22 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

You're still assuming that the 1st player is placing his two drops of Obstacles in places that don't matter.

Whereas, if they cannily use it to spoil the "perfect position" drop the 2nd player requires, you can get an SSD in position.

Good point. This way you can block the "cannot deploy". But you cannot Block the "has to turn to the 3'' edge.

Basically this, just even more extrem turning to right (toward the 3'' edge), when you move the first obstacle a bit more to the right.
This was just an example if the SSD has to touch the players edge. if he does not have to, you can force him even more around.

And my opinion remains 😁 . I would not pick this mission as first player with an SSD as flagship. It is just too bad.

The Chart Officer clarification is interesting. Not the way I would have interpreted the card working on multiple obstacles. But a choice that makes sense.

Other than that they're mostly nice (if in some cases long-overdue) confirmations that things work the way we thought they worked.

However, there is one possible problem with this FAQ, under Exogorth Effects:

Quote

While a squadron is defending, the opposing player (or team) resolves each step of that attack.

I get what they're trying to say here; it nerfs the slight second-player advantage of being able to choose which exogorth to attack with, and then not spending accuracies when attacking their own squadrons. And it makes things consistent; if your stuff is being attacked, the other player is rolling the dice and controlling the attack.

Except I think they may have gone a bit too far the other way. The "Spend Defense Tokens" step of an attack is a step of the attack. Under this rule, the opposing player resolves that step as well. Which means your opponent gets to choose whether your squadron spends its defense tokens during the exogorth attack. Which is crazy, and almost certainly not intended.

So rather than giving the player who chose the exogorth the advantage of not spending accuracies to lock down defense tokens, they've ended up giving players the advantage of either not spending defense tokens on opponent's squadrons (for extra damage), or spending already-exhausted tokens to burn them (even if not needed).

Disclaimer: I don't think anyone should interpret the rule change this way in games...

-----------------------------------------------

Just to go back to the ETs issue:

5 hours ago, RapidReload said:

If I understood you correctly this is interpreted to mean that resolving the command allows you to then resolve the effect of the card even after the command has already been resolved? As far as I have seen only ET and Quantum Storm "violate" the timing of the rules in this way.

The timing for Engine Techs (and Quantum Storm) is a bit weird, but does make sense.

1. While executing a maneuver (including a non-standard one), you can spend a navigate dial or token to resolve a navigate command,
2. while resolving a navigate command you can trigger Engine Techs (as it has the navigate header),
3. but Engine Techs doesn't have any effect until later; "after you execute a maneuver" it gives you the option of exhausting the card to perform the speed-1 maneuver.

So they don't violate the normal timing rules. They just have 2 different timings. But that's not unusual; that's also how brace and redirect defense tokens work (you spend them at one point, and then they have an effect later). The main difference here is that you trigger ET's at one point, and then get the option to exhaust the card later.

The ET clarification should not be a surprise. When you spend a Navigate Dial to increase a yaw value you do so "for this maneuver" only, so there is no way it should apply to the ET maneuver (which is a separate one) - that said, I've seen people play this incorrectly. This is different to Jerjerrod, which persist beyond just that one maneuver.

In theory you could spend a dial or token (or use Beck) to resolve a navigate command during an ET maneuver to add an extra click, except you can't because you need to resolve a navigate command during an earlier maneuver to trigger ETs, and you can only resolve each command once per turn.

12 hours ago, Formynder4 said:

He's pretty clearly understood, so nothing to edit there.

He's clearly understood, just terribly broken. He's a prime example of a Negative Play Experience. What are no squadron/light squadron lists supposed to do against 8-12 attacks a turn?

1 hour ago, JauntyChapeau said:

He's clearly understood, just terribly broken. He's a prime example of a Negative Play Experience. What are no squadron/light squadron lists supposed to do against 8-12 attacks a turn?

What's mavaldo?

3 minutes ago, thestag said:

What's mavaldo?

I have to assume he meant Moralo Eval - I hadn't even noticed that weird typo. He's the one who gets an attack and can move distance one each time that an objective token is moved within distance 2 of him.

2 minutes ago, JauntyChapeau said:

I have to assume he meant Moralo Eval - I hadn't even noticed that weird typo. He's the one who gets an attack and can move distance one each time that an objective token is moved within distance 2 of him.

Oh yeah, he's beastly with the right setup. I haven't abused him yet, as that leads to the dark side of the force.

4 hours ago, Grumbleduke said:

Except I think they may have gone a bit too far the other way. The "Spend Defense Tokens" step of an attack is a step of the attack. Under this rule, the opposing player resolves that step as well. Which means your opponent gets to choose whether your squadron spends its defense tokens during the exogorth attack. Which is crazy, and almost certainly not intended.

