Last game my Imperials (Sloan ISD1, Demo, 2 floaters, squad ball) faced off against a Sato MC75, Salvation, 2 floaters squad ball. (he was experimenting to see if salvation had a role again yet...)

Apart from the absolute BS that demo and Imperial squads are still.

The main point was in the last turn, my ISD was dead (trapped by the Sato MC75), but demo had killed salvation without any major issues. Last turn demo flew in and did the remaining 5 damage required to kill the MC75 with an admittedly BS roll (Redirect was already burned, Red acc to lock the brace, red double, Hit crit with APT, hit).

This of course meaning the rebel fleet was tabled. But as my opponent pointed out, demo BS rolls aside, if the MC75 had survived and shot back at demo, demo would have died and I would have been tabled instead. So a 400 point swing either way. Both sides at this point still had a fairly reasonable squad presence - if anything my squads were in trouble because Ciena and mithel were dead at this point and with my ISD dead I was running out of things to activate them with.

But the danger of getting tabled (and the opportunity to get the tabling by finishing off the MC75) hadn't occurred to me at that point.

Sure - no one ever goes into battle planning on having their big ship get killed, but I wonder how significant an aspect of the post FAQ meta building for and/or playing for the wipe out by killing all the non floater ships will be. Certainly it seems a point of advantage a no squad or minimal squad fleet may have if played aggressively as first player, especially compared to the oft mooted ISD/Quasar/flot/squad ball type setup. Certainly also seems to be a threat to token farming fleets if the other side just goes pure combat and the red objective.

FREAKING DUH!

This is what you all get for asking for flotilla tabling rules without understanding how that plays out. And here we are. Raddus lists will crush both these lists. But don't worry FFG doesn't have a clue what they are doing so soon they'll change things and make it worse. They aren't exactly known for backtracking when they really need to. Takes them forever when they do. In the meantime, enjoy games of squads/floaters don't matter, go for table. Just play Raddus, you'll do better.

This is why the Nerf 2.0 was heavy handed. The hard cap OR the tabling would have been MORE than enough to reign in the Flotillas after relay got its rewrite. Both is just ridiculous.

As it stands now you can get tabled with well over half your points still flying, by an opponent with less than one tenth of their points still flying. Definitely sounds like a one sided victory to me. (yep, that was sarcasm)

Tables! Overpowered!

Both of you were running fleets with only 2 combat ships, so it's not surprising to me that it would come down to who could table the other the most quickly. Prior to flotillas, squad-heavy fleets (which it sounds like both sides were using) were vulnerable to being tabled and generally had to consider how to cost-effectively add extra cushioning to their fleet without sacrificing too much in the way of squad support. They could still do quite well, mind you, but it was definitely a bit of a balancing act. With the new errata, a 2+2 is a risky proposition (or a 2+1, what I took first at Adepticon with, oof): I wouldn't be too surprised to see squad-heavier fleets go a bit lighter on squads and/or flotillas to squeeze a third non-flotilla in there. Sounds like heresy, I know, but back in the day it wasn't uncommon to see squad-focused fleets not going 134 all the way in order to save some points to invest towards ships.

Its a point of discussion not a complaint. The effect of the FAQ is great across the game. I just havent seen many people talking through this aspect of the change much. Maybe there is a benefit for rebs for example keeping a corvette in the backline if you are running a lot of squads.

45 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Both of you were running fleets with only 2 combat ships, so it's not surprising to me that it would come down to who could table the other the most quickly. Prior to flotillas, squad-heavy fleets (which it sounds like both sides were using) were vulnerable to being tabled and generally had to consider how to cost-effectively add extra cushioning to their fleet without sacrificing too much in the way of squad support. They could still do quite well, mind you, but it was definitely a bit of a balancing act. With the new errata, a 2+2 is a risky proposition (or a 2+1, what I took first at Adepticon with, oof): I wouldn't be too surprised to see squad-heavier fleets go a bit lighter on squads and/or flotillas to squeeze a third non-flotilla in there. Sounds like heresy, I know, but back in the day it wasn't uncommon to see squad-focused fleets not going 134 all the way in order to save some points to invest towards ships.

No, no, people are right, squads are dead, the nerf was terrible, FFG has runewars'ed Armada, etc etc

well, I certainly think Quasars, Assault Frigs and Peltas will make a comeback by being more multirole than flotillas. I agree with what was said above, you both ran 2 combat ships, that's a risk at its core with the new FAQ. People forgot how to play without flotillas, that's kind of the problem here and it's kind of funny to see.

