16 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Ive really enjoyed this thread. I admit to not having fought against this much.

But why is having a small bid and going second not an option?

Also, this list has pathetic ship firepower. Why cant you use corvettes or light cruisers to blow big holes in yavaris's side arcs from red range?

Not all GH lists have this, but its not uncommon to see 2 vcx to yavaris from anywhere. Then they fly it like its salvation so you really have to split off a ship to go after it.

27 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Also, this list has pathetic ship firepower. Why cant you use corvettes or light cruisers to blow big holes in yavaris's side arcs from red range?

SHHHHHHHHHH! You're spoiling my Regionals strategy!

52 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Ive really enjoyed this thread. I admit to not having fought against this much.

But why is having a small bid and going second not an option?

Also, this list has pathetic ship firepower. Why cant you use corvettes or light cruisers to blow big holes in yavaris's side arcs from red range?

Essentially - you can.

But Because Red Range for you is FC/FCT-Yavaris-Double-Tap Squadron Range for HIM, even if you do, you generally lose *everything* that Tried to do so - because Rieekan sees it through until the end of the turn...

Yavaris is cheap to trade up, basically... One corvette won't do it, you'll need 2-3 to reliably do it in one go (due to the upgrade suite of the Neb-B)... And it can reliably threaten them...

Direction of attack and direction of movements make it trickier for Non-JJ Arquitens to do, because they lack the maneuver to get that range "just right" while it is pulling its own lazy-lists-to-the-left maneuvers

Basically, what it boils down to is, with distance of squads + FC/FCT + Adar + Double Tap if good.... It has a heck of a threat range that can be projected to a point on the battlefield near it...

The better bet is to try to pirahna it on all sides with low-cost high-punchers... But then you start running into its Gallant Haven (or Admo) escort as well, and pay the price for your insolence there...


But I also fully admit, I've been punching bagged by this mission to the tune of 600+ points before, so I'm pretty jaded.

Yah my approach, though very lightly tested, is to use Ackbar to dominate the Red range engagement and to use speed and a dispersed attack pattern to minimize the damage the bombers can do. Also, people fly right into the potential threat zone of GH and Yavaris squadron activation. Pretend there is a 90 degree cone that extends out from the front of both ships. In that cone the squadrons get both GH defense and Yavaris offensive buffs. Outside of that cone the squadrons in question struggle to both reach their targets, stay in command range, and remain under the aura of both ships. You do not have to take the combo head on, speed can break up the combo somewhat. This list is significantly less overwhelming when attacked from the flanks where GH can not support the squadrons being sent out to bomb because the attack vector is off its port or starboard sides. A head on fight with 2-3 Rebels is a loosing fight, just review the latest regionals recap posted on Can't Get My Ship Out and you will see that. Beating 2-3 rebels requires speed to get to the flanks of the formation, as well as the speed to make it impossible for B-Wings to keep on the same ship round after round.

If you can inflict such a ranged beating on Yavris and GH that they have to commit their squadrons to pursue outside of the trajectory of Y and GH you are now facing "merely Reeikan aces," but you can hurt them and your ships can contribute to the fight vie flak now that they are away from GH. I advise G. Teams to allow the option to Shoot and flak in the same direction.

Speed 3+ ackbar can do this and force a squadron battle in open space away from GH and then I have to fall back on my old saying, "If you give me a fair fight, I'll win it."

The 2 VCX thing makes this approach more difficult, my answer is to send my A-wings hunting the VCX as soon as they leave GH, but is a much harder situation to pull off.

Last thought, 2-3 Rebels is strongest when flown slow in order to overlap all the buff auras, it also is weak on the sides for the reasons I explained above. As a result, most of these lists set up in a corner and swirl out from there every time, effectively cutting the number of attack vectors they are worried about in half, this is smart, but cedes a massive amount of board control to the other fleet. High point objectives that require board presence may be a better counter than actually fighting the list. Intel Sweed, Fire Lanes, and Most Wanted for example with at least 1 Strategic in your list can make it easy to win an objective war, or get to play MW (aka Hunt GH with all you got)...

Write lists that punish a lack of board presence... They also may have VCX but they will not want to extend them onto your half of the board early for fear of loosing them, giving you a jump start on the objectives.