I don't think that's quite right (and just clarified on Discord). The rules for the "Spend Defense Tokens" step states that the "defender can spend one or more of its defense tokens." So not the person controlling the exogorth, who is the attacker.

1 hour ago, JauntyChapeau said:

He's clearly understood, just terribly broken. He's a prime example of a Negative Play Experience. What are no squadron/light squadron lists supposed to do against 8-12 attacks a turn?

Kill the ships quickly.

It’s beastly in the right hands, but it’s still a Quasar and a VSD. Even Tokra lost to a tanky Onager list. Competitive data doesn’t reflect it being good (yet), so we simply don’t have a problem.

What about the new dial/token spending rules? Does that mean that I can't use my CF dial for the first attack and the token for the second? If so, do I have to declare that I'm gonna add one die and reroll that other one?

5 minutes ago, Norell said:

What about the new dial/token spending rules? Does that mean that I can't use my CF dial for the first attack and the token for the second? If so, do I have to declare that I'm gonna add one die and reroll that other one?

What? Thats not a "new" rule at all. Thats always been a core rule of the game since the start. And this is actually their 2nd clarification attempt to get people to understand that.

You can only resolve a command once per round. Period.

So yes, you must declare if you are resolving the command as either a dial, or as a token, or as dial+token.

In the case of CF you must spent dial+token in the same attack and delcare that before you roll in the extra die.

There is no added I wait and see the result and then spend the concentrate fire token to reroll you have to declare that before you roll the first die.

17 minutes ago, Karneck said:

What? Thats not a "new" rule at all. Thats always been a core rule of the game since the start. And this is actually their 2nd clarification attempt to get people to understand that.

I appreciate this, because I had the wrong impression before that you could "add the token" after rolling the die from the dial. I understand now why the command is resolved as one, but I'll say it feels natural (to me at least) to resolve them as two since they're two separate physical components. Something that maybe would be handled better as a digital game.

30 minutes ago, Karneck said:

What? Thats not a "new" rule at all. Thats always been a core rule of the game since the start. And this is actually their 2nd clarification attempt to get people to understand that.

You can only resolve a command once per round. Period.

So yes, you must declare if you are resolving the command as either a dial, or as a token, or as dial+token.

In the case of CF you must spent dial+token in the same attack and delcare that before you roll in the extra die.

There is no added I wait and see the result and then spend the concentrate fire token to reroll you have to declare that before you roll the first die.

Hello there!

I have an extra query that I hope you can help with. Playing Leia commander, do I also have to declare that I will use her effect when I add the die?

Additionally, using a normal dial+token, if I roll well on all the dice, can I choose to not reroll any die (despite having to spend the token)?

6 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

Hello there!

I have an extra query that I hope you can help with. Playing Leia commander, do I also have to declare that I will use her effect when I add the die?

Additionally, using a normal dial+token, if I roll well on all the dice, can I choose to not reroll any die (despite having to spend the token)?

Yes, each time you play Leia the commander, you do need to state your intentions when you are resolving a command dial if you will or will not be using Leia's ability. Do not make assumptions your opponent will "figure it out". This helps both players ensure a proper game state.
Yes, you can decide NOT to reroll any die. When you resolve a commands effect, those effects are "optional". You are not forced to do them.

6 hours ago, Grumbleduke said:

In theory you could spend a dial or token (or use Beck) to resolve a navigate command during an ET maneuver to add an extra click, except you can't because you need to resolve a navigate command during an earlier maneuver to trigger ETs, and you can only resolve each command once per turn.

I suppose we could theoretically get an officer or commander (or whatever) upgrade some time in the future that breaks that rule and DOES let you resolve any given command more than once a turn, assuming you have the tokens/dials to do so.

It should be pretty cheap, as this sort of thing doesn't come up OFTEN, but definitely there are some use cases for it (the ET example above - use a token to trigger the upgrade; later resolve the command a second time during the ET maneuver with the dial to turn sharper...probably Executor would like it, too, when attacking three ships and it has a stack of CF tokens)...

If that DID happen, obviously the new FAQ entry on ET would need to be updated. (The FAQ entry suggesting, perhaps, that such a thing is not currently in the pipe)

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Kill the ships quickly.

It’s beastly in the right hands, but it’s still a Quasar and a VSD. Even Tokra lost to a tanky Onager list. Competitive data doesn’t reflect it being good (yet), so we simply don’t have a problem.

The Denver Regional was won by a version of this list with a MOV of over 1,000. 29 attendees, and a lot of good players. This list in the hands of a good player is very dangerous, and Eval is certainly broken. I understand that maybe you'd like more data, but 'just kill his ships' isn't really a helpful suggestion against this - that was the same non-solution posed for use against Rieekan Aceholes, and that was easier said than done.

