Reflecting on the last run up to worlds there was a huge push for an faq and we did get it a month before worlds... I was wondering if the community at large felt like another faq would be due or what types of issues they felt needed to be addressed... Deposit gripes, grudges, and beefs here.

Demolisher will probably get nerfed a bit but would be nice if that happened after worlds so we can get an Imperial winner for a change.

18 minutes ago, Zamalekite said:

Demolisher will probably get nerfed a bit but would be nice if that happened after worlds so we can get an Imperial winner for a change.

What actually needs nerfing on the demo? Seems fine to me.

19 minutes ago, Zamalekite said:

Demolisher will probably get nerfed a bit but would be nice if that happened after worlds so we can get an Imperial winner for a change.

The question is - what kind of nerf is possible there? The only one that I can think of is to make a title exhaust.

Just now, PT106 said:

The question is - what kind of nerf is possible there? The only one that I can think of is to make a title exhaust.

I think a fair nerf is to make it work a similar way to Darth Vader (boarding). You can use the move-shoot ability with a Squadron command or squadron token + discard. Can still get the benefit of Engine Techs but will need something feeding it a token. Also means that slicing can be used as a tactic to prevent the title's ability.

It still allows the ability they turn but mitigates it somewhat and requires more planning and trade-off to use.

5 minutes ago, carthwolf said:

What actually needs nerfing on the demo? Seems fine to me.

We'll see a fuller picture coming out of the Regionals analysis project that @Truthiness is running but, if early trends are something to go by, roughly half of imperial fleets in tournaments have the same title and most of the top Imperial fleets have the exact same 'DACOE' build. That level of homogenisation isn't good for the game.

@Zamalekite I will agree that we are coming to a point where we are seeing similar builds on the demo, but that’s just the shifting of the meta and until we get an actual expansion release for both factions I don’t expect much to shift. But I also don’t think demo as a card or platform is unhealthy as a whole and would caution against changing cards too frequently due to players saying it’s being played to much.

Also, Demo was nerfed already.

I don't see a necessity there. The title is expensive but worth every point for sure, but making it to be paid and exhausted would just banish it from the tables. Period... paying a token for usage would be too expensive already and we haven't seen any downgrade on costs for an upgrade afaik.

Can we make the squadron points number a nice round, 135? Thanks.

But on a serious note, I don't think there is anything that would need an FAQ really. The only changes I would even think of is maybe a change to the timing or adjustment of points for like, 2 cards. Looking at Expanded Launchers... I'd drop it down to 9 or 10 points.

33 minutes ago, Zamalekite said:

We'll see a fuller picture coming out of the Regionals analysis project that @Truthiness is running but, if early trends are something to go by, roughly half of imperial fleets in tournaments have the same title and most of the top Imperial fleets have the exact same 'DACOE' build. That level of homogenisation isn't good for the game.

IMO, the best possible 'fix' to Demo also fixes a fundamental flaw in the game that has long given too big an advantage to MSU lists, over-exaggerated importance of 1st player, and also speeds up play.

Make activation order fixed.

IE., all those number tokens we have piles of, from the core set on? Put those on every ship's base. Your call, when setting up fleets, what number goes where, and it can change between matches in a tournament - but once set, that's your activation order for the game. Every turn, you activate ships in that order and only that order.

*boom*… Nerf last-first overall, and suddenly Demo loses a big part of its OPness. Simple change, and doesn't cause any conflicts with objectives, game rules, upgrades (obvious exceptions where Pryce and Bail 'break' the order of activations - but they already do, now, so...no actual change).

6 minutes ago, xanderf said:

IMO, the best possible 'fix' to Demo also fixes a fundamental flaw in the game that has long given too big an advantage to MSU lists, over-exaggerated importance of 1st player, and also speeds up play.

Make activation order fixed.

IE., all those number tokens we have piles of, from the core set on? Put those on every ship's base. Your call, when setting up fleets, what number goes where, and it can change between matches in a tournament - but once set, that's your activation order for the game. Every turn, you activate ships in that order and only that order.

*boom*… Nerf last-first overall, and suddenly Demo loses a big part of its OPness. Simple change, and doesn't cause any conflicts with objectives, game rules, upgrades (obvious exceptions where Pryce and Bail 'break' the order of activations - but they already do, now, so...no actual change).

And you also oversimplify one of the most interesting aspects of Armada, deciding the order of activation of your ships. Not Like

I agree a Demo nerf before Worlds would definitely be hasty. Not a single Demo list made it into last year's top 4 at Worlds, and there hasn't been new content or FAQ since then, only the meta has changed. Which is a good sign, I think. Not so long ago, people were calling for a Raddus Nerf or an even stronger Yavaris Nerf (e.g. Yavaris only affects 1 squadron).

I suspect players at Worlds will be practicing against Demo lists to prepare themselves.

1 minute ago, DerRitter said:

And you also oversimplify one of the most interesting aspects of Armada, deciding the order of activation of your ships. Not Like

Not at all - you still have to decide that, you just have to plan it out during deployment , rather than adjusting on the fly each turn.

