4 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If a change would be needed maybe it could come from other way. A token refresher line?

Explain pls.

15 minutes ago, Reavern said:

Explain pls.

Just an idea, nothing specific. Kind of Reeva Demesne thing added to her effect but just for evade tokens, maybe?

It would make her better as it synergies with herself but still have to play around her limitations. Better enough? Dunno.

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Just an idea, nothing specific. Kind of Reeva Demesne thing added to her effect but just for evade tokens, maybe?

It would make her better as it synergies with herself but still have to play around her limitations. Better enough? Dunno.

It would help against Sloane Maarek Jendon, one of Mothma's hardest counters.

3 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

By my definition (and I can understand if some would disagree) that makes 18/24 that have a downside, or at least have an ability that cannot be used by all ships (or squads, in Rieekan's case) in every situation, every round. Ozzel and Madine can use their ability all the time if they're always navigating, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better commanders than Moff Jerjerrod or Rieekan. As @ovinomanc3r pointed out, the downsides are for game design reasons.

IMO "situational" abilities are an inherent part of the game. For example, a ship's firing arcs have different attack pools, and you can only use certain dice at certain ranges. Technically, that's a situational limitation. However, as @ovinomanc3r wrote, that is a natural part of Armada's rules.

When you choose your Commander, you're committing to a play style that will enable you to use their abilities, and you implicitly accept that. If you choose Sloane as your Commander and inexplicably build your fleet without squadrons, or bring squadrons with Rogue, you only have yourself to blame.

If you choose Garm bel Iblis or General Tagge, its with the understanding that their abilities only work for two rounds -- but I wouldn't classify them as "situational". That's just how they work. You choose them with the understanding that their abilities only apply for two pre-defined rounds -- and your opponent knows that too.

Garm and Tagge would certainly be better if they could use their abilities every round, or the player could decide which rounds to use their abilities, or they added/recovered more tokens. However, if their abilities weren't limited, they'd cost more points. If Garm and Tagge could use their ability every round, they would need to cost at least 35 points (especially Tagge), and at a higher point cost, they might not be used more often than they are now -- perhaps even less because points are so tight -- so the change probably wouldn't be worthwhile.

Whereas the proposed change to Mon Mothma's ability would definitely be worthwhile; it's just a matter of revising her points cost to achieve balance. But the tactics used to counter Mon Mothma wouldn't change; players would want to get into close range to avoid having dice removed.

41 minutes ago, Reavern said:

IMO "situational" abilities are an inherent part of the game. For example, a ship's firing arcs have different attack pools, and you can only use certain dice at certain ranges. Technically, that's a situational limitation. However, as @ovinomanc3r wrote, that is a natural part of Armada's rules.

When you choose your Commander, you're committing to a play style that will enable you to use their abilities, and you implicitly accept that. If you choose Sloane as your Commander and inexplicably build your fleet without squadrons, or bring squadrons with Rogue, you only have yourself to blame.

If you choose Garm bel Iblis or General Tagge, its with the understanding that their abilities only work for two rounds -- but I wouldn't classify them as "situational". That's just how they work. You choose them with the understanding that their abilities only apply for two pre-defined rounds -- and your opponent knows that too.

Garm and Tagge would certainly be better if they could use their abilities every round, or the player could decide which rounds to use their abilities, or they added/recovered more tokens. However, if their abilities weren't limited, they'd cost more points. If Garm and Tagge could use their ability every round, they would need to cost at least 35 points (especially Tagge), and at a higher point cost, they might not be used more often than they are now -- perhaps even less because points are so tight -- so the change probably wouldn't be worthwhile.

Whereas the proposed change to Mon Mothma's ability would definitely be worthwhile; it's just a matter of revising her points cost to achieve balance. But the tactics used to counter Mon Mothma wouldn't change; players would want to get into close range to avoid having dice removed.

Bertie defined terminology prior to the discussion. You cannot claim moral high ground when you ignored this and argued something else. Writing essays does not make you a good communicator, listening does.

What if you made an expert shield techs like card, but for evades. Like 3 to 5 points whenever you spend an evade you may effect up to two dice instead of one.

14 minutes ago, xero989 said:

What if you made an expert shield techs like card, but for evades. Like 3 to 5 points whenever you spend an evade you may effect up to two dice instead of one.

