it is, but unfortunately we must follow Asmodee Germanys rule that what is not available IN GERMAN language 14 days before an event is not allowed. We have the English toys, but can only look to you all with envy.

2 minutes ago, IronNerd said:

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...

I again agree with a lot of this. But I also still think it's just far too early to be calling these upgrades some sort of ultra tech that transcends the skill ceiling. We've had these guys for a couple weeks in hand, and like a month or so spoiled? Some countries don't have them yet. The consensus around here when they were spoiled was they were over priced and too easy to game.

I think they're powerful as they should be for 7 points and a highly coveted spot. And it very well could be they're too good at what they do. I think it's just a tad early to say an archetype that's defined the last year and a bit more is dead because of them.

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

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.

You posted a thread about this a while back, and I felt like it was pretty obvious through that discussion that this wouldn't make things better. The activation turn order changes a core foundation of the game, and it still doesn't fix the flotilla padding issue. However, now you have the opportunity to do Demo/ISD or Admo/Defiance without having to even wait for first/last. In fact, this makes it even easier to set up Yavaris by going flotilla/Adar then Yavaris.

26 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

In fact, this makes it even easier to set up Yavaris by going flotilla/Adar then Yavaris.

Yavaris can usually one turn an ISD... Flotilla Adar/Yavaris could one activation an ISD... Potentially even a Motti ISD.
It wouldn't fix any of the issues people have with flotillas/relay either.

Wouldn't the easiest way to reduce the impact of flotilla spamming be to say that all the flotillas on one side must activate (and maybe even deploy) at once? That way adding more than one flotilla doesn't have any activation benefit. It also means that there is no change to the basic rules - all that would need to be done would be to add a sentence or two to the flotilla rule on the FAQ.

For example, if one had a fleet with 1 large ship and 5 flotillas, the fleet would only have 2 activations - so one could either move the large ship for 1 activation and then all the flotillas for a second, or vice versa.

Because it opens to other shenanigans...

Now you have 5 Flotillas pushing 10 squads through 1 Relay and it’s an unanswerable alpha strike the like a Quasar only dreams of.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Because it opens to other shenanigans...

Now you have 5 Flotillas pushing 10 squads through 1 Relay and it’s an unanswerable alpha strike the like a Quasar only dreams of.

Things like this seem to be the biggest issue when people suggest fixes to flotillas. Flotillas are more than just activation padding. They can (and should be able) to do more things than just move. I think people forget this both in game and out far too often.

16 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

@BrobaFett

I am concerned about placing well and winning events. I was they guy who placed 2nd at the Marrietta Regional, (missing 1st by 53 MOV) with a 4 ship Ackbar list, with only 1 flotilla and 81 points in squads. It can be done. The trend of taking the path of least resistance is the easy, cowardly way. Play to win, but play without intentionally trying to strain against the known and well documented shortcomings within the rule set. As if you are the only smart one who recognizes them.

You, like many of us, agree that the Flotilla ruling should have been to not count for tabling instead of blocking the lifeboat strat.

Who in the community opposes this, at this point?

If we all want this... let's do it. FFG had a perfect chance to drop this FAQ along with Wave 7 and they didn't. They have had SC and Regional results rolling in all summer, fall and winter and yet here we set with no change.

Again I ask, how long will we wait? Winning because you stretch the rule set is of no value, winning because you make better decisions on the tabletop is what should be praised and respected.

First, cuz sometimes I like to be petty AF, I called this **** like 2 months ago. High activation fleets are how you git gud. But that was wave 6.

Second, wave 7 just dropped. It's gunna be weird, just like it was when wave 6 dropped. Hard to draw any real conclusions from the data we currently have. Wait till after Worlds.

Third, Bail and Pryce encourage people to go down on the activation count and drop flotillas, which means they can take more ships, or in my case, MOAR SQUADS.

Fourth, I'd be more concerned with max squad lists since Bail and Pryce allow the large ships to push up to 6 squads, which tends to be 3/4 of the squads, and then get to attack. And you are guaranteed that activation order. This is exactly what @BrobaFett was referring to as an over reaction. Time will tell if this will become the dominating archetype.

Fifth, the only way we can change this is by exploiting it and showing FFG how powerful it is. Then a nerf happens.

So the solution to a problem is not self-restraint, or self-moderation (an adult and responsible approach). Instead it is to play with your dangerous toy that hurts others as long, and as hard as you can, until daddy takes it away from you because it makes you feel powerful and "good," and if you don't hit people with it, daddy won't know it is dangerous...

1 minute ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So the solution to a problem is not self-restraint, or self-moderation (an adult and responsible approach). Instead it is to play with your dangerous toy that hurts others as long, and as hard as you can, until daddy takes it away from you because it makes you feel powerful and "good," and if you don't hit people with it, daddy won't know it is dangerous...

