13 hours ago, xanderf said:

Well, I mean...

...Q.E.D., right?

Even FFG - glacially slow (to the tune of being a year or more out of sync with the current meta) - recognizes a problem with low-activation, high-value/command ships being unable to capably deal with high-activation, low-value/command ships.

The suggestion, here, is a lot less substantial a change than some of them (IE., outright activation 'passes'). But even FFG seems to see that something is out of balance at the moment. (And while Pryce is definitely interesting, I think it's a bit of a case of too little, and too late)

I think this is a good point.

Governor Pryce is strong evidence that FFG is cognizant of the activation "issue."

I would argue that Gov. Pryce was a missed opportunity being that you must choose a round to utilize her before the game starts. While I am aware that the mechanic rewards good planning, at 7 points and an officer slot, it just isn't worth putting her on the ships she is intended for. You should just be able to choose any one round, during before the ship phase or something like that.

3 hours ago, dfg said:

I think that whatever you perceive as a problem should be defined better to be able to say something about what should be done.

For example, a first player ISD + 2 gozantis vs. 2 ISDs should go like this:

========

[Round of first engagement begins]

1. Gozanti activates

2. ISD#1 shoots ISD at long range with 4 reds and maneuvers into medium range

3. Gozanti activates

4. ISD#2 shoots ISD at long range with 4 reds and maneuvers into medium range

5. ISD shoots ISD at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range

[Round over. On to next round.]

6. ISD shoots ISD at short range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers out of short range

7&8. ISDs shoot at ISD from side-arcs with 4 reds and 2 blues

========

In that example the first player achieved a total of 16 dice in shots vs. the second player only 14 with a 166 points fleet vs. a 240 points fleet.

Questions:

- Should having the activation advantage and possessing the first player mean such an edge in fights? Especially when the first player is secretly bid for?

- Does it make sense for the double the strength fleet do worse? Is it fun being the second player, knowing you will not get full front arc shots?

- Why should having extra flotillas translate into an advantage in a fight that is taking place elsewhere?

- Is only the first player combined with more activations problematic?

1. The ISD-II (which is what you're using here) has 2 Red / 2 Blue out the side. So you're looking at 16 dice vs. 16 dice as you have stated here (ignoring anything like obstruction).
2. 240 is not double 166. You're looking at 1.5x the cost of the ISD/Goz/Goz, but double the number of ISD shots. Plus, when ISD goes down, they have no (real) firepower left.
3. This is operating in a perfect world where we're not getting any double arcs, which is skewing things.

33 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Right. And per the OP suggestion, how this changes is:

========

[Round of first engagement begins]

1. Gozanti activates

2. Gozanti activates

3. ISD shoots ISD at long range with 4 reds and maneuvers into medium range

4. ISD#1 shoots ISD at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range

5. ISD#2 shoots ISD at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range

[Round over. On to next round.]

6. ISD shoots ISD at short range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers out of short range

7&8. ISDs shoot at ISD from side-arcs with 4 reds and 2 blues

========

So it changes to the first player only getting off 12 dice vs 22 dice for player 2...but at a 166 pt fleet vs a 240 pt fleet (notably 1 "combat ship" vs 2 "combat ships"), that's probably the expected result, the one should do much better.

This doesn't even match up with your original suggestion. Once the command value activated is matched or surpassed, play passes to the next player.

========

[Round of first engagement begins]

1. Gozanti activates

2. ISD#1 shoots ISD at long range with 4 reds and maneuvers into medium range

3. Gozanti activates

4. ISD shoots ISD#1 at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range of ISD#1 medium range of ISD#2

5. ISD#2 shoots ISD at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range

[Round over. On to next round.]

6. ISD shoots ISD#1 at short range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers out of short range

7&8. ISDs shoot at ISD from side-arcs with 2 reds and 2 blues

========

So... we have ISD shooting 16 dice and the ISDs shooting 20 dice. So it's not nearly the 12 vs 22 you suggest. Now let's consider that at least one ship is going to be obstructed (and potentially out of blue range) and your final values are 16 vs 19. Keep in mind, that this is in a perfect world where ISD manages to get perfectly out of the front arc and not be double arced. Once you account for the likelihood of that happening, you'll see the ISDs are throwing way more dice in both situations.

1 minute ago, Astrodar said:

This doesn't even match up with your original suggestion. Once the command value activated is matched or surpassed, play passes to the next player.

========

[Round of first engagement begins]

1. Gozanti activates

2. ISD#1 shoots ISD at long range with 4 reds and maneuvers into medium range

3. Gozanti activates

4. ISD shoots ISD#1 at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range of ISD#1 medium range of ISD#2

5. ISD#2 shoots ISD at medium range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers into short range

[Round over. On to next round.]

6. ISD shoots ISD#1 at short range with 4 reds and 4 blues and maneuvers out of short range

7&8. ISDs shoot at ISD from side-arcs with 2 reds and 2 blues

========

So... we have ISD shooting 16 dice and the ISDs shooting 20 dice. So it's not nearly the 12 vs 22 you suggest. Now let's consider that at least one ship is going to be obstructed (and potentially out of blue range) and your final values are 16 vs 19. Keep in mind, that this is in a perfect world where ISD manages to get perfectly out of the front arc and not be double arced. Once you account for the likelihood of that happening, you'll see the ISDs are throwing way more dice in both situations.