So it requires more thinking ahead, which is actually the best part of Armada and what sets it the most apart from X-Wing to begin with. Not a "seat of your pants, shoot from the hip" sort of game in most spots. This pushes it more in the direction of making sure you have a good plan to start with.

Demo is picked because what other options do the Imperials have really?

35 minutes ago, drumtier said:

The title is expensive but worth every point for sure, but making it to be paid and exhausted would just banish it from the tables.

Exhaust is not discard. In this case the only change from a practical perspective would be to make it susceptible to MS1 or any future card-exhausting mechanic.

5 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Exhaust is not discard. In this case the only change from a practical perspective would be to make it susceptible to MS1 or any future card-exhausting mechanic.

Yeah, meant that, sorry. As Zam wrote...

The FAQ I want would likely impact very little at Worlds. There are just a lot of small rules questions that aren't properly clarified or have been answered outside of the FAQ. I want all that updated and put in. No big nerfs, no surprising changes. Just a rules questions quality of life update.

26 minutes ago, xanderf said:

IMO, the best possible 'fix' to Demo also fixes a fundamental flaw in the game that has long given too big an advantage to MSU lists , over-exaggerated importance of 1st player, and also speeds up play.

Except MSU hasn't been good for years now, and the trend continues to ago away from MSU. The last two Regionals season have shown very poor showings of MSU at the top tables. That trend has continued this season thus far. If the data says anything so far, activation count matters less than ever. Lists with four activations are just as prevalent as lists with six activations at the top tables.

What you're proposition is a fundamental change to the game that would make it more like X-Wing. I don't think I would enjoy the diminished choice and more restriction such a change would cause.

1 hour ago, Zamalekite said:

Demolisher will probably get nerfed  a bi  t

I bet you 1,000,000 galactic credits that this won't happen.

1 minute ago, Truthiness said:

Except MSU hasn't been good for years now, and the trend continues to ago away from MSU. The last two Regionals season have shown very poor showings of MSU at the top tables. That trend has continued this season thus far. If the data says anything so far, activation count matters less than ever. Lists with four activations are just as prevalent as lists with six activations at the top tables.

What you're proposition is a fundamental change to the game that would make it more like X-Wing . I don't think I would enjoy the diminished choice and more restriction such a change would cause.

Wondering how this is getting confused, because this change makes it less like X-Wing.

X-Wing has only 6 initiative levels. At any given initiative level, you freely choose what order you want to move ships, and can change that decision from one turn to the next - exactly like Armada is, now. The only time X-Wing has a fixed activation order is when different initiative levels are at play, but that's as much about how one list moves vs another as anything, which doesn't factor in here. And when order restriction does come into play in X-Wing - it's not adjustable, but static and decided by the list.

The suggestion, here, is quite different in effect and fits the Armada differences from X-Wing well. It's something you have total control over , but have to plan in advance , and then you cannot change your mind on later. The "diminished choice and more restriction" matches other such decisions in Armada - and it's not that much of a change, anyway. Rather than deciding six times over the course of a game what your activation order is, you decide once.

Major gameplay changes, No.

Clarifications about wording, timing, and such on some rules, cards, and other interactions would be nice though.

2 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

I bet you 1,000,000 galactic credits that this won't happen.

I will triple that bet. Demo is picked because the amount of decent mid point ships for Imperials is extremely lacking.

45 minutes ago, ripper998 said:

I will triple that bet. Demo is picked because the amount of decent mid point ships for Imperials is extremely lacking.

All of this @Zamalekite

Rather than nerfing things are being used, how about changing up the things that never get touched.

Propose the following cards to be changed in someway or another to make them usable or at least a viable option!

• Independence
• Redemption
• Point Defence Reroute
• Dominator
• Insidious
• Sensor Teams
• Fire Control Teams
• All the liasons
• XX-9
• Liberty
• YV 666
• Lancers
• All the red objectives that are not Most Wanted, Advanced Gunnery and Station Assault
• Fleet Ambush
• Director Isard
• Redundant Shields
• Cluster Bombs (a great upgrade really, but it only comes in the mc80?!)
• Heavy Turbo Laser Turrets
• Ion Canon Batteries (killed by HIEs)
• MS-1 Ion Canons
• Expanded Launchers
• Walex Bissex
  

24 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Rather than nerfing things are being used, how about changing up the things that never get touched.

Propose the following cards to be changed in someway or another to make them usable or at least a viable option!

• Independence
• Redemption
• Point Defence Reroute
• Dominator
• Insidious
• Sensor Teams
• Fire Control Teams
• All the liasons
• XX-9
• Liberty
• YV 666
• Lancers
• All the red objectives that are not Most Wanted, Advanced Gunnery and Station Assault
• Fleet Ambush
• Director Isard
• Redundant Shields
• Cluster Bombs (a great upgrade really, but it only comes in the mc80?!)
• Heavy Turbo Laser Turrets
• Ion Canon Batteries (killed by HIEs)
• MS-1 Ion Canons
• Expanded Launchers
• Walex Bissex
  

I've asked for that for the last year and people just tell me "eh it's fine to have useless stuff in a game".

Ugh.