1 hour ago, Darth Veggie said:

@Truthiness and @JJs Juggernaut , you mentioned that you have played with a pass rule and that it took a lot of fun out of the game for you. I was always in favor of a pass rule, but qou two are well more experienced players than I am. So, I trust your judgement. However, this might be dependent on the specific pass rule. How did yours work? Was it one first and last player could benefit from? Could it be used at any point of the ship phase?

My favorite pass rule is that merely the second player is allowed to delay only his last activation after the last activation of the first player.

That's the only one I've ever really seen seriously proposed; it's a good bet that's what they used. And it makes sense that it would lead to the issues they're talking about. Edit: wait... I might have misunderstood your suggestion. Are you saying you allow one single ship of P2's to delay until after the last activation of P1? I read it as the common "if your opponent has more activations remaining than you, you may pass," but on rereading it sounds like you want to allow only one ship to pass? Similar objection, but it's probably not how they playtested.

Wait until Pryce hits the table and people start seeing what the ability to guarantee last activation can do for you, and it'll be super obvious to everybody that giving that to every ship in the game, at will, for free, whenever they want it and ONLY when they want it, is a terrible idea. I predict the " BTvenger is even more broken now!! " threads to start within the first month after release.

7 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

That's the only one I've ever really seen seriously proposed; it's a good bet that's what they used. And it makes sense that it would lead to the issues they're talking about.

Wait until Pryce hits the table and people start seeing what the ability to guarantee last activation can do for you, and it'll be super obvious to everybody that giving that to every ship in the game, at will, for free, whenever they want it and ONLY when they want it, is a terrible idea. I predict the " BTvenger is even more broken now!! " threads to start within the first month after release.

But they will want BTAvenger fixed, not the pass rule.

2 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

@Truthiness and @JJs Juggernaut , you mentioned that you have played with a pass rule and that it took a lot of fun out of the game for you. I was always in favor of a pass rule, but qou two are well more experienced players than I am. So, I trust your judgement. However, this might be dependent on the specific pass rule. How did yours work? Was it one first and last player could benefit from? Could it be used at any point of the ship phase?

My favorite pass rule is that merely the second player is allowed to delay only his last activation after the last activation of the first player.

It was effectively an equalizing mechanic, where the player with less activations was able to delay until the number of remaining activations were equal.

Just now, Truthiness said:

It was effectively an equalizing mechanic, where the player with less activations was able to delay until the number of remaining activations were equal.

So, it was not restricted to the second player? And was the player with less activations able to delay his last activation or was he completelly free to delay any activation?

5 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

So, it was not restricted to the second player? And was the player with less activations able to delay his last activation or was he completelly free to delay any activation?

It was not expressly limited to the second player, but they were effectively the only ones that got it. They were able to delay any activation, not just the last one. It was Triple ISDs against a 5 activation Rebel squadron list.

I don't really want to read every comment in this topic but if nobody mentioned it already: if everyone could use the pass rule everyone would probably want to go last.

If i choose to pass, you would probably pass too as both would want to go last, that's when games are getting broken.

So i don't really think it will come.

2 hours ago, Skullfett said:

I don't really want to read every comment in this topic but if nobody mentioned it already: if everyone could use the pass rule everyone would probably want to go last.

If i choose to pass, you would probably pass too as both would want to go last, that's when games are getting broken.

So i don't really think it will come.

It wouldn't work like that. Player One has 3 ships, player Two has 5. First turn - Player One passes; second turn Player One has 3 ships inactivated, Player Two has 4, Player One passes. Turn 3 Player One has 3 ships, Player Two has 3 ships, Player One must go and Player Two does not have the opportunity to pass as they both have the same number of ships to activate now. Player One has to go first when they have the same number of activations.

My thoughts here- FFG is taking the right path with regard to a “pass rule”.

Pryce offers one method of circumventing the standard rule, but she requires some skill and planning to be effective. Likewise, I could see later including upgrades which allow a ship to fire once outside of standard activation- a weapons team or something which effectively grants an attack of opportunity at a certain range, probably once per game and contingent on the target being the current active ship. Other, similar ideas could easily be developed, and assigned appropriate costs via play testing.

The way I see it, the default initiative rules represent the flexibility of a large, fast fleet vs. a small, generally predictable one. With the crews on the 2-3 ISDs trying to track the swarm of Rebel ships, the Rebels can occasionally make an attack run safe from reprisal because the Empire was simply outwitted. We see this a lot in the story world. In comparison, certain crew, tech and other upgrades allow the Empire to pull surprises of their own, even with a ponderous and seemingly predictable fleet. ( Double ISDs really look like they should be predictable, and in the films can be bested by 2 X-wings and a transport with ion cannon support, at least so far as maneuver and activation are concerned....)

