Just now, geek19 said:

But as it's fun for me and the points costs offset how many I can bring, does it really need a nerf? It's not that Keyan Farlander is good, it's that's Yavaris and Adar Tallon with him is good, and that's really 3 different ships if you're doing it right.

yeah, that's why I added the "so eh" at the end. It's more of a personnel issue with it as I don't think it's very thematic to always have the best of the best aces every time on the table. But, I don't think there's really a balance issue here as well. Perhaps some aces survive a bit too long for their cost, but that's about it.

One thing about a Relay "nerf" is that it would be a very small change that would effect some of the other things folks would like to see tweaked without being a total upending of things.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

I feel that if you read the Rules, you have an answer.

Its only when you assume the rules, that you have a question.

We both know this is not true based on the amount of people who ask questions about the rules after reading them. The rules are **** confusing and Sloane can be interpreted either way, depending on how you initially read it.

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Nothing personal, its just this one is a real personal bugbear of mine.

I feel that if you read the Rules, you have an answer.

Its only when you assume the rules, that you have a question.

yeah, but at the same time, if we look back at the whole RLB debacle (which is funny, 'cause in the end, I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that card), there are some cases where what's written and what's supposed to happen take us by surprise.

2 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

One thing about a Relay "nerf" is that it would be a very small change that would effect some of the other things folks would like to see tweaked without being a total upending of things.

yes. It would also force players who "abuse" flotillas to activation pad to get in the fray.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

We both know this is not true based on the amount of people who ask questions about the rules after reading them. The rules are **** confusing and Sloane can be interpreted either way, depending on how you initially read it.

Just now, Sybreed said:

yeah, but at the same time, if we look back at the whole RLB debacle (which is funny, 'cause in the end, I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that card), there are some cases where what's written and what's supposed to happen take us by surprise.

I'm not disputing RLB at all. That was a gong show, and I admit it. I mean, I wrote two major interpretations and got it wrong both times.

But with Sloane, there is a clear answer when you read it. If you don't come to a clear answer, then you didn't... for lack of a better term (and I'm really sorry this sounds more ****-holey than I want to), you didn't read it right.

That's what I'm trying to say.

You have to make an assumption that the rules are not written correctly, or that the rules were "not written with Sloane in mind" to come to a questioning conclusion.

Emphatically, there is one "RAW" interpretation for Sloane. Actual. Full. Raw. There is one.

RAI - that's a gongshow. Which is why I only look at it at last resorts.

RLB was different, for that, there was two Inteprerations based on "RAW" that were equally valid, and the RAI was #3...

But with Sloane, there is one RAW.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

I'm not disputing RLB at all. That was a gong show, and I admit it. I mean, I wrote two major interpretations and got it wrong both times.

But with Sloane, there is a clear answer when you read it. If you don't come to a clear answer, then you didn't... for lack of a better term (and I'm really sorry this sounds more ****-holey than I want to), you didn't read it right.

That's what I'm trying to say.

You have to make an assumption that the rules are not written correctly, or that the rules were "not written with Sloane in mind" to come to a questioning conclusion.

Emphatically, there is one "RAW" interpretation for Sloane. Actual. Full. Raw. There is one.

RAI - that's a gongshow. Which is why I only look at it at last resorts.

RLB was different, for that, there was two Inteprerations based on "RAW" that were equally valid, and the RAI was #3...

But with Sloane, there is one RAW.

When you say "not written with Sloane in mind", well.... that's actually how I feel about Sloane right now. Feels like they wrote the rules for her, but forgot their own RAW.

Just now, Sybreed said:

When you say "not written with Sloane in mind", well.... that's actually how I feel about Sloane right now. Feels like they wrote the rules for her, but forgot their own RAW.

And that is entirely my point.

I feel you're assuming, and thus questioning.

Whereas if you were just Reading, you would have your answer.

Just now, Sybreed said:

yes. It would also force players who "abuse" flotillas to activation pad to get in the fray.

Right. It brings the flotillas closer or maybe puts the Relay squad a little more out on its own. Thus possibly giving you something you could do about. We could see what having to be in more danger changes as far as activation padding/flotilla spam with only changing one thing. And one thing that is still consistent with other rules of squadron orders.

But, of course, @Sybreed - I would not say no to definitive clarification.

I just feel like I have absolute certainly where that one is going to be ruled

Just now, Drasnighta said:

But, of course, @Sybreed - I would not say no to definitive clarification.

I just feel like I have absolute certainly where that one is going to be ruled

well, at least we'll be all set about it. I'm more annoyed at the fact that they're taking their sweet time to give us an answer. Yes, I assume some stuff about the rules, but it's not like there are no precedents to give me reasons to assume stuff!

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

You have to make an assumption that the rules are not written correctly, or that the rules were "not written with Sloane in mind" to come to a questioning conclusion.

You're making the assumption that I think this which is incorrect. I think what you're saying is literally the worst argument ever for why something should be ruled a certain way.

