1 hour ago, Palanthas said:

Why? Your “fix” creates a game that you more personally may enjoy but does not take into my consideration that I believe three or four flotillas flying around a large ship to be believable in Star Wars. Those are the supply ships ferrying in supplies and equipment. Your beef is with activation advantage and until that is addressed this argument will go on. Rules restricting what ships I can bring are damaging to the game.

I agree. Plus they are already addressing activation issues with Bail, Pryce, and strategic adviser. I don't mind flotillas at all. If they are that big of an issue, take H9's and kill them.

18 minutes ago, themightyhedgehog said:

If they are that big of an issue, take H9's and kill them.

Sorry, but this seriously needs to stop being presented as the "answer" to flotillas, especially with the way Relay currently works. I am not taking a 60ish point ship and running it off to the edge of the board to kill a 23 (or less) point flotilla. It's been said time and time again, the investment it takes to reliably kill flotillas is too extreme.

4 hours ago, AlexW said:

So, would you argue that cards that add to it continue the problem, since they can give a player a similar effect for a much lower cost, or do you think that people are less likely to be concerned about it because it's rolled into the cost (both points and opportunity cost) of a capital ship?

I would posit those cards are eventually meant to work in conjunction with a nerf to flotillas or whatever ffg is working on to nerf the spam lists out there. It’s the only way a card like SA makes sense as a fix.

As far as original thoughts and opinions go on the broad topic of how the activation game looks in wave 7-

A mentor of mine once said every reaction is an overreaction. He meant it in business, where one small initial change will typically create a huge shift as the market attempts to react to it. But in my experience, it applies to game balance as well.

1. Initial problem - A pretty well balanced game gets a little wobble when someone discovers a way to exploit the activation system- demo last first activation spam. The torches are lit, and people cry for nerfs.

2. Overreaction - Since the game is relatively new, they don't want to change the SYSTEM which seems so far to be working pretty well, so they decide to react (or overreact) by implementing changes- in this case introducing the Demo Nerf and super cheap essentially-paying-for-a-pass-without-actually-adding-one flotillas almost simultaneously to allow large ships to fight activation spam. Things were good, until they weren't. People realized that they could now use these cheap ships as a way to win of the activation game with a whole lot of different fleets, not just demo anymore, and also simultaneously reduce the risk of tabling. 8 Gozanti Rhymerball and flagship lifeboats becomes a thing at the apex of this abuse, so they change it so they can't be the flagship hoping to change it, but it only solidifies what the activation spam game is now going to look like. In order to compete, playing the activation game becomes almost essential. This leads us to 2+3, 1+4, and 1+5 Liberty among others.

3. Overreaction to the overreaction- So the solution to people playing spam is to simply introduce auto win cards. No reason to waste points spamming floties if you can just pay 7pts to avoid all that effort right? Right. So long as those activation game fleets mentioned above don't get access to them. For the fleets that had to invest 60pts or more in spam it's a godsend. Now they can get a better effect for 7pts and invest the rest in a massive bid and kit upgrades they couldn't previously afford. Before a 1+4 had 92 of 400 points invested and a pretty low chance of getting first last in a competitive field, this meant it most often better going second to guarantee last (but would still lose to 1+5 or 6). Now it only needs 7pts to guarantee last, investing the lions share of the rest of those 92 points into stuff that does stuff. How do you counter it? Also take Bail or Pryce. Auto win vs Auto win.

I don't honestly know where the game goes from here. People hailed the pass mechanic and a guaranteed last/first card as the savior of the game, a way to finally escape the activation arms race, and it could be just that. We could see a resurgence of the Gencon Special for all I know, it could totally work. It could be that the early wave jitters is favoring skew lists and when things shake out everything will be balanced. Dear FFG, I hope that is the case. But I think adding a carte blanche trump card to the activation system is another overreaciton. Every time you circumvent the mostly balanced system from step 1 it creates new unforseen problems, and each step those problems are larger and wider reaching than the step below it that it was meant to address and fix. The fact of competitive Armada is that most games are won and lost now in 1 turn because nothing can handle a whole fleets worth of damage activating and then activating again. If you control activations, you control the game. Demo was strong cause it could first/last with 115 points of your list. Now, it will be possible for fleets to first last with 340 points of their fleet and unless you packed your trump card as well there is nothing you can do about it but run away.

A mechanic that insures that the second player ALWAYS gets to activate last, fixes every issue you just mentioned. Why we do not see a fix for that is beyond me.

I support a move by FFG to make flotillas not count as ships for the purpose of tabling and leave Relay alone. The flotilla nerf would largely address the Relay issue. With more risk in taking Flotillas, Relay also would increase in risk.

However, I am tired of waiting, how long have we been seeing this 1+4 and 2+3 trend building? How long does it take for FFG to recognize this trend?

How long are we going to set on our hands and wait on FFG to fix this clear issue, and why would we want to set on our hands when it is so obvious what the current trend is and how depressing that is for the game?

