4 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

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.

Ask the developers yourself!

Quote

Featuring a panel of Fantasy Flight Games developers and hosted by Justin Bolger from StarWars.com, the Hyperspace Report will lead attendees through a Q&A style presentation about Fantasy Flight Games's upcoming Star Wars products and release schedule!

Bound to a be a must-see event for Star Wars fans and gamers everywhere, this event won't be limited to just physical attendees, either. Our chat moderators will be sure to ask the panelists some of your most pertinent questions from Twitch and from Twitter @FFGames.

13 minutes ago, draco193 said:

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.

I think what you're forgetting is the fact that flotillas are hard to reliably kill unless you specifically tech for it (and even then not every ship would have the tech).

10 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

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.

Before we go down this path, we both mean the same thing. By Tabling Rule I meant the flotilla nerf, as did you. My lack of clarity in initial communication. So, let's not argue this point.

10 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

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.

If FFG wants to give us articles about their design process, I know I would read them. Buttttt I don't think they've ever given us that before, so.... Other than FAQ reasons/nerf reasons, that is.

2 minutes ago, PT106 said:

I think what you're forgetting is the fact that flotillas are hard to reliably kill unless you specifically tech for it (and even then not every ship would have the tech).

Oh no. I agree. I also think the opprotunity cost can be high for shooting at them vs other ships.

But with the other changes I can at least see the opportunity now. Before youd be luck to get to long range of one of them that was just preventing tabling. If they park one in the corner now it's really just handicapping the rest of the fleet.

I'm fine with the tabling rule. I can see the merit though to people thinking it goes pretty far with the other changes.

Re: why can you be tabled while still having squads on the table?

Because you can buy a tie fighter or ywing for >10 pts and shove them in the corner of the map for the whole game.

29 minutes ago, PT106 said:

I think what you're forgetting is the fact that flotillas are hard to reliably kill unless you specifically tech for it (and even then not every ship would have the tech).

That just makes for a more dynamic game. I don't see that as a bad thing. Think about how the game evolved from wave 1. We started with basically the rock, scissors, paper of max Squadrons vs moderate Squadrons vs no Squadrons. Each new addition is creating a more complex ecosystem, that should lead to a place where no list can be completely dominant.

16 minutes ago, codegnave said:

Re: why can you be tabled while still having squads on the table?

Because you can buy a tie fighter or ywing for >10 pts and shove them in the corner of the map for the whole game.

Your only mitigating MOV, and preventing total destruction, not changing the outcome by more than that >10 points. Was it just to insure more 10-1 scores in competition?

1 minute ago, cynanbloodbane said:

That just makes for a more dynamic game. I don't see that as a bad thing. Think about how the game evolved from wave 1. We started with basically the rock, scissors, paper of max Squadrons vs moderate Squadrons vs no Squadrons. Each new addition is creating a more complex ecosystem, that should lead to a place where no list can be completely dominant.

Thats the same logic that is applied by the design team when they make nerfs like this.

Your disagreement is with the how, not the why.

1 minute ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Your only mitigating MOV, and preventing total destruction, not changing the outcome by more than that >10 points. Was it just to insure more 10-1 scores in competition?

Having the threat of a complete loss needs to hang over the head of all lists, otherwise it punishes those who dont take tanky lists to tournaments. Thats not really fair, and its an observable obstacle to high level variety.

So yes. It is why(probably).

24 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

That just makes for a more dynamic game. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Well, here I would have to disagree with you. Without tabling rule you'll see people running naked 18pts flotilla to a corner as a tabling insurance.

The benefit of such action is big: against a squadron-light fleet it ensures that flotilla and the squadrons are guaranteed survivors for a nice 100+ points cushion, while also giving the squadrons full 6 rounds of attacks against opponent fleet. The cost is small - 18 points of a ship that can't attack other ships anyway. And to counter it, a dedicated hunter that can take out flotillas (so 50+ points at least and 70+ is more likely IF you have one in your fleet) should be out of the game to catch and kill that single flotilla.

This doesn't sound like a more dynamic or balanced game to me.

27 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Well, here I would have to disagree with you. Without tabling rule you'll see people running naked 18pts flotilla to a corner as a tabling insurance.

The benefit of such action is big: against a squadron-light fleet it ensures that flotilla and the squadrons are guaranteed survivors for a nice 100+ points cushion, while also giving the squadrons full 6 rounds of attacks against opponent fleet. The cost is small - 18 points of a ship that can't attack other ships anyway. And to counter it, a dedicated hunter that can take out flotillas (so 50+ points at least and 70+ is more likely IF you have one in your fleet) should be out of the game to catch and kill that single flotilla.

This doesn't sound like a more dynamic or balanced game to me.