Yeah, Space_Cowboy17. Great write up.

But I think the underlying issue here is some players like to main Imperials and can’t seem to figure out how to beat Reiken Aces.

Of course you’ve suggested some great things here: plinking away at a distance, not driving mindlessly forward, staying away from both ships’ “sweet spot” for squadron support.

But that goes along with changing Imperial tactics, which most players begin to chafe at the mere mention of.

38 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Yeah, Space_Cowboy17. Great write up.

But I think the underlying issue here is some players like to main Imperials and can’t seem to figure out how to beat Rieekan Aces understand how to beat the list using the other faction.

Of course you’ve suggested some great things here: plinking away at a distance, not driving mindlessly forward, staying away from both ships’ “sweet spot” for squadron support.

But that goes along with changing Imperial tactics, which most players begin to chafe at the mere mention of understanding Imperial options to do the same, given the more difficult time Imperials have justifying Strategic-heavy options and the superior ability of the Rebels to skirmish at extreme range.

FTFY

2 hours ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Yeah, Space_Cowboy17. Great write up.

But I think the underlying issue here is some players like to main Imperials and can’t seem to figure out how to beat Reiken Aces.

Of course you’ve suggested some great things here: plinking away at a distance, not driving mindlessly forward, staying away from both ships’ “sweet spot” for squadron support.

But that goes along with changing Imperial tactics, which most players begin to chafe at the mere mention of.

Looking at your posts, I think I've found the main issue I have with your point: you seem to believe Imperials (writ large) favor a straightforward jousting technique. I can absolutely understand where you get this impression; many Imperial ships are front arc focused with a high damage output and high hull, which means an easy strategy is to drive them toward what you want to shoot. Some players do indeed get addicted to this approach. I'm going to bolden, underline and italicize the next part of this post, because it is the main point. Experienced Imperial players don't do this unless there is a reason for it. If you've only played against/watched people who do this all the time and lose matches because of it, you haven't played against/seen Imperials who know what they're doing. We have Ozzel and Jerjerrod, and many of us use them. We have side arc ships, and many of us use them. We have fleets with no ISDs, VSDs or Raiders. The Arq was built for "plinking." The Gladiator was made for broadsides, not jousting. The Interdictor needs a double arc to be effective. You may not have seen such lists in your meta, but I can assure you that they all get used, and some of us use them well. None of them are (by themselves) an effective counter to Rieekan Aces, because none of them hit hard enough to end ships quickly, and none of them are cheap. B-wings do hit hard enough, and are cheap. It's all well and good to talk about skill and flexibility, and they matter. But many Rieekan Aces players have been playing their build for years, and they have a very, very clear understanding of what it can do. And their squadrons are more maneuverable, and therefore more flexible, than any ship. And their ships make sure their squadrons just don't die. Now if you'll excuse me, you've reminded me I have a JJ/Interdictor/Glad/Arquitens/Lambda list to tweak. (I actually do, might I add.)

2 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Last thought, 2-3 Rebels is strongest when flown slow in order to overlap all the buff auras,

This has not been my experience, and suggest that this is why the red-range skirmishing thing worked for you but isn't a panacea. In my experience, this list should be flown fast and aggressive in most matchups, not slow--for this specific reason. It's very hard to do that well, and it takes a lot of practice, but once you can reliably line up all the moving parts at high speed, you can also very reliably threaten red-range skirmishers.

A lot of people both in this thread and elsewhere are seeing things like this

On 12/10/2017 at 4:39 AM, MasterShake2 said:

I could run the list in a coma

and not reading the whole thing

On 12/10/2017 at 4:39 AM, MasterShake2 said:

I did enough playtesting and fine tuning with the Magnificent 7 that I could run the list in a coma

and assuming any old yahoo can just pick this archetype up and roll everybody with it with no effort at all.

This is a fleet with a very high skill ceiling that strongly rewards a lot of practice with it. I've played against many people with a wide range of skill who were playing this archetype, and I can tell you that it's extremely common for these games to hinge on single moments of precision squadron play. For example, if you leave just one single X-wing outside of Gallant Haven range for one activation, your opponent can jump on it, drill through the gap that it leaves, jump Jan, and the whole thing falls apart. As you saw at Worlds 2016, if you activate a critical ship out of order, it can get jumped late in the round, negating Rieekan and the whole thing falls apart. If you don't fly it aggressively enough against the wrong list, skirmisher hit-and-fades can buy enough time to kill a ship and then avoid engagement until the following round, mitigating Rieekan. If you fly it too aggressively against the wrong list, you expose yourself to getting jumped by torpedo boats.

