The full, IA-style pass mechanic has undergone at least some community testing, and proved to be far too powerful. It wasn't quite the rigor or a scientific study from what I understand, but when a trial run is such a dismal failure you don't necessarily need a full set of data to conclude more moderate changes might be merited. What that would look like while staying true to KISS principles is a matter of considerable debate.

As far as activation padding goes... 4+ flotillas with one combat ship probably has at least some superfluous flotillas, but judging a 3-2 list is a lot harder, as geek19's regionals fleet shows. Sometimes your fleet has three roles that only a flotilla will fill (I will point out that all of his flotillas were more than just 20 point comms net fodder, though). The proposed modification to the rules that flotillas do not prevent tabling seems like it might be what's needed here.

It makes a lot of sense and it a super easy errata on FFG's part. Put some risk in the use of flotillas.

Its a fleet combat game, if I kill all your warships... I should win.

or, count flotillas as squadrons that move like small ships... They are already disproportionately effective in the squadron game. Would you pay 18 points for a squadron that does not count toward your 134 limit that also gets to target every squadron in Black range with a single black dice? Seems like a pretty OP squadron to me. Mauler is probably better and Ten Numb too, but they are unique and count toward your squad limit.

12 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Green Knight

It does not bother you the disparity in the amount of meaningful decisions that need to be made between fleets when one side is out activated?

You don't think it is far easier to play with a swarm of meaningless activation than it is to actually take combat ships.

You want to see the game move more and more toward a state where there are fewer and fewer actual ships and more and more empty activations?

Using the easiest think is ... easy. In a contest of wits, they are being allowed to perform better with less brainpower being required... that is pretty clearly unfair, as unfair as a contest of strength being set up but one competitor gets to use a lever to move their weight... One person is not having to bear as much strain in order to achieve the same results as another... How many strong man competitions do you see that are set up this way?

Is there perhaps a reason they are not set up that way?

Gamers by nature take the path of least resistance... The path of least resistance feels good at the moment, but does not often end up being best in the long run. I am calling on us to be better than that. To take agency in the game we all love, and hold ourselves to a higher standard in order to raise the tactical depth of the game. We do not want our game, billed as a fleet combat strategy game, to degenerate into a game that demands you spam flotillas and punishes the use of the large warships we all come to this game to use in the first place. However, by choosing to run fleets with no concern for the implications on the meta, we are working our way toward this more and more every day.

Does anyone dispute that outactivating another fleet makes it easier to make better decisions than the opponent? Am I the only one that is bothered by the presence of an easy mode that casts such a huge shadow over fleet construction?

Actually that's how the game has worked from day 1.

From wave 2, at 400 and with raiders it dominated the meta.

So flotillas are nothing new in that regard.

"Flotillas don't count towards tabling" and "Relay squadrons must be within activation range to pass on squadron commands" are both changes with lots of ardent supports are relatively few detractors (and a large cohort of people who shrug and say "sounds fine"), and both would restrict flotillas' freedom of deployment and movement, which might improve the "game feel" for the people who find flotilla padding unfun.

With the added clause of OPTIONAL passing while you have activated less command than the other player, meaning activations can still alternate:

I agree with the OP in that using command value is probably the best solution as a compromise between the status quo and the IA pass rule. Command as a value is an odd duck, its supposed to be a disadvantage(having more command dials), but its other use (contested outpost) it is actually an advantage.

1. Activation becomes a scalar mechanic, therefore is easier to manipulate using card mechanics. Pryce style mechanics are going to be difficult to balance between auto include and garbage.

2. Losing ships still leaves you at a disadvantage as you have less total command points on the table, this is one of the weakness of a pass rule

3. Command becomes a slightly more positive part of ship budgeting, this is a buff to cheaper ships with higher command.

4. The Activation game changes drastically based on matchup. Command totals for fleets run between 6-9, and the distribution of the points between units varies greatly.

I'm pretty sure that if stacked Peltas OR stacked flechette was a viable fleet build, we would already see it played.

@Green Knight

I said the same stuff back then. I have much less issue with ships that are double the cost roughly, and DO NOT HAVE SCATTER TOKENS.