That was exactly why I advocated a cheap flotilla and Squadron hunting platform. The answer is more options, not less. I hear a lot of data about top tables. The one thing we don't hear about is the amount of 10-1 victories the top 4 got to get there. Ideally in a truly competitive system, a 10-1 would and should be a rare thing. After the first round, it should be even more rare. That is the data we should be watching if you actually want a balanced game. Achieve that, and it won't matter what list appears most in the top 4, because no list is then able to dominate.

1 hour ago, PT106 said:

I think what you're forgetting is the fact that flotillas are hard to reliably kill unless you specifically tech for it (and even then not every ship would have the tech).

Vader's Cymoons disagree.

4 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Vader's Cymoons disagree.

Try doing it from a side arc Otherwise I did the same with Avenger ISD2 way before Cymoons were born

15 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

That was exactly why I advocated a cheap flotilla and Squadron hunting platform. The answer is more options, not less.

Maybe I'm missing something. What options were harmed by this FAQ change? The way I see it, it opened up a lot of options and fleet building routes that weren't viable before.

1 minute ago, PT106 said:

Try doing it from a side arc Otherwise I did the same with Avenger ISD2 way before Cymoons were born

Sadly one ISD2 doesn't combine well with another two ISD2, Vader and GTs for everyone.

At this point, rebels have easier time fielding 3 combat ships. ISD-Demo-2xgoz, 80 squad,20 point bid, general, and youre out of points pretty much. Also, if you aim for 3 combat ships, what can you go for, really? Arq are, well... you know them. Vics are bricks(hard to aim with them, but if you hit, it hits hard). Raiders... Some love them, I consider them meh. Leaves ISD-s and Demo(not glads). So, in theory, lets go for a vic2. ISD-VIC-DEMO-GOZ. pretty much if they are semi kitted out, its 400 points.
At this point, I expect the 'something' big to be a new core set. I think squadron pack has a good chance to be released too with new rogues. Also, either we see 2-3 small/medium ships both sides so we can field 3 combat ships easily, or go for 500 points with max 25% squads.
Last tourney Ive been to had 1 list with rougly 100-120 point of squads, 1 60-80, but the other 6 was max 30 points. And, at this point pushing 3-5 ships per side doesnt take much time, longest match for me lasted max 90 mins. So... 500 points wouldnt matter much, I think. But would enable us to field an extra ship or two.

17 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

That was exactly why I advocated a cheap flotilla and Squadron hunting platform. The answer is more options, not less. I hear a lot of data about top tables. The one thing we don't hear about is the amount of 10-1 victories the top 4 got to get there. Ideally in a truly competitive system, a 10-1 would and should be a rare thing. After the first round, it should be even more rare. That is the data we should be watching if you actually want a balanced game. Achieve that, and it won't matter what list appears most in the top 4, because no list is then able to dominate.

You don't hear about 10-1 because they are rare. The average points per round to win a tournament is like 7.75 or 8. The top 4 cut for last year at Worlds was 32 points and it came down to MOV, resulting in Caldias missing the top 4 by 40ish MOV. And you know what happened? 6/8 were Rieekan Aces.

So the system you want is the system we had pre-nerf. It didn't work.

1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Sadly one ISD2 doesn't combine well with another two ISD2, Vader and GTs for everyone.

In my mind one ISD2 is more than enough. Everything else is an unneeded luxury ;))))

20 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

"The answer is more options, not less."

The problem with the pre-FAQ meta was that our options were limited to Flotillas and fighters. After the FAQ you can still take them they just aren't as ubiquitous anymore.

21 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

The one thing we don't hear about is the amount of 10-1 victories the top 4 got to get there. Ideally in a truly competitive system, a 10-1 would and should be a rare thing.

Nothing about the tabling rule makes it easy to 10-1 someone with smart play. They may score 400 points but that in no way means they should get a 10-1.

4 minutes ago, PT106 said:

In my mind one ISD2 is more than enough. Everything else is an unneeded luxury ;))))

Your lack of prodigality disturb me.

15 hours ago, Ophion said:

So a 400 point swing either way.

1 hour ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Was it just to insure more 10-1 scores in competition?

Why do people keep saying this? You guys understand that a tabling is not a 400 MoV 10-1, right? You get 400 points for the tabled fleet, you don't wipe out all the points that player made. If you have 100 points left on the table when you table your opponent, that's still only a 7-4.

6 minutes ago, Coldhands said:

At this point, rebels have easier time fielding 3 combat ships. ISD-Demo-2xgoz, 80 squad,20 point bid, general, and youre out of points pretty much. Also, if you aim for 3 combat ships, what can you go for, really? Arq are, well... you know them. Vics are bricks(hard to aim with them, but if you hit, it hits hard). Raiders... Some love them, I consider them meh. Leaves ISD-s and Demo(not glads). So, in theory, lets go for a vic2. ISD-VIC-DEMO-GOZ. pretty much if they are semi kitted out, its 400 points.