That would end up with MM canceling two dice at medium range XD

11 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

That would end up with MM canceling two dice at medium range XD

Yes but you are spending more points to get that so if you have 4 ships you are spending 12-20 additional points to do that in effect making MM cost 42-50 points in that example. basically you do get a much better effect but you pay for it.

33 minutes ago, xero989 said:

Yes but you are spending more points to get that so if you have 4 ships you are spending 12-20 additional points to do that in effect making MM cost 42-50 points in that example. basically you do get a much better effect but you pay for it.

Why I would need to invest that in every ship?

Flotillas are ok as there are and I don't care if they die. I have got MM for 30 for every ship, I've got the special bonus just for, let's say, Admo, to cancel three dice, or Forsight, maybe a second ship but it would be really powerful anyway.

This effect is already in the game for, we could say, the same cost and it's unique.

I really doubt increasing die denial is the way to go.

Most ships get just one die or none while closing in. Furthermore, most ships are not ISDs or SSDs. Their pool won't be hurt, they will be destroyed. It's not about how many ally ship it's gonna affect, it's about how many enemy ships. Arquitens, Marks, Vic1, Peltas, Nebs, Cr90 are gonna need to brawl at close range (where some of them don't excel) just to get their batteries back and even then they are gonna be modified. And those who naturally want to be at close range doesn't run big pool either. Unless you face big pool ships the game will turn out to be a pillow fight and even something like the profundity will feel meh.

I mean, I like the idea at first, I don't like the results though.

Just to know: what's exactly the problem MM players are facing?

Mon Mothma players are having the problem of not existing...

3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Just to know: what's exactly the problem MM players are facing?

MM Player here. There is no problem, but the OP didn’t like that answer, which is how we got here.

7 hours ago, Admiral Calkins said:

MM Player here. There is no problem, but the OP didn’t like that answer, which is how we got here.

If you don't like the discussion, then no one is forcing you to participate, troll .

21 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Bertie defined terminology prior to the discussion. You cannot claim moral high ground when you ignored this and argued something else. Writing essays does not make you a good communicator, listening does.

That was his definition of the terminology, not mine. I explained why I define terms like "restriction" and "situational" differently, and provided examples to support my points.

What is this "moral high ground" BS? 🤨 If posts longer than a tweet somehow offend you, choose another thread.

10 hours ago, LTD said:

Mon Mothma players are having the problem of not existing...

Firstly, that's not true. Granted, the Organized Play statistics that I've read, there doesn't seem to be any Rebel players who reach the championships using Mon Mothma. However, IME I've encountered players using Mon Mothma and have lost a few times against them because of their focus on objectives-play.

Second, it's precisely the reason that MM is rarely used by Rebel players that supports my case that her Commander ability should be updated so that she's more competitive and will be used more often. Because what's the value of a Commander that is never/rarely used?

The reason why I started this thread was to address that problem and suggest how MM's ability could be updated as a result of the changes introduced in Wave 8, which could make MM relevant again, as well as make her ability logically consistent.

I acknowledge that allowing MM to cancel 2 dice at long range could be OP'd -- although I think it needs to be play-tested thoroughly to be certain.

As an alternative, I like @ovinomanc3r 's suggestion of giving Mon Mothma an ability similar to Reeva Demesne -- who is one of my favourite Wave 8 Officers BTW. Giving MM the ability to ready an exhausted defense token -- or strictly an Evade token -- when a ship is targeted for an attack would be a great Commander ability. Although I think it could be too OP'd unless it completely replaced MM's existing ability -- which I don't want.

Alternatively, it could be a secondary ability if it was exhaustible, like Reeva Demesne's ability. Meaning once per round, MM could be exhausted to ready the Evade token of one ship when it was targeted for an attack. That seems balanced because Reeva Demesne is a 4-point Officer, so if MM was updated with a similar secondary ability and kept at 30 points, she'd provide more value as a Commander without being OP'd.

I think adding that exhaustible secondary ability would give Mon Mothma the extra boost she needs to get back in the game. 😁

9 hours ago, LTD said:

Mon Mothma players are having the problem of not existing...

Ha! Take this!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zLdqo9y47lqIKubfrEUKV8gX5t9Ee-XuemM4xbiB_8A/edit#gid=322361150

Oh wait... you are totally right!

2 minutes ago, Reavern said:

Firstly, that's not true. Granted, the Organized Play statistics that I've read, there doesn't seem to be any Rebel players who reach the championships using Mon Mothma. However, IME I've encountered players using Mon Mothma and have lost a few times against them because of their focus on objectives-play.