In a game of limited turns where the opportunity to fire each of your ships weapons in finite, risking those shots, assuming you even get them, into a scatter token is a huge concern. Who ever thought it was reasonable to give an 18-23 point ship that is some influential in the game a scatter token I have no idea. They should have a Redirect instead. If flotillas could easily be killed at range they would be more of a liability and reasonably costed for what they do. Cheap ship = it dies super easy, without people having to tech their ships specifically to fight them.

I said the same crap about Demo MSU, it is the easy way out... and should be frowned on. Even activation counts, or a way to create even activation counts (pass type rule) would instantly remove many of the "I want to appear really good at this game so I will take this list and abuse my ability to count into being a better player then I actually am," issues in the game. It also lets people run low activation, large ship centered lists with less fear of having to play from such an activation hole.

I don't disagree with you there. I hate the little buggers.

I merely point out that I play the game the way the rules are written. So until flotillas aren't effective I'll spam flotillas.

6 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:

I agree with the OP in that using command value is probably the best solution as a compromise between the status quo and the IA pass rule. Command as a value is an odd duck, its supposed to be a disadvantage(having more command dials), but its other use (contested outpost) it is actually an advantage.

And command tokens. Command value has always been both a benefit and a drawback.

Right now activation count is a massive concern when writing any list. This should not be.

List building should be about making sure the ships you take complement each others tactical role. Upgrades should be chosen to enhance those roles. Admirals and officers should be selected to further refine the roles of each component of your fleet into a carefully honed blade.

Making sure you have at least 4 activations in your list or you are hosed should not be a concern we have to take into account.

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

I don't disagree with you there. I hate the little buggers.

I merely point out that I play the game the way the rules are written. So until flotillas aren't effective I'll spam flotillas.

So you see the problem, and yet, you are part of the problem, and see no issue with being part of the problem.

Do you not care that it is not as demanding to make navigating choices and easier to avoid enemy combos when you out activate them? That should bother you if you are truly interested in making sure every game is a fair contest of wits.

Are you concerned about that, or just about winning no matter the cost?

Being bothered by something is different than voluntarily reducing your effectiveness in a competitive environment.

One can recognize the issue, and even lobby for changes, all the while exploiting the issue at tournaments rather than just show up and auto-lose for the sake of propriety.

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So you see the problem, and yet, you are part of the problem, and see no issue with being part of the problem.

Do you not care that it is not as demanding to make navigating choices and easier to avoid enemy combos when you out activate them? That should bother you if you are truly interested in making sure every game is a fair contest of wits.

Are you concerned about that, or just about winning no matter the cost?

What's the point of playing competitively if you're not trying to win? It seems pointless.

Casually I can play with any list, so it's not a problem.

Btw you accomplish nothing with threads like these. FFG responds to actual tournament results. So if they see flotilla spam strangling the game, they will act. Eventually.

2 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

What's the point of playing competitively if you're not trying to win? It seems pointless.

Casually I can play with any list, so it's not a problem.

Btw you accomplish nothing with threads like these. FFG responds to actual tournament results. So if they see flotilla spam strangling the game, they will act. Eventually.

Eh... I think FFG watches the mood of the forums at least, if only as a qualitative way of collecting feedback. They may not make changes to the current game, but they might dial back an unpopular mechanic in future waves (e.g. the steady decline of Primary Weapon Turrets in X-wing).

Well I prefer Ffg not do the same as xwing ay least where I play they killed scum.

I don’t like flotillas too but I don’t see any dolution to them the only one I like a little is ifall non flotilla ships are destroyed that player loose ay the moment, but then we argue again about the bid or iniciative? All are mechanics of the games, and I hope if one mechanic is too powerful FFg Will fix in a good way but with time and a lot of testing

Just now, Sharego said:

Well si prefer Ffg not do the same as xwing ay least where I play they killed scum

Wait, what? That... certainly has not been the case at the tournament level. They're not top dog anymore, but they've still got competitive archetypes.

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

@Green Knight

It does not bother you the disparity in the amount of meaningful decisions that need to be made between fleets when one side is out activated?

You don't think it is far easier to play with a swarm of meaningless activation than it is to actually take combat ships.

You want to see the game move more and more toward a state where there are fewer and fewer actual ships and more and more empty activations?

