Okay here we go again, with suggesting rule changes to Armada, the first two is to List building, the last is about activation order (Talk about beating a dead horse )

1: Only up to half of the ships in a list may be flotilla = if you want three flotilla's in a list, you have to have three other non-flotilla ships in your list.

2: Only up to half of the squads in a list may be unique = if you want three unique squads in a list, you have to have three other non-unique squads in your list.

3: Second player may in the beginning of each turn, declare that his last activation must be activated last in the turn = I.e second player has two ship list VS a five ship list and in the beginning of say turn two, he/she declares to have "last activation" meaning that first player will activate one ship, second player will activate one ship, first player activate his/her remaining ships, second player activate his/her last ship.

In regard to the third suggestion, it is a bit of a double edge sword, because if the second player gets it wrong by declaring "last activation", he/she might end up having one or more ships shooting at his/her non-activated ship to pieces before it gets activated, so it would just generate some more excited or different play as the second player would/could get a hard choice to make, in the beginning of each turn.

Anyhow, bark at me for being mad or applaud me for suggesting something new and bold.

And if anyone of you have a much better suggestion than the above, then I would be listening

The first and the second one I agree with you. The third one I don't know...

Switch the first to flotillas don't count towards tabling (like how squads don't). If players want to bring an MC80 or ISD and 4 flotillas, they then accept that they lose if the solo combat ship dies. It prevents a squad heavy lost from sending a solo flotilla towards nowhere to prevent tabling.

I dont actually agree with any of those,posted

I see your point here but I kind of disagree with number 2. I think that is too hard a hit on Rieekan (and trust me I hate him.) Also there are issues with taking mostly uniques. (Cost/Agent Kallus)

18 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Switch the first to flotillas don't count towards tabling (like how squads don't). If players want to bring an MC80 or ISD and 4 flotillas, they then accept that they lose if the solo combat ship dies. It prevents a squad heavy lost from sending a solo flotilla towards nowhere to prevent tabling.

I dont actually agree with any of those,posted

I'm kinda coming over to this. In general, I hate restrictions in list building. Usually they're just knee jerk reactions by players unwilling to try anything different. However, at this point, there may be too many people invested in this flotilla stupidity to pull back without some kind of jolt to the meta. Changing the tabling requirements is the least intrusive method. You still have the freedom to make your list however you see fit, but you have to assume more risk with flotilla spam.

2 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

1: Only up to half of the ships in a list may be flotilla = if you want three flotilla's in a list, you have to have three other non-flotilla ships in your list.

Personally, I'd just have Flotillas included with the squadrons.

2 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

2: Only up to half of the squads in a list may be unique = if you want three unique squads in a list, you have to have three other non-unique squads in your list.

I want all my squadrons to be rogues so I don't have to command them. Most rogues are unique. Though I could have a generic YT-2400 for each unique, and Hera turns two squadrons Rogue so I guess I could make it work. Ok, I won't protest.

2 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

3: Second player may in the beginning of each turn, declare that his last activation must be activated last in the turn = I.e second player has two ship list VS a five ship list and in the beginning of say turn two, he/she declares to have "last activation" meaning that first player will activate one ship, second player will activate one ship, first player activate his/her remaining ships, second player activate his/her last ship.

As long as it's a choice and not a rule to be obeyed I'm fine with that. Probably won't do that myself though.

I'm with the camp says don't have flotillas cont towards tabling.

5 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

1: Only up to half of the ships in a list may be flotilla = if you want three flotilla's in a list, you have to have three other non-flotilla ships in your list.

3 hours ago, Church14 said:

Switch the first to flotillas don't count towards tabling (like how squads don't). If players want to bring an MC80 or ISD and 4 flotillas, they then accept that they lose if the solo combat ship dies. It prevents a squad heavy lost from sending a solo flotilla towards nowhere to prevent tabling.