Everyone knows the formula to have a good fleet, it is just that most of use have to much respect for ourselves as player, and our opponents, to simple press the easy button and conform to this archetype that clearly exploits the mechanical limits of the game.

Create lists that rely on tactics and good decision making, not just delaying activations until the right decisions are super obvious. That is a game worth playing...

1 hour ago, BrobaFett said:

The fact of competitive Armada is that most games are won and lost now in 1 turn because nothing can handle a whole fleets worth of damage activating and then activating again.

I was going to write something about this myself

As new upgrades have come out, and (to a lesser extent) new ships, overall lethality has increased faster than survivability. Exodus Fleet, 7th Fleet, and EWS are clearly intended to address that, to a degree, but the new titles have to compete with the offense-oriented titles like, oh, Avenger? I have a suspicion that you could build an incredibly tanky Exodus Fleet, but tournament play would discourage it because you would lose so much potential for destroying the enemy that you couldn't manage the really high scores you need to place Top 4.

One-shotting large ships (not to mention mediums and small ...) does not encourage maneuver as the essence of the game.

37 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

A mechanic that insures that the second player ALWAYS gets to activate last, fixes every issue you just mentioned.

Or alternate activations based on total command rating, rather than treating every single ship exactly equal to every other .

IE., I activate a command-3 ship, then you have to keep activating ships until you've activated at least 3 'commands' worth of ships (in the case of a flotilla spam list, potentially up to 3 flotillas before the activation moves back to me).

Do that, and change it so that flotillas don't count for tabling, and the flotilla problem* is solved .

* And, by extension, the over-use of relay. Because, I mean, why not build a relay-centric squadron force when the other game design elements already dictate that you need to have 5 flotillas to play the non-squadron part of the game.

8 minutes ago, elbmc1969 said:

One-shotting large ships (not to mention mediums and small ...) does not encourage maneuver as the essence of the game.

Can you explain this? I'd say that, on the contrary, increased deadliness makes the game all about maneuver:

Do you want to win? Don't maneuver really close to the front of the big scary Star Destroyer.

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

in the case of a flotilla spam list, potentially up to 3 flotillas before the activation moves back to me.

Do that, and change it so that flotillas don't count for tabling, and the flotilla problem* is solved .

* And, by extension, the over-use of relay. Because, I mean, why not build a relay-centric squadron force when the other game design elements already dictate that you need to have 5 flotillas to play the non-squadron part of the game.

That would be a nightmare ... three GR-75s with EHBs ... activate nine squadrons before the other side can react. Game over.

I'll pay for two VCX to allow my GR-75s to do that from the other corner of the table.

31 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

A mechanic that insures that the second player ALWAYS gets to activate last, fixes every issue you just mentioned. Why we do not see a fix for that is beyond me. I have played games like this, and all it does it make second player so grossly overpowered that you have to be an absolute buffoon to lose with both objective support and perma-last. This is 100% the opposite of balanced.

I support a move by FFG to make flotillas not count as ships for the purpose of tabling and leave Relay alone. The flotilla nerf would largely address the Relay issue. With more risk in taking Flotillas, Relay also would increase in risk. Flotillas not counting toward tabling is an obvious move that seems to have very little downside. It is what the "no commanders" rule should have been back then.

However, I am tired of waiting, how long have we been seeing this 1+4 and 2+3 trend building? How long does it take for FFG to recognize this trend? Good news, 2+3 is effectively dead in wave 7. It wastes too many points doing something that is too easily countered by bail/pryce. So you get your wish. Problem is the solution is, again, worse than the problem.

How long are we going to set on our hands and wait on FFG to fix this clear issue, and why would we want to set on our hands when it is so obvious what the current trend is and how depressing that is for the game? Answer to this is obvious. Because people want to win. And you don't win by placing rules on yourself other people who want to win will disregard. If you aren't playing to win, then this whole conversation has no bearing on you anyway cause it won't effect you at the middle tables of a tournament 90% of the time.

Everyone knows the formula to have a good fleet, it is just that most of use have to much respect for ourselves as player, and our opponents, to simple press the easy button and conform to this archetype that clearly exploits the mechanical limits of the game. Ok so you are a better person than a lot of people. Resorting to the claim that your method of playing is somehow morally superior to someone elses is just kinda dumb.

Create lists that rely on tactics and good decision making, not just delaying activations until the right decisions are super obvious. That is a game worth playing... This is false nostalgia. There was never a time (except maybe playing the core box) where out activating your opponent didn't give you a distinct advantage. It used to be a much smaller advantage - read my comment above. When demo could out activate ships with about 100pts of firepower it was called broken. Now in wave 7 it is possible to out activate with 3x that firepower. Every fix for the initial activation problem has made this issue much worse. Now there is no putting it back in the box. There is no going back. This is the game, for better or worse, at this point.

2 minutes ago, elbmc1969 said:

That would be a nightmare ... three GR-75s with EHBs ... activate nine squadrons before the other side can react. Game over.

I'll pay for two VCX to allow my GR-75s to do that from the other corner of the table.

