...and also just in: still no official word on armada...

On 11/13/2017 at 2:55 AM, GiledPallaeon said:

Are either of you two going to post the text? And who was the fifth & sixth? Now I'm really curious.

I knew it!

Fraaakin Cylons!!!

53 minutes ago, Stasy said:

I knew it!

Fraaakin Cylons!!!

I kept thinking the "Final Five" too

Don't blame me I voted for Roslyn

At the end of the day, the product will move regardless. God help us if we get a mishmash double wave release. Those are the worst as they just give us more time to stagnate.

Number one rule of effective brainstorming.

All ideas are valid until exploration proves otherwise. Nothing is rejected outright.

I think it has been said and but just going to put in my 2 cents.

ya 1 release a year does kind of suck but at the same time. This game is in a great spot I was just at a tournament and we had 10 people show up and had 9 different commanders and several different fleet idea.s 6 rebels and 4 empire.

It shows that the game is in a great spot there really is no set Meta, people are winning with all different kinds of fleets.

So I would rather they take their time and get it done right than do it too fast.

If they could keep the release at like 1.5 per year I would be happy with that.

What I can agree on is the communication from FFG. I think the communication to the player base, delays in FAQ's taking too long to clarify rules, coming out with articles etc. Would be nice if they could pick that end up a bit.

On 11/13/2017 at 2:47 AM, Ginkapo said:

Its the human condition Dras.

Greed, lust and envy are three of the seven sins. Yet no one is going to realise how needy they are being.

You logged out of the group message too soon. Missed me questioning Undeadguys inclusion as one of the big five.

I wanna see this message

Just now, Madaghmire said:

I wanna see this message

Earn a spot in the BigFive first.

Their codename?

"Big Red Five"

13 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Earn a spot in the BigFive first.

Don't give @Madaghmire any more excuses to talk about his big pillar status.

6 minutes ago, Karneck said:

Their codename?

"Big Red Five"

No they're the Final Five and they're Cylons. @Stasyfigured it out earlier.

Be careful they could be anyone.

Well one of them better be red five then dammit.

1 minute ago, Karneck said:

Well one of them better be red five then dammit.

Of course. They all just go by numbers.

**** ya'll are just teases. Gink already shared it on Discord.

"At least FFG isn't EA" is all that's going through my head these days >.<

Just now, FoaS said:

"At least FFG isn't EA" is all that's going through my head these days >.<

"loot crates are da debil!" imagine if you had to buy like 300 crates to get rymer....THAT would be funny!

I can't see EA getting out of that rut, but I digress...

Ugh, can you imagine if you had to buy booster packs just to get upgrade / squadron cards?

I'm most upset at FFG for their extremely slow response to rules questions for released products that still require clarity to use properly. The past 2 waves have had several rules questions that surfaced within days of their previews and some (all????) of these issues have not been properly addressed in a FAQ. I run our local tournaments and lately I'm at a loss for how to proceed with rules that are ambiguous and/or poorly written, other than making up my own ruling based on the countless threads posted in the rules forum. The last tourney I ran some players argued they saw a FFG employee ruled it one way at a recent event, another said he read a post in the forums that it was ruled by an FFG employee another way, and other players argued it was demonstrated another way in their previews.

This is not how you manage a game. Requiring your player base to spend hours scouring the rules forums for a post containing an email response from an FFG employee is a terrible way to address rules issues. I still have no ***** clue how to properly use the Task Force Antilles!!! Everyone I talk to has a different interpretation. There are countless other examples of rules issues such as this.

FFG should have issued a FAQ for the many outstanding wave 6 ambiguities before the wave was even released! Instead, we have to rely on the overwhelming debates in the Rules forum, in the hope to find a post with an email reply from a FFG employee? Sorry, this is unprofessional and unacceptable. This, more than the delayed releases, is what will drive me and many in our group out of this Armada, and it may be very soon due to an extremely late wave 6 FAQ. Late releases are becoming more common, and even worse, we often can't use many parts of a release for months due to poorly written and unaddressed rules issues.

And while I'm on a roll, where is the the detailed sequence of play/combat/activities that is much needed? I recently helped a couple of new Armada players learn the game, both of them long-time hard-core gamers, and they had no friggin clue how and when certain combat/upgrade activities took place from reading the manuals and FAQs. It's way too obtuse to comprehend without reading 1,000s of post in the rules forum. A sequence diagram similar to X-Wing's "Timing chart for performing an attack" is needed.

/rant

8 minutes ago, Thraug said:

And while I'm on a roll, where is the the detailed sequence of play/combat/activities that is much needed? I recently helped a couple of new Armada players learn the game, both of them long-time hard-core gamers, and they had no friggin clue how and when certain combat/upgrade activities took place from reading the manuals and FAQs. It's way too obtuse to comprehend without reading 1,000s of post in the rules forum. A sequence diagram similar to X-Wing's "Timing chart for performing an attack" is needed.

Is this not satisfied by the attack sequence in the RRG?

No, not even close. Take a look at the X-Wing FAQ and you'll see what mean.

37 minutes ago, Thraug said:

This is not how you manage a game. Requiring your player base to spend hours scouring the rules forums for a post containing an email response from an FFG employee is a terrible way to address rules issues. I still have no ***** clue how to properly use the Task Force Antilles!!! Everyone I talk to has a different interpretation. There are countless other examples of rules issues such as this.

FFG should have issued a FAQ for the many outstanding wave 6 ambiguities before the wave was even released! Instead, we have to rely on the overwhelming debates in the Rules forum, in the hope to find a post with an email reply from a FFG employee? Sorry, this is unprofessional and unacceptable. This, more than the delayed releases, is what will drive me and many in our group out of this Armada, and it may be very soon due to an extremely late wave 6 FAQ. Late releases are becoming more common, and even worse, we often can't use many parts of a release for months due to poorly written and unaddressed rules issues.

Any email FFG sends out is not sanctioned for a tournament. Any questions not answered by the RRG and FAQ are directed to the TO who has the final say on the issue. Those emails are more for personal use, but TOs can use them as an unofficial word from FFG if they know about it. It's also frowned upon to sway the TO with the emails because they are not an official response from FFG.

Where's this big Armada news they can't wait to show us?

If they can't wait, why are they waiting?

57 minutes ago, Thraug said:

No, not even close. Take a look at the X-Wing FAQ and you'll see what mean.

I recall that there was a fan-made version of that kind of turn-sequence document.

If someone can link it to me, I'll make a proper and pretty PDF with all the bells and whistles of the timing of a turn, do it all info-graphic-like.