But the game is really yours to lose in most matchups: it's very unforgiving of mistakes, but if you don't make any at all, you're usually pretty unlikely to lose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your idea isn't valuable. You're right that it'll work against people who try to netlist it just because it's ranking well, without putting in the time to learn to use it well. I just don't think skirmish-and-kite is really a workable general solution to it, from what I've seen.

Believe me that I would be very happy to be proven wrong here, though.

My post was not intended to incite some sort of angry response and backlash about how I am accusing Imps of being bullheaded or how I think my suggestions are a easy solution. I was making what I feel to be empirical (see what I did there) statements about the nature of the list archtype.

Do you not agree that the squadrons are most powerful when under both auras?

As both actual ships will often be doing squadron commands they will not be getting many clicks of extra maneuver so is it unreasonable to expect their trajectory to be a fairly normal one, one that a dedicated flanking unit could probably get to the side of.

Do you not agree that the GH effect and Yavaris effect are harder to manifest in the side arcs than they are in the front arcs since in both cases, the ships that need to be in range are moving toward the target in the front arc and perpendicular to the target in the side arc?

Maybe the players you fly against set up in the middle and come straight at the enemy but most of my experience has been with 2-3 fleets that come out of the corner at a rate of speed that allows the B-wings to keep up, (so basically not speed 3). This tactic makes a lot of sense because it eliminates one flank for the enemy to attack from (in fact this is a classic tactical move called a "refused flank,"

@The Jabbawookie what is your problem with me trying to be helpful?

You act like I am saying this will beat an A Hole list every time, I am trying to lay out the principle weaknesses and tenancies of the fleet so they can be exploited, like I do with any fleet I play.

I don't see how any of the observations I brought about the nature of a 2-3 rebel bomber wing are controversial, or offensive to you people.

I regret contributing my thoughts in light of how it was received and responded to with such anger

4 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

My post was not intended to incite some sort of angry response and backlash about how I am accusing Imps of being bullheaded or how I think my suggestions are a easy solution. I was making what I feel to be empirical (see what I did there) statements about the nature of the list archtype.

Do you not agree that the squadrons are most powerful when under both auras?

As both actual ships will often be doing squadron commands they will not be getting many clicks of extra maneuver so is it unreasonable to expect their trajectory to be a fairly normal one, one that a dedicated flanking unit could probably get to the side of.

Do you not agree that the GH effect and Yavaris effect are harder to manifest in the side arcs than they are in the front arcs since in both cases, the ships that need to be in range are moving toward the target in the front arc and perpendicular to the target in the side arc?

Maybe the players you fly against set up in the middle and come straight at the enemy but most of my experience has been with 2-3 fleets that come out of the corner at a rate of speed that allows the B-wings to keep up, (so basically not speed 3). This tactic makes a lot of sense because it eliminates one flank for the enemy to attack from (in fact this is a classic tactical move called a "refused flank,"

@The Jabbawookie what is your problem with me trying to be helpful?

You act like I am saying this will beat an A Hole list every time, I am trying to lay out the principle weaknesses and tenancies of the fleet so they can be exploited, like I do with any fleet I play.

I don't see how any of the observations I brought about the nature of a 2-3 rebel bomber wing are controversial, or offensive to you people.

I regret contributing my thoughts in light of how it was received and responded to with such anger

@Space_Cowboy17 I don't think anyone (at least I don't think anyone) responded to your post with anger. I chose to disagree with a response to you, particularly in its characterizations of Imperial players. @The Jabbawookie responded to the same post, and @Ardaedhel responded to both you and @MasterShake2 simultaneously. For what it's worth, I think your Ackbar thing that demolished me is certainly a plausible answer to Aceholes, though I also agree with Ard that it won't always be able to easily outrun some versions of Aceholes. I do want to try your list at some point, partially for my own edification, and partially for the YOLOs.