20 minutes ago, JauntyChapeau said:

The Denver Regional was won by a version of this list with a MOV of over 1,000. 29 attendees, and a lot of good players. This list in the hands of a good player is very dangerous, and Eval is certainly broken. I understand that maybe you'd like more data, but 'just kill his ships' isn't really a helpful suggestion against this - that was the same non-solution posed for use against Rieekan Aceholes, and that was easier said than done.

The difference lies in how the table is avoided. Rieekan is more capable of getting away with a ship intact and protecting a lot of points and damage sources for the rest of the game. It's the same reason Tokra's Sloane fleet was so potent, as I understand it.

Quasars can't escape. VSDs can't escape. They usually won't even be navving. If a squadronless list isn't killing both of them by round 3, maybe the start of round 4, it's probably not a great list. Killing even one reduces the list's offensive potential, especially with Sloane on board.

That is certainly an exemplary performance (though far from unheard of), but I doubt any of the list's opponents could call themselves experienced in such a matchup (and wasn't it pre-Onager?). Because we certainly agree on one thing: used well, this list will shred an opponent who hasn't given it thought.

I'm not guaranteeing it will work, or that Moralo isn't broken. I'm saying that there is a severe lack of actual data out there, so expecting FFG to have decided on a nerf some time ago is silly when he doesn't clearly, statistically need one even now .

37 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

The difference lies in how the table is avoided. Rieekan is more capable of getting away with a ship intact and protecting a lot of points and damage sources for the rest of the game. It's the same reason Tokra's Sloane fleet was so potent, as I understand it.

Quasars can't escape. VSDs can't escape. They usually won't even be navving. If a squadronless list isn't killing both of them by round 3, maybe the start of round 4, it's probably not a great list. Killing even one reduces the list's offensive potential, especially with Sloane on board.

That is certainly an exemplary performance, but I doubt any of the list's opponents could call themselves experienced in such a matchup (and wasn't it pre-Onager?). Because we certainly agree on one thing: used well, this list will shred an opponent who hasn't given it thought.

I'm not guaranteeing it will work, or that Moralo isn't broken. I'm saying that there is a severe lack of actual data out there, so expecting FFG to have decided on a nerf some time ago is silly when he doesn't clearly, statistically need one right now .

I suppose I agree with your final conclusion about more data being needed, but you heard it here first! Coming to you live from Denver, Moralo Eval is broken as ****, and I think we'll see it at World making people very unhappy. I hope I'm wrong, but after seeing it in action over five rounds and just shredding all comers, I don't think I am.

I think the REAL issue is that if it does turn out to be utterly broken and in need of immediate fixing, we can expect that fix by mid-2021...

2 minutes ago, JauntyChapeau said:

I think the REAL issues is that if it does turn out to be utterly broken and in need of immediate fixing, we can expect that fix by mid-2021...

This is a complaint I can definitely agree with. I wonder if we'll start seeing increased Rogue wings, not because they can win a fight, but to force Moralo to play more conservatively and break the rhythm of extra movement through a squadron token. A YT-2400 can move 4 and get commanded at the top of the next round.

I've played a couple games against @LTD using the list (though I'm far from experienced), and we agreed at the time it was useful have multiple windows to threaten Moralo with attacks or his shuttles with engagement.

4 hours ago, ArmadaMatt said:

I don't think that's quite right (and just clarified on Discord). The rules for the "Spend Defense Tokens" step states that the "defender can spend one or more of its defense tokens." So not the person controlling the exogorth, who is the attacker.

I think that is what it is meant to say, and I think any sane TO would rule it that way. But it isn't quite what the rules say. "The attacker" and "the defender" in an attack aren't players, but ships or squadrons. Sometimes during an attack the rules don't specify who does what, and so it refers to the player (e.g. "Gather attack dice... and roll those dice..."), sometimes it specifies whether the attacker or defender does it (e.g. "the attacker can spend one or more of its [accuracy] icons..." and "The defender can spend one or more of its defense tokens.")

So sure, the attack step specifies that "the defender" spends defense tokens, but it also specifies that "the attacker" spends accuracies. If the new rule had said something like "the opposing player resolves all attacker effects" or "controls the attacker" or something like that, we get the sensible outcome. But it just says that they "resolve each step of that attack." If the opposing player gets to resolve the attack effects (choosing whether the attacker spends their accuracies) because that is an attack step and the opposing player resolves each step, the opposing player should also choose whether the defender spends their defense tokens, because that is also an attack step.

The confusion comes from the difference between "the attacker" (here the exogorth), "the defender" (a squadron) and "the player." By default a player controls their own stuff (which is obvious, but I think only set out in the Learn to Play booklet, p5 under "Ships and Squadrons", meaning any FAQ stuff overrides that).

