16 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

It's okay - when @geek19 and I were still new to Armada we thought redirect tokens let you redirect 1 point of damage. We didn't understand what the big fuss was from XI7s. We were... not doing that one right.

If you want to read lots about overlapping, I note how moving back works in the ramming article.

That's what we get from playing in our local community without any actual interest in tournaments, I guess... I re-read the relevant sections and I can see where we got the wrong ideas. Would be a lot less ambiguous, if they put in a sentence that read "Leave the maneuver tool in place" or something like that... thanks a bunch for the clarification!

Just now, letlhalerwa said:

That's what we get from playing in our local community without any actual interest in tournaments, I guess... I re-read the relevant sections and I can see where we got the wrong ideas. Would be a lot less ambiguous, if they put in a sentence that read "Leave the maneuver tool in place" or something like that... thanks a bunch for the clarification!

All the language about temporarily reducing speed tends to create a lot of confusion. Simply instructing people to move the ship back along the tool until it fits (using nicer language than that, but you get the idea) would've been better.

I mean that and not publishing the in-depth rules to your game in a second boring book of bland. I get the idea behind the Rules Reference Guide and I've read the thing cover-to-cover () and referenced it many times now, but I'd say about 80% of the players rarely if ever touch the blasted thing and the end result is lots of arguments and mistakes because exactly what the rules intend for you to do in some circumstances is unclear from reading only the Learn to Play book, but the Learn to Play book gives the false impression that once you're familiar with it, you're ready to go play the full game in its entirety.

1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

All the language about temporarily reducing speed tends to create a lot of confusion. Simply instructing people to move the ship back along the tool until it fits (using nicer language than that, but you get the idea) would've been better.

I mean that and not publishing the in-depth rules to your game in a second boring book of bland. I get the idea behind the Rules Reference Guide and I've read the thing cover-to-cover () and referenced it many times now, but I'd say about 80% of the players rarely if ever touch the blasted thing and the end result is lots of arguments and mistakes because exactly what the rules intend for you to do in some circumstances is unclear from reading only the Learn to Play book, but the Learn to Play book gives the false impression that once you're familiar with it, you're ready to go play the full game in its entirety.

I don't know... I kind of like the rules reference book. I see your point but as a new player I was constantly looking up rules and found the Rules Reference Guide to be helpful and fairly easy to navigate. If I'd had to go through a step by step thing with the extensive rules included (something like the learn to play on steroids) I think it would have been much harder to learn how to play.

It's a complicated game and I've cursed FFG often for vague explanations on rules, but I also appreciate the difficulty of explaining something this complex in an accessible format. I think the "look it up by subject" is an OK way to go.

9 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I don't know... I kind of like the rules reference book. I see your point but as a new player I was constantly looking up rules and found the Rules Reference Guide to be helpful and fairly easy to navigate. If I'd had to go through a step by step thing with the extensive rules included (something like the learn to play on steroids) I think it would have been much harder to learn how to play.

It's a complicated game and I've cursed FFG often for vague explanations on rules, but I also appreciate the difficulty of explaining something this complex in an accessible format. I think the "look it up by subject" is an OK way to go.

I personally don't mind it a lot, but I'm one of those systems-minded people who reads rulebooks for fun. Most people aren't that way and they leave the RRG untouched. Then they play games of Armada and get into arguments or have things pulled on them they didn't expect because they didn't know they were possible because they didn't read anything in the RRG.

In short, as an individual it doesn't bother me. Being able to look things up is nice (but you could've done the same with a glossary in the back, but I digress). As an Armada community organizer/frequent TO/judge/rules arbiter, it drives me insane because of the effect (or lack thereof) it has on others.

1 minute ago, Snipafist said:

I personally don't mind it a lot, but I'm one of those systems-minded people who reads rulebooks for fun. Most people aren't that way and they leave the RRG untouched. Then they play games of Armada and get into arguments or have things pulled on them they didn't expect because they didn't know they were possible because they didn't read anything in the RRG.

In short, as an individual it doesn't bother me. Being able to look things up is nice (but you could've done the same with a glossary in the back, but I digress). As an Armada community organizer/frequent TO/judge/rules arbiter, it drives me insane because of the effect (or lack thereof) it has on others.

I can see how that would be extremely frustrating. I just figured since I read the rule book than anyone nerdy enough to buy a plastic spaceship game would also enjoy doing the same. Guess not! I mean, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

5 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I can see how that would be extremely frustrating. I just figured since I read the rule book than anyone nerdy enough to buy a plastic spaceship game would also enjoy doing the same. Guess not! I mean, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

One of the guys I play against regularly has never read any of the rulebooks and just relies on me or someone else telling him how stuff works. I really wish he wouldn't do that because I'm not always right.