What about the people with 2 moms?

We've been over this before. I'm not going to take an altruistic stance in a COMPETITIVE environment just to make you feel good. I'm there to win.

18 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So the solution to a problem is not self-restraint, or self-moderation (an adult and responsible approach). Instead it is to play with your dangerous toy that hurts others as long, and as hard as you can, until daddy takes it away from you because it makes you feel powerful and "good," and if you don't hit people with it, daddy won't know it is dangerous...

Pretty much. Because it's all fine until someone decides not to follow some set of arbitrary rules.

3 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So the solution to a problem is not self-restraint, or self-moderation (an adult and responsible approach). Instead it is to play with your dangerous toy that hurts others as long, and as hard as you can, until daddy takes it away from you because it makes you feel powerful and "good," and if you don't hit people with it, daddy won't know it is dangerous...

Not everyone acknowledges this is a problem (although most people do) and even the people who do don't have a strong consensus on the best means to fix it or at what point exactly they feel it is excessive. On top of that, there are rational concerns about the inability to force other players you've never met to abide by an unofficial self-imposed restriction in a competitive event. An FFG errata would address the issue and create conformity to resolve the problem, but FFG doesn't act unless it has enough data to feel justified in nerfing things.

In the meanwhile, your only real option is to host a store-level tournament and impose a composition system like 40K used to (might still do) back when I played. But if you are going to award/subtract points for fleet composition, make sure to have that information available as early as possible and be ready for a lot of complaining about it. In my experience. the power-gamers you're trying to punish with a comp system will find flaws in the composition rules to create specialized power-gamer lists within the new system, although the end result is still sometimes superior. That does assume a game with wild balance problems like 40K had back in the day, though, and I don't think Armada is there.

I'm not sure where one gets the idea that self-restraint and self-moderation are "adult" traits.

Look at the larger world around us. It's adults that run it and it's adults that have screwed it up.

Cuban Missile Crisis? Adults
Rawanda Genocide? Adults
Shoe Checks at Airport Security? Adults
Black Licorice? Adults

Frankly, some of the most decent human beings I know are children.

You know the point I am making about adults. We are all smart enough to see the rule systems shortcomings. We also for the most part do not like these shortcomings, and speak out against it with the multiple threads dedicated to how to address flotillas, relay, activation advantage, first/last issues, etc.

What frustrates me, is that no matter how people may complain about it and lobby for change, when the lights come on and it is game time, we throw all that out the window and go running to the most OP thing we can come up with.

We would have a much more accessible and tactically deep game if we avoided skewed lists that attempt to win by overloading a particular weak point of the game (overload on squads w/ no real combat ships to leverage squad effeciency, or overload on activations to avoid having to make activation decisions), but to field such a well rounded list requires confidence, and a willingness to backup what you say when you criticize the rule sets issues. Not much of that going on these days.

Overpowered stuff is bad because it gives an advantage to one player vs another, who are of equal tactical skill and ability. If you will throw out your convictions about what is good and bad for the game just to achieve such an advantage, you are not backing up what you say.

9 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I genuinely wonder how well you observe your fellow human beings given this comment.

I said human beings not armada players specifically before the uproar starts.

Reported for abuse.

35 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

You know the point I am making about adults. We are all smart enough to see the rule systems shortcomings. We also for the most part do not like these shortcomings, and speak out against it with the multiple threads dedicated to how to address flotillas, relay, activation advantage, first/last issues, etc.

What frustrates me, is that no matter how people may complain about it and lobby for change, when the lights come on and it is game time, we throw all that out the window and go running to the most OP thing we can come up with.

We would have a much more accessible and tactically deep game if we avoided skewed lists that attempt to win by overloading a particular weak point of the game (overload on squads w/ no real combat ships to leverage squad effeciency, or overload on activations to avoid having to make activation decisions), but to field such a well rounded list requires confidence, and a willingness to backup what you say when you criticize the rule sets issues. Not much of that going on these days.

Overpowered stuff is bad because it gives an advantage to one player vs another, who are of equal tactical skill and ability. If you will throw out your convictions about what is good and bad for the game just to achieve such an advantage, you are not backing up what you say.

People can hold multiple opinions about the same topic. You can criticize a archetype AND still play it. The people that play high activation fleets AND calling for a nerf are willing to sacrifice the fleets they play in order to balance that game.

42 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

You know the point I am making about adults. We are all smart enough to see the rule systems shortcomings. We also for the most part do not like these shortcomings, and speak out against it with the multiple threads dedicated to how to address flotillas, relay, activation advantage, first/last issues, etc.