Second, it's precisely the reason that MM is rarely used by Rebel players that supports my case that her Commander ability should be updated so that she's more competitive and will be used more often. Because what's the value of a Commander that is never/rarely used?

I mean, the existence of something in casual play doesn't necessarily affect competitive presence, viability, any of that. By the data LTD is right, Mothma doesn't really seem to exist. Nobody will be recorded as doing well with Mothma if they don't bring her to an event, no matter how much they play her casually.

Now, you can argue whether that's a symptom or the root problem. Maybe it's a combination of the two (personally I think it's a problem with the MSU archetype being prone to bleeding out points in tournament play, Mothma or no. And just being a lot more fatiguing to play.)

23 hours ago, Reavern said:

When you choose your Commander, you're committing to a play style that will enable you to use their abilities, and you implicitly accept that. If you choose Sloane as your Commander and inexplicably build your fleet without squadrons, or bring squadrons with Rogue, you only have yourself to blame.

Agreed. Meaning Mothma now needs to play in such a way as to not hang out in extreme range much, and luckily the most effective ships for her are great at it. Both double evade Rebel ships (CR90 and MC30) are also the only natural Rebel speed 4 small bases, which makes them very well suited to dodge and kill Onagers. The high activation count of her lists also allows the most threatened ship to even outlast an Onager. Mothma evades are even a good answer to that salvo token.

In my experience with pure TRC90/GR75 lists, it's a very good matchup against Onagers; the problems happen with Pryce, with Hawk + Squads, and often with Ravager. As before though, this is just anecdotal. I'm eager to see data for a season with a meaningful wave 8 presence.

2 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Now, you can argue

Some can. Others like redefining terms and moving goalposts making real conversation nigh impossible.

2 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Some can. Others like redefining terms and moving goalposts making real conversation nigh impossible.

Considering that tangent was off-topic and ultimately irrelevant to my thread , I'll gleefully redefine terms and whimsically move goalposts as much as I please. 😎

Now you are the one trying to derail this thread, all because you have nothing constructive or relevant to contribute about the topic of this thread.

14 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Why I would need to invest that in every ship?

Flotillas are ok as there are and I don't care if they die. I have got MM for 30 for every ship, I've got the special bonus just for, let's say, Admo, to cancel three dice, or Forsight, maybe a second ship but it would be really powerful anyway.

This effect is already in the game for, we could say, the same cost and it's unique.

I really doubt increasing die denial is the way to go.

Most ships get just one die or none while closing in. Furthermore, most ships are not ISDs or SSDs. Their pool won't be hurt, they will be destroyed. It's not about how many ally ship it's gonna affect, it's about how many enemy ships. Arquitens, Marks, Vic1, Peltas, Nebs, Cr90 are gonna need to brawl at close range (where some of them don't excel) just to get their batteries back and even then they are gonna be modified. And those who naturally want to be at close range doesn't run big pool either. Unless you face big pool ships the game will turn out to be a pillow fight and even something like the profundity will feel meh.

I mean, I like the idea at first, I don't like the results though.

Just to know: what's exactly the problem MM players are facing?

I can see that it was more a half baked idea. personally I feel the issue is that mon Mothma only befits ships that want to be at medium or close range. The only ships that want to be there that can use mon mothma reliably is a CR-90 B and mc-30. Another ship and a way to help cr-90 b's generate crits I think would go a long way, also another close range ship with evades would help.

2 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I mean, the existence of something in casual play doesn't necessarily affect competitive presence, viability, any of that. By the data LTD is right, Mothma doesn't really seem to exist. Nobody will be recorded as doing well with Mothma if they don't bring her to an event, no matter how much they play her casually.

LTD didn't specify competitive vs. casual play; he just facetiously claimed that there were no players existed who used Mon Mothma, which is factually and anecdotally incorrect. I found a ranking list from the Star Wars: Armada 2017 World Championships that the 5th place player used Mon Mothma. I also remember from the 2018 Toronto Armada Regional that the 8th place player used Mon Mothma.

That'll suffice to prove my point.

2 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Now, you can argue whether that's a symptom or the root problem. Maybe it's a combination of the two (personally I think it's a problem with the MSU archetype being prone to bleeding out points in tournament play, Mothma or no. And just being a lot more fatiguing to play.)