Nah, you limit them to the same '...cannot resolve the same command more than once per round' logic. IE., the whole set of activations until you equal up to the command rating counts as single ship/round sequence.

Sooo, if I'm forced to activate three Hammerheads, I can't give them all Concentrate Fire? The best I can do is one CF, one Nav, and one (possibly useless) Engineering? What if they're effectively operating in formation and I need them all to change speed together?

6 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Nah, you limit them to the same '...cannot resolve the same command more than once per round' logic. IE., the whole set of activations until you equal up to the command rating counts as single ship/round sequence.

This proposal just keeps getting weirder.

1 minute ago, elbmc1969 said:

Sooo, if I'm forced to activate three Hammerheads, I can give them all Concentrate Fire? The best I can do is one CF, one Nav, and one (possibly useless) Engineering? What if they're effectively operating in formation and I need them all to change speed together?

Then you shouldn't have brought three small-base ships that your strategy falls apart if they have to activate together? See, we're solving all kinds of problems , here.

(I mean, really, though - consider under what situations you'd be "forced" to activate three Hammerheads to match an enemy counter-activation. The enemy activated a big ship and you piled up a bunch of small ships as padding for your own big ship that you don't want to activate? Well, yeah, that's exactly what this is designed to address. You have the option of activating them as the padding you intended, sure, but they are going to be a lot less effective if activated all together. Or you could just activate your big ship...)

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

This proposal just keeps getting weirder.

Not as weird as people thinking 1+4 or 2+3 format is fine for the game and fun.

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

Then you shouldn't have brought three small-base ships that your strategy falls apart if they have to activate together? See, we're solving all kinds of problems , here.

(I mean, really, though - consider under what situations you'd be "forced" to activate three Hammerheads to match an enemy counter-activation. The enemy activated a big ship and you piled up a bunch of small ships as padding for your own big ship that you don't want to activate? Well, yeah, that's exactly what this is designed to address. You have the option of activating them as the padding you intended, sure, but they are going to be a lot less effective if activated all together. Or you could just activate your big ship...)

Umm, no, I'm running my actual Leia fleet with three CR-90s and three Hammerheads. It's not padding, it's the ******* fleet. Why the hate for swarm fleets?

Just now, xanderf said:

Not as weird as people thinking 1+4 or 2+3 format is fine for the game and fun.

And yet, the people who see problems with your proposal are the ones who think that 1+4 and even 2+3 are bad for the game.

Xander, I've seen you do so much better on BGG and SCN. C'mon, work out a better proposal.

1 minute ago, elbmc1969 said:

Umm, no, I'm running my actual Leia fleet with three CR-90s and three Hammerheads. It's not padding, it's the ******* fleet. Why the hate for swarm fleets?

This this this this this. 1000 times, 1 million times this.

1 minute ago, geek19 said:

This this this this this. 1000 times, 1 million times this.

Snipafist gives a like to geek19's reply, but not to my my post that he quoted?

Where's the love?

4 minutes ago, elbmc1969 said:

Umm, no, I'm running my actual Leia fleet with three CR-90s and three Hammerheads. It's not padding, it's the ******* fleet. Why the hate for swarm fleets ?

Solving all kinds of problems!

4 minutes ago, elbmc1969 said:

Snipafist gives a like to geek19's reply, but not to my my post that he quoted?

Where's the love?

I liked it, mainly because my Leia fleet right now is similar, as well. All I hear is that @xanderf isn't good enough to beat Leia normally.... ;D

10 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Good news, 2+3 is effectively dead in wave 7. It wastes too many points doing something that is too easily countered by bail/pryce. So you get your wish. Problem is the solution is, again, worse than the problem

While I agree with a lot of what you've said here, I think this might be a little early to call. Both can be played around since you have to declare their round and you must go last/first. So as players get used to them counter play will evolve a bit.

18 minutes ago, draco193 said:

While I agree with a lot of what you've said here, I think this might be a little early to call. Both can be played around since you have to declare their round and you must go last/first. So as players get used to them counter play will evolve a bit.

Counterplay is easier said than done when you consider that the person you're trying to counter might *gasp* also be good at the game. I consider myself to be a competent player, with some criteria to back that up (3 Regionals wins plus several more Top 4). This last weekend I faced a Pryce Avenger, flown by an excellent player. I changed my speed to dictate engagement and even used a flotilla as a blocker, but he was competent enough to know I'd try to counterplay. I managed to deny the double-arc, but I was still screwed.

Top-tier players can beat middle-tier players with unbalanced tech, but we have to look at the fact that there are a lot of GOOD players out there. When two top-tier players face off, the one with the stronger tech is usually going to win. I feel like that's lost SO OFTEN when we discuss balance. "git gud" cannot always be the answer, there is eventually a skill ceiling...

All lists from Austrian regional sent by PM.

Short summary:

12 Imp, 4 Rebels

Rank Score MoV SoS

Thanks, @NebulonB ! I assume wave 7 is not yet available in Austria yet?