What frustrates me, is that no matter how people may complain about it and lobby for change, when the lights come on and it is game time, we throw all that out the window and go running to the most OP thing we can come up with.

We would have a much more accessible and tactically deep game if we avoided skewed lists that attempt to win by overloading a particular weak point of the game (overload on squads w/ no real combat ships to leverage squad effeciency, or overload on activations to avoid having to make activation decisions), but to field such a well rounded list requires confidence, and a willingness to backup what you say when you criticize the rule sets issues. Not much of that going on these days.

Overpowered stuff is bad because it gives an advantage to one player vs another, who are of equal tactical skill and ability. If you will throw out your convictions about what is good and bad for the game just to achieve such an advantage, you are not backing up what you say.

I’m sensing a lot of moral projection going on in your posts. What about the people that don’t feel the same way you do? I know people that like flotillas and think there’s nothing unethical or morally wrong in take 3+ in a list. Are these bad people? Bad armada players? Even if they are in the minority?

People need to chill out. If you feel there’s something wrong then by all means voice your piece. But I really can’t stand it when someone assumes they are the voice of the whole.

Play what you enjoy. If tons of flotes makes you mad then don’t play them. If you feel that’s all you see at tournaments... then don’t play at them. You have the right to play what brings you the most enjoyment within the rules of the game. Don’t like the rules? Then don’t play.

4 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

So the solution to a problem is not self-restraint, or self-moderation (an adult and responsible approach). Instead it is to play with your dangerous toy that hurts others as long, and as hard as you can, until daddy takes it away from you because it makes you feel powerful and "good," and if you don't hit people with it, daddy won't know it is dangerous...

Legitimately lol'd at that one.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give anybody a boo boo with my dangerous plastic star destroyers that I was flailing around yesterday .

Seriously, though, dial down the righteous indignation. You're pushing plastic spaceships around on a giant table, not firebombing Tokyo. If I'm going to a tournament to play against other people who are playing to the best of their abilities are, you're goddamn right I'm going to play to the best of my ability. And, like it or not, that includes building a good fleet that plays to my strengths, because fleet-building is a part of the skill component of this game.

5 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

If we all want this... let's do it.

Here's where this Gospel of Arbitrary Constraints falls apart:

I'm not going to do it. Now what?

Stop showing up to tournaments that I'm going to? Ban me for following the rules ? This is pretty basic game theory: without any basis for enforcing these restrictions, they aren't going to hold. Even if all of us on the forums agreed on what exactly these constraints should be--and there absolutely is not consensus on that--all it takes is one guy who doesn't follow the forums and just shows up and plays within the rules as written and your whole construct falls apart.

It would be disrespectful to my opponents for me to show up with some intentionally-gimped fleet because I didn't think they were grown-up enough to handle playing within the ruleset we all bought into, as opposed to what the second-place finisher in Georgia thinks that ruleset should be.

3 hours ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

We would have a much more accessible and tactically deep game if we avoided skewed lists that attempt to win by overloading a particular weak point of the game (overload on squads w/ no real combat ships to leverage squad effeciency, or overload on activations to avoid having to make activation decisions)

Everything else aside, I very strongly disagree with this. You may consider skew lists the pinnacle of human indecency; I list-build with the conscious goal of identifying a common weakness in most fleets and then exerting as much pressure on that point as I possibly can. I consider that an ideal to be aspired to, because it results in a much more accessible and tactically deep game by driving diversity in the meta.

Case example: for a long time, from about W3-W6, we had three archetypes that were consistently driving the meta in San Antonio: Rieekan Ace Holes, Madine Liberty, and Mothma MC30s. All three could be called skew lists, and the result was an extremely diverse and vibrant meta as people built to try and address three wildly different archetypes at the same time. Or look at the fleets people bring to the Vassal tounaments: there are some wild and crazy lists that show up to those, and you have to be prepared to deal the most outrageous, bizarre archetypes in those tourneys. Compare this to the stale rigidity of metas where everybody agrees that Ackbar toilet bowls or Motti Star Destroyers are the pinnacle of fleet building, where newcomers feel like their options are either trying to out-Motti Motti or get steamrolled.

You need skew lists in the meta to keep everybody else honest. This happened in San Antonio:

1.) Overinvest in fighter defense to deal with Ace Holes and sacrifice ship fire? Squadronless MC30s punish that.
2.) XI7s, DCO, Targeting Scramblers, and rogues to deal with MC30s? Light screen double-brace Liberty punishes that.
3.) ECM and heavy, survivable battleships to counter the Liberty? Ace Holes punish that.