Using the easiest think is ... easy. In a contest of wits, they are being allowed to perform better with less brainpower being required... that is pretty clearly unfair, as unfair as a contest of strength being set up but one competitor gets to use a lever to move their weight... One person is not having to bear as much strain in order to achieve the same results as another... How many strong man competitions do you see that are set up this way?

Is there perhaps a reason they are not set up that way?

Gamers by nature take the path of least resistance... The path of least resistance feels good at the moment, but does not often end up being best in the long run. I am calling on us to be better than that. To take agency in the game we all love, and hold ourselves to a higher standard in order to raise the tactical depth of the game. We do not want our game, billed as a fleet combat strategy game, to degenerate into a game that demands you spam flotillas and punishes the use of the large warships we all come to this game to use in the first place. However, by choosing to run fleets with no concern for the implications on the meta, we are working our way toward this more and more every day.

Does anyone dispute that outactivating another fleet makes it easier to make better decisions than the opponent? Am I the only one that is bothered by the presence of an easy mode that casts such a huge shadow over fleet construction?

That's an option to everyone. That's far from being unfair.

You could still disparage those who use what the game gave to them but they could also call you stupid if there is a way to win and you chose to not use it.

Of course you could also just being brave.

And that's the thing. It is quite dependant on the point of view.

The game is built around several things. I already put that somewhere but I will put it here again.

First player was designed to have an advantage.

Second player was designed to also have an advantage.

More activations was designed to have also an advantage.

Etc.

Some advantages are excluding. Others are cumulative. There will be some more powerful than others. We will probably agree about that. I think activations were powerful. I am not sure if they will be the most now (I didn't have time to explore last wave nor to proxy the new one). But I ask for a better way to deal with it like DCs, GT, Pryce or Bail.

IMHO the OP is not the worst idea I read. I don't like it but hey! Play as you want.

Also asking for others to play some way they don't like and softly suggesting they are lazy (as best) if they don't is bold (as best).

1 minute ago, Squark said:

Wait, what? That... certainly has not been the case at the tournament level. They're not top dog anymore, but they've still got competitive archetypes.

That’s what I said at least in my area, I only play sometime to time with the ships of a friend so I ave no idea about competition only what I see when I go to the club/ shop

18 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So you see the problem, and yet, you are part of the problem, and see no issue with being part of the problem.

Do you not care that it is not as demanding to make navigating choices and easier to avoid enemy combos when you out activate them? That should bother you if you are truly interested in making sure every game is a fair contest of wits.

Are you concerned about that, or just about winning no matter the cost?

This isn't really fair in my opinion. I think FFG is definitely aware of the activation spam issue. I think that future Waves will introduce things like Pryce to balance things out.

However, right now, to be competitive you have to be aware of the spam, and deal with it.

25 minutes ago, svelok said:

"Flotillas don't count towards tabling" and "Relay squadrons must be within activation range to pass on squadron commands" are both changes with lots of ardent supports are relatively few detractors (and a large cohort of people who shrug and say "sounds fine"), and both would restrict flotillas' freedom of deployment and movement, which might improve the "game feel" for the people who find flotilla padding unfun.

When playing at Premier Events, I agree with @Green Knight... you play to win within the rules. As a Marshal at a National Event, I had to enforce a missed opportunity when a player forgot to set his dials in the playoff round. I will not say go as far as that David Sirlin book (I think he's a proponent of cheating by omission?).

Right now, I see zero drawback in using flotillas. They are the best ships in the game. Activation-advantage, cost efficiency, tarpit, etc... not counting towards tabling would be a fair "negative."

In itself, Relay isn't completely evil but it's just part of big combo machines.

Armada Want List:

1 - More efficient ways to kill flotillas.

2 - More efficient ways to kill Relay Squadrons (maybe locking down abilities on a squadron?).

Overall, I think we are having this discussion because there hasn't been new product to disrupt the meta. We are 7 months since Wave 6?

1 minute ago, IceQube MkII said:

When playing at Premier Events, I agree with @Green Knight... you play to win within the rules. As a Marshal at a National Event, I had to enforce a missed opportunity when a player forgot to set his dials in the playoff round. I will not say go as far as that David Sirlin book (I think he's a proponent of cheating by omission?).