That sounds like you're limiting your design space too much (by saying that you need a Demo, you need 20 points bid and you need 80+ points of squads) and as a result don't see a lot of good Imperial fleet options.

For example, I consider ISD-Vic-Glad as one of the good fleet options going forward, but I would've kitted it as Cymoon with IFF/Vic1/Glad 2 with Proj Experts/2xComms Net Gozanti and 7th fleet on everyone. And it still leaves enough points to fine-tune the fleet.

14 minutes ago, Coldhands said:

At this point, rebels have easier time fielding 3 combat ships. ISD-Demo-2xgoz, 80 squad,20 point bid, general, and youre out of points pretty much. Also, if you aim for 3 combat ships, what can you go for, really? Arq are, well... you know them. Vics are bricks(hard to aim with them, but if you hit, it hits hard). Raiders... Some love them, I consider them meh. Leaves ISD-s and Demo(not glads). So, in theory, lets go for a vic2. ISD-VIC-DEMO-GOZ. pretty much if they are semi kitted out, its 400 points.
At this point, I expect the 'something' big to be a new core set. I think squadron pack has a good chance to be released too with new rogues. Also, either we see 2-3 small/medium ships both sides so we can field 3 combat ships easily, or go for 500 points with max 25% squads.
Last tourney Ive been to had 1 list with rougly 100-120 point of squads, 1 60-80, but the other 6 was max 30 points. And, at this point pushing 3-5 ships per side doesnt take much time, longest match for me lasted max 90 mins. So... 500 points wouldnt matter much, I think. But would enable us to field an extra ship or two.

I agree that the Imperials need more options. I don't agree that you need Demo and 20 points for a bid is crazy. If bids are that crazy in your meta for first, I would just build for second player. Let them pick a nice poison.

1 minute ago, PT106 said:

That sounds like you're limiting your design space too much (by saying that you need a Demo, you need 20 points bid and you need 80+ points of squads) and as a result don't see a lot of good Imperial fleet options.

For example, I consider ISD-Vic-Glad as one of the good fleet options going forward, but I would've kitted it as Cymoon with IFF/Vic1/Glad 2 with Proj Experts/2xComms Net Gozanti and 7th fleet on everyone. And it still leaves enough points to fine-tune the fleet.

Its not limiting myself, just an example. Couple of waves ago, when I jumped on the Armada wagon was my first tourney fleet the isd1-demo-2xgoz-rhymer ball archetype. Now we are heading back to this. This is the evolved list of what I fielded that tourney:
Screewed up (400/400)
====================
Cymoon 1 Refit (112 + 58)
+ Admiral Screed (26)
+ Captain Needa (2)
+ Gunnery Team (7)
+ Intensify Firepower! (6)
+ Quad Battery Turrets (5)
+ Turbolaser Reroute Circuits (7)
+ Avenger (5)
Victory II-class Star Destroyer (85 + 32)
+ Gunnery Team (7)
+ Disposable Capacitors (3)
+ Overload Pulse (8)
+ Heavy Turbolaser Turrets (6)
+ Warlord (8)
Gladiator I-class Star Destroyer (56 + 18)
+ Skilled First Officer (1)
+ Ordnance Experts (4)
+ External Racks (3)
+ Demolisher (10)
Gozanti-class Assault Carriers (28 + 11)
+ Taskmaster Grint (5)
+ Comms Net (2)
+ Suppressor (4)
Most Wanted
Hyperspace assault
Solar Corona

Kitted our pretty much, I could cut back on a couple of upgrades, but the aim is pretty much to pop one large ship a turn without much fuss.

1 minute ago, TallGiraffe said:

I agree that the Imperials need more options. I don't agree that you need Demo and 20 points for a bid is crazy. If bids are that crazy in your meta for first, I would just build for second player. Let them pick a nice poison.

I think its not just my meta, but its like: bid crazy for p1, or bid almost zero. There is no middle ground like 7-10 point bids among the top players.

Personally, I think the flotilla-doesn’t-count-towards-tabling rule is perfect. The only place FFG went too far is the hard cap of two. With the tabling rule, the hard cap isn’t needed. A player has to weigh the benefits of having a support flotilla in the game against the possibility that their opponent will destroy all of the “combat” ships. That is good game design right there. The hard cap takes that away, unnecessarily, IMO.

That said, I’m not losing sleep over it, even if I still sigh when I look at my three custom painted GR-75s that I always have to choose one to leave behind.

Just now, stonestokes said:

The only place FFG went too far is the hard cap of two. With the tabling rule, the hard cap isn’t needed. A player has to weigh the benefits of having a support flotilla in the game against the possibility that their opponent will destroy all of the “combat” ships. That is good game design right there. The hard cap takes that away, unnecessarily, IMO.

I believe each change addresses a very different element of the meta. Just as a very rough example, the cap boosts MSU while the tabling boosts low/no squads.