chance to win. Of course al skill and fun has been removed but hey....it's all equal.

On 2017-08-02 at 8:34 PM, thecactusman17 said:

In which case, why are you saying "git gud" if you aren't playing effectively? Because activation advantage with a high bid is not going to typically get last place if flown well.

I'm saying that because I have yet to actually play any tourney for Armada, yet was consistently one of the higher ranked players in North America in D&D Minis which had a similar build/activation mechanic.

7 hours ago, NeonKnight said:

I'm saying that because I have yet to actually play any tourney for Armada, yet was consistently one of the higher ranked players in North America in D&D Minis which had a similar build/activation mechanic.

That's a real compelling argument you have there. Especially since the turn structure in every other part of D&D minis, which I haven't played, but looked at the actual rules for, is different.

40 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

That's a real compelling argument you have there. Especially since the turn structure in every other part of D&D minis, which I haven't played, but looked at the actual rules for, is different.

Not that different. I'm not going to get into the move/attack mechanic, but stay simply in activations. We each would have 200 points in a standard game, of which you can have a maximum of 12 figures.

Each turn, we take turns activating our units. Yes, D&D Minis had a roll for initiative each turn, but regardless, if you brought 6 models to the game, and I brought 12, I can move my 'useless' 3 points models, forcing you to move your more expensive models before I need to move my more valuable models.

Without bringing in the first player/second player mechanic of Armada, how if my having a bunch of cheap 3 point models any different than someone bringing in lots of flotillas? I'm just not seeing it.

1 minute ago, NeonKnight said:

Without bringing in the first player/second player mechanic of Armada, how if my having a bunch of cheap 3 point models any different than someone bringing in lots of flotillas? I'm just not seeing it.

It doesn't.

However

Without bringing in the first player/second player mechanic - and the inherent benefits granted through objectives of that state , its a pointless comparison.

D&D didn't reward second player, because it didn't need to - initiative was random.

Objectives are intended to remain as a balancing force - or at least, an attempt at balancing force, in comparison to the power of the flexibility of the first player.

18 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It doesn't.

However

Without bringing in the first player/second player mechanic - and the inherent benefits granted through objectives of that state , its a pointless comparison.

D&D didn't reward second player, because it didn't need to - initiative was random.

Objectives are intended to remain as a balancing force - or at least, an attempt at balancing force, in comparison to the power of the flexibility of the first player.

Sure it did. Again, if you had less activations than me, as second player, I'm not force to move my big piece. I can hold my Big piece by moving my little pieces until I need to move my big piece.

And D&D Minis had objectives, not a lot mind you, but objectives. For example, if you had one of your pieces in the 'victory area' you would earn x-amount of VP each turn. So, often folks would try and rush them cheap pieces to victory areas to earn some quick points. Eliminating them little point pieces with a BIG piece at the victory area, often meant your opponent needed to come after them to kill them.

All I'm trying to say, is I see the strategy in out activating an opponent. But if you start eliminating my work to gain activation control, be it either through building or eliminating pieces, you've changed the game.

Think of it this way. You and I (and I mean YOU in the general opponent rule, not just Drasnighta) each had 4 ships, I'm 2nd Player, and in round 2 I manage eliminate one of your ships, giving me an advantage, how fair is it, to then in turn 3 have you 'pass' on an activation, so you can take away my advantage?

2 minutes ago, NeonKnight said:

Sure it did. Again, if you had less activations than me, as second player, I'm not force to move my big piece. I can hold my Big piece by moving my little pieces until I need to move my big piece.

And D&D Minis had objectives, not a lot mind you, but objectives. For example, if you had one of your pieces in the 'victory area' you would earn x-amount of VP each turn. So, often folks would try and rush them cheap pieces to victory areas to earn some quick points. Eliminating them little point pieces with a BIG piece at the victory area, often meant your opponent needed to come after them to kill them.

All I'm trying to say, is I see the strategy in out activating an opponent. But if you start eliminating my work to gain activation control, be it either through building or eliminating pieces, you've changed the game.

Think of it this way. You and I (and I mean YOU in the general opponent rule, not just Drasnighta) each had 4 ships, I'm 2nd Player, and in round 2 I manage eliminate one of your ships, giving me an advantage, how fair is it, to then in turn 3 have you 'pass' on an activation, so you can take away my advantage?

Because I can do something else and rake in inherent 2nd player objective advantage. That makes you need to DO SOMETHING to counter ME.

So you better use your activation advantage.

Because then once it comes Push-to-Shove..... You get to do *ONE* thing first before its my turn, and if I've invested properly, I have weight of strength there, waiting.

Thats why some people say that Flotillas are an advantage come the first couple of turns. But after that, they're little advantage in activation - because the Dirty Deeds needs to be done NOW - delaying doesn't necessarily help.