Right now, I see zero drawback in using flotillas. They are the best ships in the game. Activation-advantage, cost efficiency, tarpit, etc... not counting towards tabling would be a fair "negative."

In itself, Relay isn't completely evil but it's just part of big combo machines.

Armada Want List:

1 - More efficient ways to kill flotillas.

2 - More efficient ways to kill Relay Squadrons (maybe locking down abilities on a squadron?).

Overall, I think we are having this discussion because there hasn't been new product to disrupt the meta. We are 7 months since Wave 6?

I mean, h9s still exist to kill flotillas. And with Vader Cymoon about to become a thing, there's a LOT of flotillas that can't wander into that death trap for fear of evaporating.

I'm not saying "take h9s and get good, scrub" but more that we do have ways of killing them. Home One title, H9s, Quad turbolaser turrets if you're feeling lucky, Intel officer for scatters, etc. Maybe we just need to try some more of these out? I say speculatively, of course.

And I full on agree with you about the "need new wave please" to downgrade the discussion here.

Winning alone is not enough. The manner in which you win in is of far more importance, specially in a game between two people who want to test their intellect against one another and want to be friends afterward. Counting well and being able to figure out that 1-4 or 2-3 lists are good based on a 15 minute browse of the forums is not hard...

I honestly think the "don't take more flotillas than ship," rule is not that hard to follow and it would help lessen the impact of activation advantage or more importantly Last/First.

I play Rebels in every tournament I go to, I also have never played with more than 1 flotilla in a tournament, ever... 3 ships, 1 flotilla most of the time. It can be done, and you can do well with it. It also insures that the people you play against do not feel obligated to enter into an activation arms race in order to keep up, or make them feel disadvantaged. I honestly think we could have a really fun game if armada was played with 4 ships or less per side. I have never felt disadvantaged when playing against a fleet with 4 or less activations. above 4 ships, lists start to get thin on points so the ships you do see are upgrade starved and generic, and the activation issue starts to be a major concern in every phase of the game from initiative to mission selection, to deployment, all the way through the game, the fact that you have more ships to fight against colors everything you do.

We should take small ships for their armament, speed, and combat abilities, not just because they are a warm body that burns and activation.

How many throwaway activations do you see in real world navies that have that kind of far reaching impact on how a fleet surface action is resolved?

I’m agree with you @geek19, but I think people want to fly whatever list and don’t care/be sble to kill flotillas for example with 4 Gladis not must to take a big ship if they don’t like them.(I know you can put sensor team on it btw) I think this game is like Rock Paper Scissors lizard Spock (and I like it),so always there be people complaining against the list they lose

@geek19... I'm aware that H9 exists. But a 8pt gun added to kill an 18pt model is not efficient. Home One is still 100pts+ to kill the best tarpit in the game. :-)

Maybe upgrades that can be played on squadrons in a future campaign kit? No scatter upon impact called the "flotilla busta buster."

Totally agreeing with you though!

4 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

Overall, I think we are having this discussion because there hasn't been new product to disrupt the meta. We are 7 months since Wave 6?

I would argue that the real issue is that since the introduction of flotilla's, FFG has had a difficult time disrupting the meta even when they want to.

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I mean, h9s still exist to kill flotillas. And with Vader Cymoon about to become a thing, there's a LOT of flotillas that can't wander into that death trap for fear of evaporating.

H9s come with a serious point cost, and a serious opportunity cost. As has been stated earlier, if someone wants to use a shot from a 140 point ship to maybe kill a 18 point ship, that's a winning trade. The point and opportunity costs you are proposing, H9, and Vader; come at a cost that most fleets can't afford to make. It tells you something when the most cost effective way to kill a flotilla is to just ram it.

2 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Winning alone is not enough. The manner in which you win in is of far more importance, specially in a game between two people who want to test their intellect against one another and want to be friends afterward.

This is a correct statement to create fun, healthy local metas. However with as few Armada games as most metas get in, you practice to win. Is this toxic to new players in smaller metas? Yep. And we have all paid the price for that.

At the end of the day making Armada a "fun", "interactive", and "popular" game falls on FFG, not the players. The support just hasn't really been there. The quarterly kits are kinda.. lackluster. I would argue that the height of popularity for Armada was probably the Massing tournaments, which involved prize support to the tune of $100 MSRP?