I read the rules and I made my argument when Sloane came out.

In case you forgot:

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

You're making the assumption that I think this which is incorrect. I think what you're saying is literally the worst argument ever for why something should be ruled a certain way.

I read the rules and I made my argument when Sloane came out.

In case you forgot:

Oh, I didn't forget.

I just go for RAW first of all. I make no apologies for being a RAW-ist.

And again, nothing personal, but just in general, it leaves me often flabbergasted at how few people actually do read the **** rules, rather than just taking second hand thoughts or making assumptions on them.

And again, things are often supercharged by opinion, and certainly in my case, bias.

I can't really apologise for it, because its who I am... Its how I work... And I struggle to understand anything that runs so perpendicular to that... But I try.

I certainly want the issue done and dusted. That is for sure. I also wish it was never an issue in the first place. That's where my bias comes in, because yes, it is egotistical to think "If people had just listened to me...." it wouldn't have been... But that is too **** egotistical, even for an egotistical b'stard like me

But I also know that a lot of my egotism on it is the fact that I don't have anything else to cling on to some days, so I cling hard.

For that, I apologise too. And will continue to attempt to be a better human being.

26 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And will continue to attempt to be a better human being.

If you insist but I think it's overrated.

Just now, Megatronrex said:

If you insist but I think it's overrated.

The only other alternative is to remain a monster.

And I am very good at playing the Bad Guy...

Just now, Drasnighta said:

The only other alternative is to remain a monster.

And I am very good at playing the Bad Guy...

C'mon man embrace the dark side. Let your hate flow through you.

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And again, things are often supercharged by opinion, and certainly in my case, bias.

I can't really apologise for it, because its who I am... Its how I work... And I struggle to understand anything that runs so perpendicular to that... But I try.

I certainly want the issue done and dusted. That is for sure. I also wish it was never an issue in the first place. That's where my bias comes in, because yes, it is egotistical to think "If people had just listened to me...." it wouldn't have been... But that is too **** egotistical, even for an egotistical b'stard like me

But I also know that a lot of my egotism on it is the fact that I don't have anything else to cling on to some days, so I cling hard.

For that, I apologise too. And will continue to attempt to be a better human being.

I think here is where alot of confusion and frustration comes from. Bias is so hard to overcome. Some would say impossible and that even when we are trying to be our most impartial, some bias will inevitably sneak through. It is part of who we are and seeing the other side of an argument or point of view is often one of the more difficult things we can do.

So we read rules and as human beings interpret them. We get it into our heads that they work this way and mean this thing. It is easy to convince us that we are wrong when it is a clear, one variable problem. These rules, however, are complicated and the understanding of one rule may hinge on the understanding of a variety of other rules. The depth of understanding required to come to a ruling on some of these is significant. Having a working knowledge of all these rules and being able to remember and interpret with accuracy demands a knowledge and intimacy with the game that I don't think many people have. So what ends up happening, in the more complicated situations, is that a player will read the rule in front of him and try to fit that into what he knows about gameplay without digging through 5 or 6 other rules to see how it fits with those. In the more complicated and intricate situations it becomes easy to feel like you have the right answer and grow very attached to that answer even in the face of explanations to the contrary.

Bias is inevitable and, with some of the more complicated rules and interactions with other rules, will color our interpretation and reinforce our determination to prove ourselves right.

Without spending time on the forums reading and following all the conversations here it is difficult to know exactly what to do with some of the card text. There are no excuses for some of the basic rule violations. They are made by idiots.

I am often one of those idiots.

First, props to @Darth Sanguis for the IT gif, I'm not a fan of the show but I definitely agree with the assessment of this thread!

I agree with @geek19, we are all fine here. The current state of Armada seems pretty balanced to me. Though activity has dropped off here in Tucson in recent months there really hasn't been a meta which forces players to bring certain things, at least not to the point that I've heard complaining. We all usually bring a decent fighter screen of at least 80 points or so, however I've been small defensive groups(TychoShara or MaulerSoontir/Escorts) work well too.

Relays haven't really been an issue here even with all the squadron play. I feel their cost and pain when you lose them balances them nicely. I use them on occasion and they have by no means made me the Star Lord of Tucson(I'm maybe 3rd best out of the 8 or so regular players here). I wouldn't mind the 'nerf' of keeping them in activation range of a ship, it makes more sense thematically, but why put out a FAQ or errata when you don't have to?

We haven't felt the transport rage here at all, I think our meta sees it as sort of boring and unthematic, the most we usually see is 3 transports. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the transport fix put forth by the Comms Noise podcast crew; make them part of the squadron cost. Including transports and their upgrades in the squadron cost is a very elegant solution as it limits the number you can run AND cuts down on the number of fighters you can bring. Here in Tucson the amount of fighters on the table often slows down the game, I believe adding transport costs to the fighter point would would also drop the number of overall activations per turn(talking about fighter phase as well) and make games much faster.