Would be way easier to make Flotilla same as squadrons for activation and placement. If you want to move a Flotilla, you have to move two. If you place a Flotilla, you have to place two. If you don't have two left, you have to wait till the end to place/activate it.

It would not change anything on the fleet build or the basic rules.

This is why i totally disagree with 2: Playing with unique squadrons has the drawback, that you have less squadrons. Changing the rules that you can only use a specific number of squadrons it like saying: half of the ships must have a titel. Or saying that each ship is only allowed to have 10% of the base cost in upgrades. Its not good.

and 3: is as well on good idea (imo). Or you end somewhere: Player two may declare X, unless player one did Y but only if no one did Z while A and B do not count, ....

5 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

Anyhow, bark at me for being mad or applaud me for suggesting something new and bold.

Just more that this case is neither .

All 3 suggestions have been suggested in previous threads.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Just more that this case is neither .

All 3 suggestions have been suggested in previous threads.

Valid point, but I believe it was in a different sort of way, let just say, that some, or part of my suggestions, is a variation of the same beaten dead horse

I just sometimes get the urge to write down idea's I get and share it with the rest of you

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

Would be way easier to make Flotilla same as squadrons for activation and placement. If you want to move a Flotilla, you have to move two. If you place a Flotilla, you have to place two. If you don't have two left, you have to wait till the end to place/activate it.

This would counter one of the reasons flotillas were brought to the game while doing nothing to flotilla/relay abuse, so nope, not a good idea.

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

Would be way easier to make Flotilla same as squadrons for activation and placement. If you want to move a Flotilla, you have to move two. If you place a Flotilla, you have to place two. If you don't have two left, you have to wait till the end to place/activate it.

It would not change anything on the fleet build or the basic rules.

This is why i totally disagree with 2: Playing with unique squadrons has the drawback, that you have less squadrons. Changing the rules that you can only use a specific number of squadrons it like saying: half of the ships must have a titel. Or saying that each ship is only allowed to have 10% of the base cost in upgrades. Its not good.

and 3: is as well on good idea (imo). Or you end somewhere: Player two may declare X, unless player one did Y but only if no one did Z while A and B do not count, ....

Double flotilla activation is a fundamental rule change. Less so than adding to the list of things that don't count for tabling

It also provides some impressive avenues for abuse. How about activating 8 squadrons at one time?

Just now, PT106 said:

This would counter one of the reasons flotillas were brought to the game while doing nothing to flotilla/relay abuse, so nope, not a good idea.

The word "Abuse" would imply breaking a rule, but as its stand its not abuse, when you use it in a legal way.

Rebels need to sink in 30 points of VCX100 + 18 points of flotilla =48 pts total as a bare minimum, just to activate 2 sqds at stand off range.

No one complains that the Quasar with FC can activate up to six sqds at long range and tear up most ships or fighter screens in a single activation. but you also have to pay a alot of points in Ship, upgrades and sqds to do that.

The main disadvantage Relay has, is that you may end up overstretching your sqds, that they are on their own against the whole of the opponents fleet.

I have never myself used relay, but relay has been used against me and frankly I dont mind, thats what my opponent have bought and paid for, but he just have to acceept that my Yavaris will support my sqds with anti sqd fire, as I like to keep my units closer together for quicker mutual support.

rescricting aces is not a good idea. Making it so flotilla doesent count towards tabling, would probably be fine for the game.

The only change I want is to restrict the range of relay to have the ship be in range of the relay squadron.

1 hour ago, TallGiraffe said:

The only change I want is to restrict the range of relay to have the ship be in range of the relay squadron.

Distance 1-5, yeah that would limit the stand off range.

Or be used only once during a turn

Or if the sqd with relay has been activated, one cannot use its relay ability

3 hours ago, Kiwi Rat said:

The word "Abuse" would imply breaking a rule, but as its stand its not abuse, when you use it in a legal way.