2 hours ago, geek19 said:

No, no, people are right, squads are dead, the nerf was terrible, FFG has runewars'ed Armada, etc etc

Just don't tell Blail.

Good.

I don't miss corner flotillas even a little. Old relay lists could disengage whenever they wanted. Even if you beat them you couldn't get many points out of it.

Now you need to take care of your ships.

Its sort of true.

Tabling is much simpler if taking wave 6 lists with kneejerk changes because of FAQ. The FAQ has resulted in a meta change of sizeable proportions and fleets need to be designed on this basis.

It takes a few games to get used to then its less extreme.

1. It's a game. Have fun.

2. Tabling has always been a thing.

3. I'm pretty sure that the game was made from the ground up with the idea that tabling should be a danger if you go squad heavy to counter the fact that ships are just generally ineffective against fighters. Flotillas threw this out of wack. FAQ fixed it.

8 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

FREAKING DUH!

This is what you all get for asking for flotilla tabling rules without understanding how that plays out. And here we are. Raddus lists will crush both these lists. But don't worry FFG doesn't have a clue what they are doing so soon they'll change things and make it worse. They aren't exactly known for backtracking when they really need to. Takes them forever when they do. In the meantime, enjoy games of squads/floaters don't matter, go for table. Just play Raddus, you'll do better.

Maybe you should quit Armada and spare us your inflated ego. You don't know ****.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever played a game without using the tabling rule, before the Nerf?

I'm just wondering the "why" behind the rule.

1 minute ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever played a game without using the tabling rule, before the Nerf?

I'm just wondering the "why" behind the rule.

Because without it, it was too easy for squadron fleets to win without any danger. Standard Rebel 2+3 could lose Gallant Haven and Yavaris and still table you for a 10-1. I'm down to flotillas and squadrons only and yet somehow I blew up everything and won handily? Boooooooooo.

At least that's my assumption

3 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever played a game without using the tabling rule, before the Nerf?

I'm just wondering the "why" behind the rule.

It's frustrating when your opponent only has flotillas and whittles you away with squads while you have no way to counter. The nerf is more directed at squadrons and not flotillas, because flotillas are the best bang for buck carrier.

13 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Because without it, it was too easy for squadron fleets to win without any danger. Standard Rebel 2+3 could lose Gallant Haven and Yavaris and still table you for a 10-1. I'm down to flotillas and squadrons only and yet somehow I blew up everything and won handily? Boooooooooo.

At least that's my assumption

With the especially big kick in the teeth when those flotillas were still working at maximum efficiency by relaying from the other side of the board.

Some people are just never happy I guess...

9 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

This is why the Nerf 2.0 was heavy handed. The hard cap OR the tabling would have been MORE than enough to reign in the Flotillas after relay got its rewrite. Both is just ridiculous.

As it stands now you can get tabled with well over half your points still flying, by an opponent with less than one tenth of their points still flying. Definitely sounds like a one sided victory to me. (yep, that was sarcasm)

If I have less than a tenth of my points on the board, that means by definition, pre-objective count, the MOV is below 40 points. Ergo, it's a 6-5, very much not a one-sided victory.

Why do people continue to insist tabling is an automatic 10-1 when it is nothing of the kind?

Not exactly what I was asking. I have already exceeded my lifetime allotment of "Too many Flotillas are bad M-kay", posts.

Pre Nerf, no tabling rule. More of, why was the tabling rule introduced in the first place.

Honestly, that is an article I would love to read! A little Q& A with the design team, about the original intent behind the game at creation.

What decisions were made for balance, and what for theamatic reasons. What was done strictly for business reasons, and what to accommodate competitive play.

We all look at Armada through our own lens of what we each like about the game. I'm really curious what that lens looks like for the original design team. Tabling is just the example that was being discussed.

Think about it. We are probably looking at over a third of the posts here being nothing but "what I do or don't like about Armada." The only opinions on the subject we don't get are from the source that controls the course of the game.

2 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Not exactly what I was asking. I have already exceeded my lifetime allotment of "Too many Flotillas are bad M-kay", posts.

Pre Nerf, no tabling rule. More of, why was the tabling rule introduced in the first place.

Honestly, that is an article I would love to read! A little Q& A with the design team, about the original intent behind the game at creation.