I do feel often that 90% of the Rules Questions asked in the Sub-Forum are readily answered by "RTFM."

But like @Snipafist I read Rulebooks for Fun. I read the lot and then read it a bunch again.

I have to remind myself that its not a matter of reading, its a matter of comprehension and system-logic... And not everyone has that.

3 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

I can see how that would be extremely frustrating. I just figured since I read the rule book than anyone nerdy enough to buy a plastic spaceship game would also enjoy doing the same. Guess not! I mean, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

I agree with you, but the general perception is the Learn to Play book is all you need so far as a rulebook is concerned and the RRG is if you want the boring broken down by steps explanation nobody really needs, man. Hahaha.

It's an incorrect assumption but it's widespread and until you encounter a situation where the RRG spells out something that got glossed over by the regular rulebook, most remain blissfully ignorant. So far as the blog is concerned, the rules-oriented articles (the attack steps, commands, and the new overlapping/ramming one) are some of our most popular/linked-to articles because people get those things wrong all the time because there are elements to them that are only explained in the RRG.

1 minute ago, Snipafist said:

I agree with you, but the general perception is the Learn to Play book is all you need so far as a rulebook is concerned and the RRG is if you want the boring broken down by steps explanation nobody really needs, man. Hahaha.

It's an incorrect assumption but it's widespread and until you encounter a situation where the RRG spells out something that got glossed over by the regular rulebook, most remain blissfully ignorant. So far as the blog is concerned, the rules-oriented articles (the attack steps, commands, and the new overlapping/ramming one) are some of our most popular/linked-to articles because people get those things wrong all the time because there are elements to them that are only explained in the RRG.

I think those are your most popular not because people don't read the RRG, but because the RRG isn't always as clear as it might be. What you've done with those is taken things that are explained poorly (I say poorly.. but I don't think that's what I mean.. just can't find the word for it) and made them more understandable. I know, that especially with the attack steps etc, when I was getting going, the FFG explanation was OK but yours was much better. I think part of that is having a forum to hash out questions and perceived discrepancies in the rules that might never be resolved playing in a vacuum. We become experts by thinking about and explaining rules to others. This is why so many of you understand rules on a level far above that which I do. I just haven't been forced to interpret and suss out meanings and details of rules, and then explain them to people to settle arguments as much as you have. If we were left to our own devices for a year or so and then all came back to try to play together I imagine it might result in a fair share of arguments.

FFG has to try to explain everything in as concise a manner as possible and, for some people, that is very difficult to follow and understand. Either they're lazy or their brains simply don't work in a logical step-by-step way. Either way, it's really nice to be able to come here and get clarification from people who seem to really grasp these things and can explain them in a way that's accessible to almost everyone.

Soooo.. thanks!

... When I rule the world... "Salvo" vs "Attack"...

It will be done....

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

... When I rule the world... "Salvo" vs "Attack"...

It will be done....

#DrasForFFGArmadaRulesPresident2018
#Salvo4life

On 10/23/2017 at 3:49 PM, Ardaedhel said:

I was playing an absolute travesty of a game the other day at league night: 8 SW90B's against another guy's Mothma swarm. I got a few remarks both from my opponent and from an observer about my using overlapping to end up in unexpected positions. On a couple of different activations, my opponent was quite sure that I would be stuck ramming my own ships, when the escape routes were pretty clear to me, and it occurred to me that in all of these cases, the path involved ramming to back off to a safe spot or a good shot. And it was certainly not the case that my opponent was a bad player: we were both playing weird fleets so we both made mistakes, but on the whole his play was great, including his navigation.

So that got me to thinking about it: I think I actually end up using ramming in this way at least once in a majority of my games, probably 2/3 or 3/4 of them. So much so that I don't really think of it as a particularly innovative or surprising tactic, any more than, say, an inside turn or adjusting my speed with a nav token to get a better position. As a result, I haven't really paid much attention to is how much other people do it, so I'm curious: is this frequency a unique artifact of my relatively aggressive approach to the game in general, or was it an anomaly that this guy just hadn't seen a lot of overlap navigation?

I could certainly see this being more characteristic of a torpedo boat sort of playstyle. Anecdotally, it seems that I often use overlapping to hold a double arc on a quarry for two turns in a row without having to navigate to slow, or to hop over the target while still pulling a tight turn at the end, or to force overlaps offensively to hold the target in place; but a lot of that is an artifact of the fact that I often play ships with very tight tolerances in firing arcs (MC30s, CR90Bs, even ISD1s to a certain extent).