14 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

My post was not intended to incite some sort of angry response and backlash about how I am accusing Imps of being bullheaded or how I think my suggestions are a easy solution. I was making what I feel to be empirical (see what I did there) statements about the nature of the list archtype.

Do you not agree that the squadrons are most powerful when under both auras?

As both actual ships will often be doing squadron commands they will not be getting many clicks of extra maneuver so is it unreasonable to expect their trajectory to be a fairly normal one, one that a dedicated flanking unit could probably get to the side of.

Do you not agree that the GH effect and Yavaris effect are harder to manifest in the side arcs than they are in the front arcs since in both cases, the ships that need to be in range are moving toward the target in the front arc and perpendicular to the target in the side arc?

Maybe the players you fly against set up in the middle and come straight at the enemy but most of my experience has been with 2-3 fleets that come out of the corner at a rate of speed that allows the B-wings to keep up, (so basically not speed 3). This tactic makes a lot of sense because it eliminates one flank for the enemy to attack from (in fact this is a classic tactical move called a "refused flank,"

@The Jabbawookie what is your problem with me trying to be helpful?

You act like I am saying this will beat an A Hole list every time, I am trying to lay out the principle weaknesses and tenancies of the fleet so they can be exploited, like I do with any fleet I play.

I don't see how any of the observations I brought about the nature of a 2-3 rebel bomber wing are controversial, or offensive to you people.

I regret contributing my thoughts in light of how it was received and responded to with such anger

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was actually responding to @Flavorabledeez, not you, and certainly wasn't intending to come off as angry (I'm not), but rather trying to make a point I've been trying to make for a good while before you happened to post. I rather liked your post, in fact; it was insightful.

39 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@The Jabbawookie

*snip for brevity*

I regret contributing my thoughts in light of how it was received and responded to with such anger

I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my response. I do disagree with your conclusion, but I want to re-emphasize this:

1 hour ago, Ardaedhel said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your idea isn't valuable. You're right that it'll work against people who try to netlist it just because it's ranking well, without putting in the time to learn to use it well. I just don't think skirmish-and-kite is really a workable general solution to it, from what I've seen.

I think we can reasonably and constructively disagree while recognizing that different experiences will inevitably color our perceptions. The last thing I want is to stifle constructive discussion here: I think the best way to reach good solutions to hard problems like this is to encourage people to propose experience-based ideas and then challenge them to see how they hold up. Just because I'm challenging your idea doesn't mean I'm angry that you proposed it. If you felt like I was, that's clearly a failing on my part and something I need to work on, and I apologize.

All I can say is I want to try and Vader GH or Yavaris title whilst on a raider, and use that time if they attack it to crush the ship with an ISD. Its not a general solution, but getting rid of troublesome titles certainly helps. Playtested it and discarding admonition title before its attack run was the highlight of my day. I got a kick out of using vader even though he wont define the meta I think. It will probably require the right approach and practice, but what doesnt?

19 minutes ago, bleachorange said:

All I can say is I want to try and Vader GH or Yavaris title whilst on a raider, and use that time if they attack it to crush the ship with an ISD. Its not a general solution, but getting rid of troublesome titles certainly helps. Playtested it and discarding admonition title before its attack run was the highlight of my day. I got a kick out of using vader even though he wont define the meta I think. It will probably require the right approach and practice, but what doesnt?

Yeah, he might. What will be interesting will be the effect of the activation officers upon list builds and therefore the meta, but in the current meta, one would really have six activations and last/first, and even then, they still might be able to wall off the approach with flotillas.

I mean, I had a conversation with a friend of mine when the wording on Vader's card first dropped. I had asked, how exactly are you going to land that card on Admonition to discard it, because any good Admonition player is going to work absolutely to stop you from doing that. That takes everything back to list design, with activation counts, bid, and so forth to ensure that you absolutely can get your Vader off every game. It does look like it could be a good card because almost every list has at least one upgrade that it wants/needs.