Not necessarily. You may still be within the rules but abuse some game mechanic. The discussion about flotillas, relay etc was done multiple times, so I don't want to beat the dead horse again, I just wanted to point out that a proposed change won't do anything in this particular area.

2 minutes ago, Kiwi Rat said:

Distance 1-5, yeah that would limit the stand off range.

Or be used only once during a turn

I mean squadron activation range.

6 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I mean squadron activation range.

Oh sorry I thought you ment it had to be within a certian distance from a ship, not that you wanted to reduce the relay sqds range of distance 1-2 to what distance 1 ?

9 hours ago, Church14 said:

Switch the first to flotillas don't count towards tabling (like how squads don't). If players want to bring an MC80 or ISD and 4 flotillas, they then accept that they lose if the solo combat ship dies. It prevents a squad heavy lost from sending a solo flotilla towards nowhere to prevent tabling.

I dont actually agree with any of those,posted

The problem with this is that it really punishes large ships. There aren't many other options to get more ships on the board, especially for Imperial players. Gladiators and MC30s can rival their large ship counterparts for damage output and field more combat ships, flotillas let large ships compete in that meta.

7 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Not necessarily. You may still be within the rules but abuse some game mechanic. The discussion about flotillas, relay etc was done multiple times, so I don't want to beat the dead horse again, I just wanted to point out that a proposed change won't do anything in this particular area.

No matter what, when FFG comes up with the next new keyword ability, some joker is going to "abuse" it to the extreme, in order to win tournaments, human nature

How many Glads in lists runs without Demolisher? Is it not "abuse" when that title is more or less in nine out of ten lists with a Gladiator?

So Relay is basically the sqd play's answer to that title, when you consider how it gets (over)used.

1 minute ago, thecactusman17 said:

The problem with this is that it really punishes large ships. There aren't many other options to get more ships on the board, especially for Imperial players. Gladiators and MC30s can rival their large ship counterparts for damage output and field more combat ships, flotillas let large ships compete in that meta.

I don't believe it does - as long as you have a non-flotilla ship on the table, you're in good shape. What it punishes is a flotilla spam that runs away round 1.

1 minute ago, Kiwi Rat said:

No matter what, when FFG comes up with the next new keyword ability, some joker is going to "abuse" it to the extreme, in order to win tournaments, human nature

In the case of flotillas and relay the abuse is detrimental to the healh of the game (at least in my opinion, but what do I know).

3 minutes ago, Kiwi Rat said:

How many Glads in lists runs without Demolisher? Is it not "abuse" when that title is more or less in nine out of ten lists with a Gladiator?

I ran one at worlds. And as we know, Demolisher was FAQd.

Relay as is encourages flotilla spam and diminishes the value of Rogues (And squadron players had enough answers to Demolisher even before Relay, so it isn't one)

1 minute ago, PT106 said:

In the case of flotillas and relay the abuse is detrimental to the healh of the game (at least in my opinion, but what do I know).

I ran one at worlds. And as we know, Demolisher was FAQd.

Relay as is encourages flotilla spam and diminishes the value of Rogues (And squadron players had enough answers to Demolisher even before Relay, so it isn't one)

That's why I suggested in +2 posts ago, that when a sqd with relay has been activated, then the relay ability cant be used any more for the rest of the turn.

This would put some movement restriction on the Relay sqd. meaning, that you cant activate a relay sqd to move it closer to another sqd, so it can be activated by the same dial command.

1 minute ago, Kiwi Rat said:

That's why I suggested in +2 posts ago, that when a sqd with relay has been activated, then the relay ability cant be used any more for the rest of the turn.

This would put some movement restriction on the Relay sqd. meaning, that you cant activate a relay sqd to move it closer to another sqd, so it can be activated by the same dial command.

This is one way of doing it, another way is a requirement for relaying squadron to be in range of the ship. I personally prefer "Flotilla can't relay" solution, but now we're talking potential fixes with each one having its own pros and cons.