5 minutes ago, SpaceC0wboy said:

We haven't felt the transport rage here at all, I think our meta sees it as sort of boring and unthematic, the most we usually see is 3 transports. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the transport fix put forth by the Comms Noise podcast crew; make them part of the squadron cost. Including transports and their upgrades in the squadron cost is a very elegant solution as it limits the number you can run AND cuts down on the number of fighters you can bring. Here in Tucson the amount of fighters on the table often slows down the game, I believe adding transport costs to the fighter point would would also drop the number of overall activations per turn(talking about fighter phase as well) and make games much faster.

I very much dislike that idea because the fleets that need flotillas the most and actually get the most fundamental use from them are carrier fleets. Aggro fleets using flotillas as activation padding would be less hurt by this change than a squadron-heavy fleet that's using 2 or 3 flotillas to help with activations but mostly to push squadrons.

4 minutes ago, SpaceC0wboy said:

We haven't felt the transport rage here at all, I think our meta sees it as sort of boring and unthematic, the most we usually see is 3 transports. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the transport fix put forth by the Comms Noise podcast crew; make them part of the squadron cost. Including transports and their upgrades in the squadron cost is a very elegant solution as it limits the number you can run AND cuts down on the number of fighters you can bring. Here in Tucson the amount of fighters on the table often slows down the game, I believe adding transport costs to the fighter point would would also drop the number of overall activations per turn(talking about fighter phase as well) and make games much faster.

Because that is just another form of squadron hate to some.

Here, I find all-ship games go longer than Squad-heavy games, because we play squad heavy a lot, its practised and faster.

I like to think they started developing wave 7 after seeing the effects of wave 3/4 on the game (not sure if the timeline lines up, but I think so), so I would not be surprised to see some upgrades that help lower activation lists keep up with higher activation lists.

4 minutes ago, GalacticFister said:

I like to think they started developing wave 7 after seeing the effects of wave 3/4 on the game (not sure if the timeline lines up, but I think so), so I would not be surprised to see some upgrades that help lower activation lists keep up with higher activation lists.

Like what? Large ships can normally kill a small ship, and we have GT to let it do it twice.

Interesting idea that wave 7 is delayed because FFG is trying to hot fix some imbalances they say.

2 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Clearly it bothers some people and anything that disincentivizes combat is, if not necessarily inherently bad, something to be minimized if possible. It is very important to make sure you don't go too far, however - Boosted Comms and Relay squadrons and the like are important tools for carrier fleets to keep their shtick going without having to close with the enemy fleet any faster than necessary, where in general they get destroyed ("rush the carriers, ignore the squadrons" being one of the best methods for handling bomber fleets since wave one). It can be counter-played, but then again so can a lot of the things FFG has errataed, so that alone isn't enough to save anything.

But I don't even think that requiring squadron vs squadron play is 'disincentivizing combat'.

As a point of reference, look at the Star Wars movies - we see plenty of space battles along the way...

• Attack on Eadu...squadrons-only, no ship interaction/command at all
• Attack on Scarif gate...mix of squadrons and ships
• Attack on Scarif ground base...squadrons-only, no ship interaction/command at all
• Capture of the Tantive IV...ship-only, no squadrons
• Battle of Yavin 4...squadrons-only, no ship interaction/command at all
• Evacuation of Hoth...squadrons and flotillas on side vs ships on the other (best argument for command activation of squadrons I can think of in the series)
• Battle in the asteroid field...squadrons-only for most of it (some few rounds of the worst anti-squadron rolls I've ever seen scattered around it)
• Battle of Endor...mix of squadrons and ships
• Attack on Starkiller Base...squadrons-only, no ship interaction/command at all

...but a not-insignificant portion of them seem to point to squadrons of fighters in combat as a perfectly typical space battle in the Star Wars setting, with not a ship in sight. And that's just the movies! The 'Rebels' TV series has fighter squadrons operating independently as a matter of course.

So, really, the insistence some seem to have that relay letting ships stay out of the fight is somehow not thematic doesn't make sense to me. It's VERY thematic that the ships can stay out of the fight, based on what we've seen on screen and TV. I mean, heck, it'd be even more thematic, IMHO, if you had the option to keep your commander off-map entirely, and build a list with 400 pts of squadrons, as one possible fleet building option.

2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

...but a not-insignificant portion of them seem to point to squadrons of fighters in combat as a perfectly typical space battle in the Star Wars setting, with not a ship in sight. And that's just the movies! The 'Rebels' TV series has fighter squadrons operating independently as a matter of course.

So, really, the insistence some seem to have that relay letting ships stay out of the fight is somehow not thematic doesn't make sense to me. It's VERY thematic that the ships can stay out of the fight, based on what we've seen on screen and TV. I mean, heck, it'd be even more thematic, IMHO, if you had the option to keep your commander off-map entirely, and build a list with 400 pts of squadrons, as one possible fleet building option.

uhh...