1 hour ago, Cusm said:

It wouldn't work like that. Player One has 3 ships, player Two has 5. First turn - Player One passes; second turn Player One has 3 ships inactivated, Player Two has 4, Player One passes. Turn 3 Player One has 3 ships, Player Two has 3 ships, Player One must go and Player Two does not have the opportunity to pass as they both have the same number of ships to activate now. Player One has to go first when they have the same number of activations.

So you go second with 2 ISD-II with GT to wreck everything else.

+ objective advantage.

A pass rule?

*fart noise

This game is designed around limited turns and the idea of perpetual motion. Having a pass would feel bizarre, even with the rules I’ve seen for it.

How about a limit to flotillas in a fleet?

The idea behind flotilla design was clearly to have these neat little things that served as support, but lately it feels like they’ve taken the spotlight with activation being so key. You can get rid of that by limiting them to two? Maybe even one? They shouldn’t be the focus of this game, especially due to what is more or less a loophole.

2 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

They shouldn’t be the focus of this game, especially due to what is more or less a loophole.

Not sure if they are. I mean, I take 3 cause I am focused on making my BTAvenger works.

7 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

The idea behind flotilla design was clearly to have these neat little things that served as support, but lately it feels like they’ve taken the spotlight with activation being so key. You can get rid of that by limiting them to two? Maybe even one? They shouldn’t be the focus of this game, especially due to what is more or less a loophole.

According to the preview article activation padding was one of the key reasons to add them. That means utilizing them in such a way is not "more or less a loophole."

6 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Not sure if they are. I mean, I take 3 cause I am focused on making my BTAvenger works.

Maybe I should’ve said they weren’t meant to be as strategically game changing as they’ve ended up being.

I just don’t think the idea of the skip is the solution to what’s essentially a stall. Swinging the pendulum back just as hard (if not harder) in the opposite direction for a “fix” is poor game design. There’s easier ways to get the game back to where it needs to be.

2 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

According to the preview article activation padding was one of the key reasons to add them. That means utilizing them in such a way is not "more or less a loophole."

Then that’s poor game design and they should’ve seen them taking over.

Again, the fix is easy: limit them.

9 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

How about a limit to flotillas in a fleet?

The idea behind flotilla design was clearly to have these neat little things that served as support, but lately it feels like they’ve taken the spotlight with activation being so key. You can get rid of that by limiting them to two? Maybe even one? They shouldn’t be the focus of this game, especially due to what is more or less a loophole.

I think the most reasonable idea I've seen put forward is treating flotillas similar to squadrons when it comes to end game. If you only have squadrons and/or flotillas left, the end game is triggered. This still leaves it open for people to run as many flotillas as they would like in the support roles, but also means it is technically easier to table their fleet.

I think that outside of unique names, point limits should be the only thing limiting a build. With a 400 point cap and a 1/3 cap on squadrons, I feel it would get too convoluted to add more build requirements. That said, as it stands, I am fine with the "activation padding" of flotillas. You are sacrificing damage dealing ships in order to include flotillas, so often there will only be 1 or 2 hard hitting ships. It is definitely a trade-off.

3 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

Maybe I should’ve said they weren’t meant to be as strategically game changing as they’ve ended up being.

They changed nothing to me. I played glads raiders and sometimes vics during wave 2. I got one fleet with a naked ISD with 2 raiders and 1 glad as much. Actually looking back each wave since then made me use ISDs more than ever.

12 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

I think the most reasonable idea I've seen put forward is treating flotillas similar to squadrons when it comes to end game. If you only have squadrons and/or flotillas left, the end game is triggered. This still leaves it open for people to run as many flotillas as they would like in the support roles, but also means it is technically easier to table their fleet.

I think that outside of unique names, point limits should be the only thing limiting a build. With a 400 point cap and a 1/3 cap on squadrons, I feel it would get too convoluted to add more build requirements. That said, as it stands, I am fine with the "activation padding" of flotillas. You are sacrificing damage dealing ships in order to include flotillas, so often there will only be 1 or 2 hard hitting ships. It is definitely a trade-off.

Oh yeah, I like this better as well. Sort of a risk/reward situation that still doesn’t dictate what you can play.

And I’m also all for keeping the rules as simple as possible. I’d be good with this.

What is a pass rule?

Because if its what I think it is i'm inherently against it.

Fleets with far more activations tend to be made of smaller ships whereas fleets with low activations are made up of larger ships.

Thematically of course fleets with more ships are going to out maneuver fleets with large ships like ISDs.

There is no pass rule, there is a Imperial Assault pass rule, that I just posted in this thread, but nothing for Armada yet and as FFG has proven they are not above differing how they do the same mechanic in different games.

On 12/12/2017 at 3:15 PM, GiledPallaeon said:

Spoilers for my upcoming dual ISD thoughts essay.

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD maneuver fleet like my Regionals list:

That one started with what looked like a nose punch, which is something else entirely...

On 12/12/2017 at 3:15 PM, GiledPallaeon said:

Spoilers for my upcoming dual ISD thoughts essay.

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD maneuver fleet like my Regionals list:

That one started with what looked like a nose punch, which is something else entirely...