As a result, there was no one list that flourished and everybody felt they had to bring, leading to really good diversity . That's what skew lists do for a meta: they keep the all-comers lists honest, forcing them to make efficiency sacrifices to tech against the skew lists, thereby opening up the field to otherwise-subpar builds.

27 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Everything else aside, I very strongly disagree with this. You may consider skew lists the pinnacle of human indecency; I list-build with the conscious goal of identifying a common weakness in most fleets and then exerting as much pressure on that point as I possibly can. I consider that an ideal to be aspired to, because it results in a much more accessible and tactically deep game by driving diversity in the meta.

That's my basic list building plan; find a weak hole and drive something (it's a hammerhead, we all know it is) through it. Profit.

On ‎18‎.‎02‎.‎2018 at 9:50 PM, Tokra said:

@Baltanok
I just came back from the Regional in Potsdam. We were 14 players. I am trying to get the lists of all players. But i have already the top four lists (beside the missions from one).

1st : 26 Points; 745 MOV

2nd : 23 Points; 563 MOV

3rd : 23 Points; 472 MOV

4th : 21 Points; 349 MOV

Edit: Just one point to remember. Wave 7 is still not out in Germany and though not tournament legal. The lists were all without Wave 7 cards, and are only of limited use because of this.

I got the full lists from the regional in Potsdam (added a few Infos to the top 4):

5th ; 18 Points; 485 MOV
6th ; 18 Points; 187 MOV
7th ; 18 Points; 186 MOV
8th ; 17 Points; 400 MOV
9th ; 15 Points; 400 MOV
10th ; 14 Points; 232 MOV
11th ; 13 Points; 362 MOV
12th ; 10 Points; 0 MOV
13th ; 8 Points; 9 MOV
14th; 7 Points; 0 MOV

What did we have:
9 Imperial and 5 Rebel fleets.
Imperials had place 1, but Rebels had place 2-4 (quite good for only 5 total rebels).
Average # of ships: 4.93.
Average # of Flottilla: 2.86
Two fleets had no Flotilla at all, and both of these lists had 3 ships.

We had 3 players from Poland. They had their own reporter, who made a video (give him a like for it ):

9 minutes ago, Tokra said:

What did we have:
9 Imperial and 5 Rebel fleets.
Imperials had place 1, but Rebels had place 2-4 (quite good for only 5 total rebels).
Average # of ships: 4.93.
Average # of Flottilla: 2.86
Two fleets had no Flotilla at all, and both of these lists had 3 ships.

What's the flot average without those 2 no flot lists?

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Everything else aside, I very strongly disagree with this. You may consider skew lists the pinnacle of human indecency; I list-build with the conscious goal of identifying a common weakness in most fleets and then exerting as much pressure on that point as I possibly can. I consider that an ideal to be aspired to, because it results in a much more accessible and tactically deep game by driving diversity in the meta.

Case example: for a long time, from about W3-W6, we had three archetypes that were consistently driving the meta in San Antonio: Rieekan Ace Holes, Madine Liberty, and Mothma MC30s. All three could be called skew lists, and the result was an extremely diverse and vibrant meta as people built to try and address three wildly different archetypes at the same time. Or look at the fleets people bring to the Vassal tounaments: there are some wild and crazy lists that show up to those, and you have to be prepared to deal the most outrageous, bizarre archetypes in those tourneys. Compare this to the stale rigidity of metas where everybody agrees that Ackbar toilet bowls or Motti Star Destroyers are the pinnacle of fleet building, where newcomers feel like their options are either trying to out-Motti Motti or get steamrolled.

You need skew lists in the meta to keep everybody else honest. This happened in San Antonio:

1.) Overinvest in fighter defense to deal with Ace Holes and sacrifice ship fire? Squadronless MC30s punish that.
2.) XI7s, DCO, Targeting Scramblers, and rogues to deal with MC30s? Light screen double-brace Liberty punishes that.
3.) ECM and heavy, survivable battleships to counter the Liberty? Ace Holes punish that.

As a result, there was no one list that flourished and everybody felt they had to bring, leading to really good diversity . That's what skew lists do for a meta: they keep the all-comers lists honest, forcing them to make efficiency sacrifices to tech against the skew lists, thereby opening up the field to otherwise-subpar builds.

That’s a bit of an odd analysis. I think you may be conflating skew lists and spoiler anti meta lists. Anti meta is just like what it sounds like - it goes against the common train of thought to it’s own advantage. Skew lists over emphasis one aspect of the game in order to limit your opponents choices and counters. The most effective skews almost makes playing the game useless for your opponent since they have no effective choices. They specifically punish balance builds, not necessarily a specific type of build mind you. Taking your own example of ace holes which is probably the closest example to a skew, most people’s most effective and reliable answer to it is to not play it and take a 6-5.