So, the question is, do you use overlapping very frequently as a navigational tool? Or do you see your opponents do it frequently? Or have you noticed that this is more frequently used in certain types of fleets?

Ah, so you’re Ardaehel? That was me with the Mothma list last week. I agree that ramming, not necessarily for the extra damage but for navigational reasons, is undervalued. Nice of you to say I played well. I think I made at least 2-3 pretty big mistakes (aside from the ramming issues), but even if I hadn’t I still think you would have had the upper hand. Your rams and nav commands were on point. You’re absolutely correct that I repeatedly misgauged where you were going to land with multiple ships on multiple turns. And I was so confident every time! Oh well, I guess my most lasting lessons are the ones I have beaten into me repeatedly.

Good game, and well flown!

22 minutes ago, SmogLord said:

Ah, so you’re Ardaehel?

****, my cover's blown!

23 minutes ago, SmogLord said:

Good game, and well flown!

You too, man!

On 10/28/2017 at 5:37 AM, SmogLord said:

Ah, so you’re Ardaehel? That was me with the Mothma list last week. I agree that ramming, not necessarily for the extra damage but for navigational reasons, is undervalued. Nice of you to say I played well. I think I made at least 2-3 pretty big mistakes (aside from the ramming issues), but even if I hadn’t I still think you would have had the upper hand. Your rams and nav commands were on point. You’re absolutely correct that I repeatedly misgauged where you were going to land with multiple ships on multiple turns. And I was so confident every time! Oh well, I guess my most lasting lessons are the ones I have beaten into me repeatedly.

Good game, and well flown!

On 10/28/2017 at 6:01 AM, Ardaedhel said:

****, my cover's blown!

You too, man!

Now if only the rest of the forum could be this nice and positive more often......

I overlap the tool every chance I can.

It can be a very useful tactic. For a small price, you are able to keep your ships exactly where you want them. I can't say I use it every game, but every once in a while it can be a game changer, especially if your opponent is not expecting it.

I use ramming for position as a tactic all the time as well, probably every game at some point or another. I feel like it's something that a veteran player understands as a cost effectiveness issue. If taking one or two damage sets me up to deal five and not take three or four then of course I will, right?

I find that I use this a particularly high amount of the time when dealing with my flottilas. When I think about it, knowing that they will likely perish to the first solid shot thrown in their general direction, then their Hull value is better used as a resource to keep them away from that shot as long as possible to preserve their activation as a critical component of carrying out a strategy. Or to keep my other more critical assets away from their greatest threats and body block the shots from them with obstruction. Both are good and legitimate tactics to me. Especially when in the later usage, only the flotillas would suffer for the ramming. One damage, to save ten. How is that not a

Now I know there's a lot of talk in the community about misgivings over the ramming rules but I don't buy it. ET double ram, yeah I get that one, but that's it. To me the ramming rules are a dare I say necessary evil and thermically appropriate. I view the damage suffered more often as not an actual impact but the strain on the ships structure to afford that maneuver which makes sense when you ram two of your own.

Bottom line: I bump my stuff all the time in an assessment of the tactical pay off for the expenditure. I recommend it.

Overlapping the tool during a ram may be underappreciated, but what about the legendary speed 0 maneuver? How many people do that in the midst of battle with Demo lurking near by? (I'll admit Demo was on 1 hull and no tokens, but it did have 1st player).

I dropped my Vic to 0 so it would not get in the way of my Glads who were trying to chase an ISD that flew right by my Vic.

I've also dropped my Vic to 0 when I played Biggs in the last vassal tournament so it wouldn't get into range of his ISD, which I was rightly terrified of.

21 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Overlapping the tool during a ram may be underappreciated, but what about the legendary speed 0 maneuver? How many people do that in the midst of battle with Demo lurking near by? (I'll admit Demo was on 1 hull and no tokens, but it did have 1st player).

I dropped my Vic to 0 so it would not get in the way of my Glads who were trying to chase an ISD that flew right by my Vic.

I've also dropped my Vic to 0 when I played Biggs in the last vassal tournament so it wouldn't get into range of his ISD, which I was rightly terrified of.

@Ardaedhel

What about, who would drop Demo to speed 0 whilst opposed by speed 0 MC30s?

Did I have Demo? Cant remember if I was rebel or imp.

2 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

@Ardaedhel

What about, who would drop Demo to speed 0 whilst opposed by speed 0 MC30s?

Did I have Demo? Cant remember if I was rebel or imp.

Yes, it was Demo, and yes, it was the the most Mexican of standoffs. That was the game I thought of when he brought that up, too.

Something something ramming and sliding things down the man tool.