On GH and Ackbar, there's something to some good red range shots, especially if you can get a speedy mobile ship. I think some of the problem is finding that sweet spot in list building between being able to have those red dice shots from ships, while also having enough squads that you can do something against the squads when they are pulled off Gallant Haven. The simple fact is that by the time you put a squadron set up together that features Toryn, often Flight Controllers, at least one good anti-squadron ace, several others with decent anti-squadron dice, then add Adar Tallon setting up what is for sure a Yavaris shot afterward, there is an absolute lot of force coming at you in the squadron game. If you're not equally decked out to absolutely give it back, then you're still likely losing that squadron game even without Gallant Haven. I think there are a lot of commanders and ship combinations that can pull off a chance at red range shots, but it is still tricky. It might be something where you're still likely down 50 points or so in the squadron game, but manage to keep your ships on the board and can down either GH or Yavaris and a flotilla or two in return. Something like that is doable. And yes, there are ways to do that from the Imperial side as well. Jerry and a mix of Arquittens pick up quite a few red dice.

If only the Imperials had something that shoots like an MC80 Battle Cruiser yet has 11 hull.

1 minute ago, RobertK said:

If only the Imperials had something that shoots like an MC80 Battle Cruiser yet has 11 hull.

What approach would you take with these completely hypothetical, nonexistent, 11 hull Imperial LMC80s you speak of? What would a ship like that even look like? It would have to be some obscure EU thing for sure.

In seriousness, I have been toying with the idea of a Cymoon Refit with h9s and DTTs.

19 minutes ago, RobertK said:

In seriousness, I have been toying with the idea of a Cymoon Refit with h9s and DTTs.

But then would you use gunnery teams for veteran gunners?

4 hours ago, bleachorange said:

All I can say is I want to try and Vader GH or Yavaris title whilst on a raider, and use that time if they attack it to crush the ship with an ISD. Its not a general solution, but getting rid of troublesome titles certainly helps. Playtested it and discarding admonition title before its attack run was the highlight of my day. I got a kick out of using vader even though he wont define the meta I think. It will probably require the right approach and practice, but what doesnt?

I know I personally can't wait to watch some Imperial on Imperial violence where Vader knocks Pryce out of the command chair and the airlock. Forcing them to activate and then eat a Demolisher shot, haha. The height of comedy!

And when he murders my Bail Organa, it will be a tragedy not seen since the last time Vader helped murder Alderaan.

3 hours ago, RobertK said:

In seriousness, I have been toying with the idea of a Cymoon Refit with h9s and DTTs.

If the officer’s chair is open, (and that’s a hotly contested spot, I’ll admit) Needa/TRC might be fun. With H9s and IF, you’ve got 3 damage + an accuracy.

11 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

I regret contributing my thoughts in light of how it was received and responded to with such anger

Please don’t. @Ardaedhel is just really forceful with his comments, or rather his intellectual style is to lay out very evidence-supported and specific analogies such that you sometimes feel like he’s completely invalidated your whole argument. He’s not angry, he’s just positing thoughts to create more discussion. I used to think he was a jerk until I met him IRL. Then I thought he was a total creeper (Seriously though, the first time we met he was standing right up on me from behind while we were waiting in line for a regional registration).

Your post really was insightful, though I do agree with Ard about speed. Unless it’s a mirror match, the experienced 2-3 Rebel will fly fast, and they will manage to keep their squadrons between your ships. In mirror matches, the second player might go slow, pending the objective.

Red ranges are highly frightening for the 2-3 player. A properly outfitted ISD can reliably take out a flotilla from range on turn 2. Our worst fear is having 2 flotillas one-shot by round three, because taking away the activation advantage early is another alternative to defeating the list. So I think you’re right on base with that tactic.

15 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was actually responding to @Flavorabledeez, not you, and certainly wasn't intending to come off as angry (I'm not), but rather trying to make a point I've been trying to make for a good while before you happened to post. I rather liked your post, in fact; it was insightful.

If anyone is coming off as bullheaded about this it’s probably me, and I get that.

Yes, I know the best Imperial players do not drive their triangles straight at opponents. They also mix up their builds.

But this thread is coming off as a complaint that Imperial players can no longer get by on base tactics alone and want an easy fix. I’m sure that’s NOT the intention, but neither is my apparent bullheadedness. I’m more than willing to believe the Imperial players here in this thread make the most elaborate strategies seem as if they’re flying casually.

But Presentation is everything. And when it’s not, past experiences fill in the blanks. Personally, I’ve seen other miniature games where people throw up their hands at winning builds and want the easy fix to come from on high with game design to make it better. This really, really, really felt similar when the thread was started.