But anyway... I don't think this discussion is particularly useful, or that it should be ruled this way. I just don't think it is as clear as "the attack rules say the defender does stuff, so that must mean the player whose squadron it is gets to choose."

17 minutes ago, Grumbleduke said:

But anyway... I don't think this discussion is particularly useful, or that it should be ruled this way. I just don't think it is as clear as "the attack rules say the defender does stuff, so that must mean the player whose squadron it is gets to choose."

Actually, this discussion is pretty useful for me, as it's giving me a better understanding of the intricacies of the rules (or in this case, the lack thereof). You definitely make good points about all this.

Why did FFG go with such vague wording on all this? Why do upgrades say "you" when they refer to the ship or squadron? Why is an attacker or defender a game unit, not a player?

I guess I keep comparing it to Magic: the Gathering, where things are super clear with terms like "player", "owner", "controller", and the like.

1 hour ago, ArmadaMatt said:

Actually, this discussion is pretty useful for me, as it's giving me a better understanding of the intricacies of the rules (or in this case, the lack thereof). You definitely make good points about all this.

Why did FFG go with such vague wording on all this? Why do upgrades say "you" when they refer to the ship or squadron? Why is an attacker or defender a game unit, not a player?

I guess I keep comparing it to Magic: the Gathering, where things are super clear with terms like "player", "owner", "controller", and the like.

If you’re a fan of MTG, you know that things haven’t always been quite so clear in their wordings and terminology. The first few years were a mess. But that game was forced to clean things up and standardize their wordings; they produce hundreds of new game pieces (cards) each year, and if their wordings remained as sloppy as they started, MTG would have collapsed long ago.

Armada has the luxury of a much more relaxed release schedule (maybe two dozen cards a year?)... and it’s let them be a bit loose sometimes. Their standard wordings really work pretty well, most of the time. Out of every 20 or so cards, there’s usually one that sparks a bunch of misunderstandings, which is not a bad success rate. They could just be a bit more nimble with the clarifications and rulings.

2 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

The first few years were a mess.

Haha, good point again! I sometimes forget how much younger of a game Armada is. And that FFG is a smaller company than WotC, too. But yes, you're right. The game is in a good spot.

13 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Kill the ships quickly.

It’s beastly in the right hands, but it’s still a Quasar and a VSD. Even Tokra lost to a tanky Onager list. Competitive data doesn’t reflect it being good (yet), so we simply don’t have a problem.

Well, the Onager was not the problem 😁 . This one died really fast and could only shoot once. It was the ISD with Gunnery Team, and that i moved both my ships next to each other. A stupid mistake, that i made because of the elimination system.

10 hours ago, JauntyChapeau said:

The Denver Regional was won by a version of this list with a MOV of over 1,000. 29 attendees, and a lot of good players. This list in the hands of a good player is very dangerous, and Eval is certainly broken. I understand that maybe you'd like more data, but 'just kill his ships' isn't really a helpful suggestion against this - that was the same non-solution posed for use against Rieekan Aceholes, and that was easier said than done.

I didn't see it in the Prime Data collection. One of the problems is, that no one is playing him, and because of this there is no need for a change.
There are only 9 Moralo in the Prime Data (out of 750+ fleets). Only two of these won a tournament (out of 43). This ratio is not really broken. even when you add the Denver one, it is not this much more.

Rieekan was played quite a lot (and still is, even after all these changes to him) 😁 .
A second reason for no change are the new ships and cards. Onager and Starhawk are good answers. Moralo was way stronger before these two ships.

And btw Rieekan: No change to him? What kind of FAQ is this? 😁 😉

On 3/3/2020 at 3:50 PM, JauntyChapeau said:

The Denver Regional was won by a version of this list with a MOV of over 1,000. 29 attendees, and a lot of good players. This list in the hands of a good player is very dangerous, and Eval is certainly broken. I understand that maybe you'd like more data, but 'just kill his ships' isn't really a helpful suggestion against this - that was the same non-solution posed for use against Rieekan Aceholes, and that was easier said than done.

Is there data for this anywhere? I didn't see anything from it. I'd love to have it for the data sheet.

On 3/4/2020 at 3:10 AM, Tokra said:

I didn't see it in the Prime Data collection. One of the problems is, that no one is playing him, and because of this there is no need for a change.
There are only 9 Moralo in the Prime Data (out of 750+ fleets). Only two of these won a tournament (out of 43). This ratio is not really broken. even when you add the Denver one, it is not this much more.

He sent me his list and is now in the Prime data. It is significantly different from other Morallo lists. The only out-of-activation mover is Squall and has not bid.