What decisions were made for balance, and what for theamatic reasons. What was done strictly for business reasons, and what to accommodate competitive play.

We all look at Armada through our own lens of what we each like about the game. I'm really curious what that lens looks like for the original design team. Tabling is just the example that was being discussed.

Think about it. We are probably looking at over a third of the posts here being nothing but "what I do or don't like about Armada." The only opinions on the subject we don't get are from the source that controls the course of the game.

Well then let me ask you why having the Tabling Rule is ridiculous. If you bring a fleet of 3 "real" ships, some squadrons, and 2 flotillas, why is it "bad" that the game ends when all you have left are 2 support ships and support squadrons?

Why DON'T you think we need the tabling rule? And no emotional response of "I don't want it." Gimme an argument and I'll debate with you on THAT.

Design vision of the original team? Pretty sure the design team never intended the 2+3 and the 1+many meta

I think it's a good observation however I feel that tabling threat is now in a place where it was supposed to be as an additional check and balance on squad-heavy ship-light fleets.

12 hours ago, Ophion said:

But as my opponent pointed out, demo BS rolls aside, if the MC75 had survived and shot back at demo, demo would have died and I would have been tabled instead. So a 400 point swing either way.

I have to wonder if the remaining squads had a reasonable chance of killing Demo in retaliation to bring the game to double-tabling.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

Well then let me ask you why having the Tabling Rule is ridiculous. If you bring a fleet of 3 "real" ships, some squadrons, and 2 flotillas, why is it "bad" that the game ends when all you have left are 2 support ships and support squadrons?

Why DON'T you think we need the tabling rule? And no emotional response of "I don't want it." Gimme an argument and I'll debate with you on THAT.

I think if you look at tabling by itself it's not a bad choice. Having one flotilla run off on it's own always looked derpy and points denial in that form I thinks lends to bad play experiences. So I'm really pretty ok with them being brought down in terms of value.

However, with the flotilla hard cap and relay nerfs I can see an argument tabling goes a bit far. Flotillas now must be part of the action, they can't just be relaying from across the board. And only having two greatly increases the chances an opponent can get all of them.

There is also something very thematic that the last group of fighters/bombers/their carriers try to do as much damage and squeak out a victory in the face of defeat. We see it in the film's several times (Death Star Attacks, Poe in episode 8) and it can fit in with several objectives nicely.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

Well then let me ask you why having the Tabling Rule is ridiculous. If you bring a fleet of 3 "real" ships, some squadrons, and 2 flotillas, why is it "bad" that the game ends when all you have left are 2 support ships and support squadrons?

Why DON'T you think we need the tabling rule? And no emotional response of "I don't want it." Gimme an argument and I'll debate with you on THAT.

I think the Flotilla tabling rule is ridiculous especially in light of the cap and Relay nerf. I never said I thought tabling was ridiculous.

To be honest, it is one of those game mechanics I have always been on the fence about. I assumed it was done to keep the focus on Ships rather than Squadrons, but also to compensate for the fact that Squadrons are more dangerous for their points compared to Ships. With tabling becoming easier with Nerf 2.0, I would be very interested in the thinking behind the rule, from those who wrote it.

To me tabling only made sense because against the empire, most of the Squadrons, originally, were short range, with no hyperdrive. Surrender was kinda undeniable if they want to live. I accepted it for the Rebels, for game balance reasons. Now I just find it ridiculous. I understand why the Nerf was done, I just think it went to far. My opinion, and no argument to date has done anything to sway it.

In light of that, I would be very interested to know more about the original decision to include it, and how it meshes with the Nerf. Did FFG designers stick to the original plan, or did they bow to the complaints of the competitive play core group?

Neither is bad, just a design decision FFG felt needed to be made to maintain the game. Just as many are thrilled with the Nerf, and continue to spout it's glories, I am not compelled to agree with it, and feel completely justified in doing so. Every change to a the game has a chance of creating unintended consequences. Those are what lead to nerfs, as it is, I think the latest nerf has far greater potential to cause unintended consequences.

As a community always begging for articles, wouldn't a series of articles on design theroy behind the game be a great read. To that end, what better place to start than with Flotillas and their recent revision in the tabling rule. Flotillas have been the most contentious aspect of Armada since the first reveal article hit and Admiral Nelson began his spiral into madness. Why not address it in a comprehensive way. How could that possibly be a bad thing.