But bravo to the community here for taking it into the realm of discussion and constructive criticism

To me it is pretty simple, if going straight at it is a sure way to loose then the only other option is to get around to the side of it.

I would like to reemphasize that it might be worth looking into objectives that greatly punish a lack of board presence as well.

Regardless of if the 2-3 list is traveling fast or slow, it tends to stay in a relatively tight formation, it has to in order to overlap the effects that make the fleet to efficient, namely Torryn Farr, BCC, Yavaris/FC activation range, and GH damage mitigation bubble, possibly a Jamming Field as well but that is often over kill with the amount of braces available to a Jan supported hero wing.

Because they want these buffs to overlap these fleets fly in close formation, an objective such as Intel Sweep or Fire Lanes is tough for a list like this to play and maintain this fleet cohesion specially if you mix in a Stratigic of your own to pull the closest tokens away from them.

My suspicion is that if given the choice between Fire Lanes, Intel Sweep, and Most Wanted, ant looking at a Strategic squad on the other side, you might even get to play Most Wanted.

Opinion question, When attacking a 2-3 list, most people want to kill GH so they can actually fight squadrons, but I am often inclined to go after Yavaris as my top priority. That ship is what ups the offensive power of the fleet to a point where it can chew up ISD's and other large base ships in short order. If I can get an angle, I would rather get shots on Yavaris since it will go down easier and lower the threat level of the enemy counter attack. Many a good ISD has gone down to a Last/First from Yavaris and her B-Wing assistants.

Side note: FFG If you are reading this, please just change the wording on GH such that the damage reduction happens before defense tokens are spent... this does not invalidate the title or ship, but stops the complete negation of damage packets that are less than 3 (which I think is the reason GH is so dominant), it also allows 2 damage to be done through a brace token with 4 hits instead of 5. Some will argue that this invalidates GH, but it does not, it only reduces the title's effectiveness when paired with a Brace token, and does not change how it interacts with generic squads. The title is so ubiquitous that it probably warrants a change. GH is taken in to high a % relative to the number of Assault frigates taken to not be looked at closely. If a strong fighter alpha strike had a reliable chance of killing 1-2 of these squads, paired with the new Gov. Pryce card to allow a First/Last fighter double tap, the list would not be as strong or safe to run as it is. loosing 2-4 key squads is crippling to a list like this.

A change like this would cause this list type to risk losing a few key squads and being in a ship-to-ship shot out that it is unprepared to win. Every fleet must have some reason to fear defeat, but most of these 2-3 lists don't unless they make a huge error. I hate one sided, victory by overwhelmingly dominating one aspect of the game while ignoring the others lists on principle because they often lead to one sided, unfun games for the opponent, and are much safer and easier to play than hybrid fleets that mix squadron and ship fire power but do not over commit in either direction. Mixed fleets are more flexible and create more fair and enjoyable games for all. Overload lists can often win at the list building stage based on the match up. If the list is winning for you or giving you that much of an advantage does that actually say much about the players who do well with overload lists?

4 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

But Presentation is everything. And when it’s not, past experiences fill in the blanks. Personally, I’ve seen other miniature games where people throw up their hands at winning builds and want the easy fix to come from on high with game design to make it better. This really, really, really felt similar when the thread was started.

But bravo to the community here for taking it into the realm of discussion and constructive criticism

I think there's a few significant differences between Armada and some of the other miniature wargames that prevent that sort of thing.

Unlike, say 40k, where owning everything for every faction would be how many thousands of dollars, owning everything in Armada is like $500 or something. (Obviously more as you buy duplicates, triplicates, etc - I've seen the "how much have you spent" thread ). Most, if not all, of the top players play both sides; including most (if not all...) of the same people who've run the GH/Yavaris combo to great success.

Further, I think the online/vassal community is far more impactful on Armada's overall player base, than is the case for other games. I'm not sure what to chalk this up to - smaller IRL community, disproportionately large vassal community? More competitive than casual focus of the game? Better information/skill dispersal from vassal players to everyone else? - and it's just a sort of feeling I get, not anything I have proof of. But that seems to prevent some of the meta stagnation you might see otherwise, I think.