Fair point, goofed on the turn order (sorry, knocking it out in a hurry - never a good idea)

Still, 16 vs 19 using this proposal (given 166 vs 240 cost) is - you would admit - better than the 16 vs 16 in the current system, right? I mean, 1.5x the cost, and it's the less effective list owing to lower activation counts . (And while double-arcing is definitely a thing, keep in mind that using the current rules, all of the 2nd player's ISDs will have always moved before player 1's only ISD...so the odds of him cooperatively moving his ship into a position to be double-arced by the 2nd player ISDs, since he knows exactly where there arcs are always going to be...well, it's... not high . On the other hand, he'll be able to well-position himself to double-arc one of his targets of choice on the turn he flips his activation order to get the last-first shots out of his ISD.)

I did not exactly expect such due diligence focusing on the example setting itself. Certainly there are obstructions, double arcs, and I assumed a long range side arc shot from the other ISD after the second round maneuver but I do not feel going over them in detail is very valuable, is it?

I thought attempting to articulate opinions on the questions and also perhaps on the second example of one ship chasing another would have proven more fruitful. However, you might be onto something because the second player should consider having one of his ISDs lack behind.

Engagement setting then:

====

[Round of first engagement begins]

V

V

A

[Next round]

V

V A

====

One of the second player's ISDs is getting a front arc medium range shot, and there should be an opportunity to ram, too.

I think the real question here is why are you charging your ISD’s straight into superior enemy numbers?

5 minutes ago, MandalorianMoose said:

I think the real question here is why are you charging your ISD’s straight into superior enemy numbers?

The real question is: why is a single ISD with a pair of gozers "superior enemy numbers" vs two ISDs ?

Just now, xanderf said:

The real question is: why is a single ISD with a pair of gozers "superior enemy numbers" vs two ISDs ?

Idk, but two ISD’s were severely outclassed by a single Hammerhead with superior tactics and thinking outside the box, so ymmv with those ISD’s...

Personally I’ve had great success with Two ISD’s, with anywhere from only those two ships all the way up to 7 activations, depending on the supporting cast. I know several others that have had even greater success, @PT106 and @GiledPallaeon come to mind.

Sometimes slow rolling and patience are the way to go, as there are only so many places those “empty activations” can run, and when they get caught, the superior guns will crush them. I’ve killed 4 ships in a round with twin ISD’s multiple times- it comes down to quality vs quantity of activations, and what you DO with those activations after setting up your shots

I think my opinions on the activation mechanic are well-established. I've had no issues with it, I think there exist quite a few options in the game right now to counter flotillas without also hamstringing your fleet against everything else, and I think that low activation fleets can tactically mitigate their activation disadvantage just like MSUs have to tactically mitigate their hull and upgrade cost disadvantages.

I also think this game would be way more boring if FFG were to target an average activation count of 2 squadronless ships like some people seem to want. 2v2 is a super, super boring game IMO. I want depth and the interaction of lots of stuff on the field. The fewer ships on the board, the more it feels to me like the game was decided at listbuilding phase, which sucks.

I'm on board with the flotillas/tabling thing, because it is a very targeted fix that doesn't outright ban people from doing things, and fixes a lot of minor or localized issues all at the same time.

I'm also not particularly opposed to seeing some upgrades introduced to decrease the prevalence of flotillas, or more upgrades targeted at giving large ships tools against MSUs. Currently, the real standout upgrades like that are GT and H9--beyond that, defeating an MSU with few large ships is pretty much all in tactics. We know Wave 7 is bringing a couple such upgrades in Pryce and (almost definitely) Bail. How well they do that remains to be seen, but they are coming. I could also see maybe a card that gives you some kind of benefit every time your opponent activates two ships in a row for example, like maybe unexhaust a defense token or regain a shield, something along those lines.

What I don't want is MOAR SWEEPING ERRATA trying to "fix" something that large parts of the community just don't have a problem with.

I don’t know the mechanic of the game well enough to argue this properly. What I do know however is that these lists that feature 3 (or more!) sets of transports just feels wrong. And gamey. And certainly against the spirit of the game.

4 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

I don’t know the mechanic of the game well enough to argue this properly. What I do know however is that these lists that feature 3 (or more!) sets of transports just feels wrong. And gamey. And certainly against the spirit of the game.

While I kind of see your point (Four+ flotillas with only one combat ship leaves a bad taste in my mouth too from a mechanical perspective), A handful of combat vessels escorting a group of unarmed/lightly armed freighters and transports (Or q-ships pretending to be helpless transports) seems very thematic. The execution in game could use work, but given how much Star Wars draws from WWII, it would be a shame to rule that sort of fleet out entirely. Edit: Perhaps I should clarify what my feelings here are; I would like to see low activation fleets get one or two more tools, and I think some sort of rules chrange regarding flotillas may be needed, but I am very much against list building restrictions, especially since many of the proposed ones don't address all or even any of the issues, and frequently have a fair amount of collateral damage.