I'm not advocating that more players should use Mon Mothma in competitive play. I understand why she's not chosen; and I agree with you it's probably because MSU builds naturally tend to bleed out points. Perhaps if OP events were scored purely on wins and losses, rather than points, MSU builds would be more viable -- but I'm not advocating for that either.

It only makes sense to use Mon Mothma with ships with Evade, which are small ships and the one Rebel medium ship; which is why MSU makes the most sense for MM.

However, that could change in Wave 8 thanks to Kyrsta Agate's ability to give her flagship any defense token (except Scatter); which means that Rebel large ships can now use an Evade. (That's precisely what my friend did with his Mostly Small Unit Rebel build; he put Kyrsta Agate on a Liberty and gave it an Evade to try to counter my Onager.)

2 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Agreed. Meaning Mothma now needs to play in such a way as to not hang out in extreme range much, and luckily the most effective ships for her are great at it. Both double evade Rebel ships (CR90 and MC30) are also the only natural Rebel speed 4 small bases, which makes them very well suited to dodge and kill Onagers. The high activation count of her lists also allows the most threatened ship to even outlast an Onager. Mothma evades are even a good answer to that salvo token.

In my experience with pure TRC90/GR75 lists, it's a very good matchup against Onagers; the problems happen with Pryce, with Hawk + Squads, and often with Ravager. As before though, this is just anecdotal. I'm eager to see data for a season with a meaningful wave 8 presence.

Yes, it's possible we'll be seeing some competitive MM builds... whenever Organized Play resumes. #havefunbutbesafe 😉

Although ... Clone Wars Armada might be released before OP resumes, which means we may never get clean Wave 8 competitive statistics.

57 minutes ago, Reavern said:

LTD didn't specify competitive vs. casual play; he just facetiously claimed that there were no players existed who used Mon Mothma, which is factually and anecdotally incorrect. I found a ranking list from the Star Wars: Armada 2017 World Championships that the 5th place player used Mon Mothma. I also remember from the 2018 Toronto Armada Regional that the 8th place player used Mon Mothma.

That'll suffice to prove my point.

I don't think anyone takes the statement "Mon Mothma players don't exist" remotely literally. It's hyperbole. His point, as I understand it, is that the number of players using her in competitive events is statistically insignificant. (i.e. events that contribute to a meaningful dataset.)

If Mothma isn't present, Mothma won't win. If a single player takes Mothma for every 27 that take Rieekan, Mothma is also a lot less likely to win events compared to Rieekan.

We don't have meaningful data to indicate anything about Mothma right now because to all intents and purposes she doesn't appear on tables come tournament day. So what we're left with are assumptions and experiences that generally aren't well-founded. And in that sense, a lack of Mothma players is a core problem that stands in the way of rebalance.

(Side note: saw someone playing Mothma Amity, to your point about new Mothma archetypes. Looked interesting.)

The Jabbawookie doesn't exist.

No hyperbole.

1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I don't think anyone takes the statement "Mon Mothma players don't exist" remotely literally. It's hyperbole. His point, as I understand it, is that the number of players using her in competitive events is statistically insignificant. (i.e. events that contribute to a meaningful dataset.)

If Mothma isn't present, Mothma won't win. If a single player takes Mothma for every 27 that take Rieekan, Mothma is also a lot less likely to win events compared to Rieekan.

We don't have meaningful data to indicate anything about Mothma right now because to all intents and purposes she doesn't appear on tables come tournament day. So what we're left with are assumptions and experiences that generally aren't well-founded. And in that sense, a lack of Mothma players is a core problem that stands in the way of rebalance.

(Side note: saw someone playing Mothma Amity, to your point about new Mothma archetypes. Looked interesting.)

That seems like one of those statements about the impossibility of proving a negative that you often hear in arguments about religion, which is brilliantly embodied by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You can't disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn because it's invisible. And "believers" in the Invisible Pink Unicorn can't know that it is pink also because it's invisible.

The lack of data about Mon Mothma proves my point; or, at the very least, fails to disprove it.

You can't expect competitive Rebel players to suddenly adopt Mon Mothma and most likely perform poorly in OP events, just for the sake of providing statistical data about how MM performs in competitive play. And it's infeasible to gather data on casual play. Therefore, there's probably never going to any data about Mon Mothma's viability... if nothing changes.

Therefore, the appropriate question is: What exactly is the point of having a Commander that "no one" uses? 🤨

Wouldn't it make sense to revise an existing Commander so they are viable in competitive (and casual) play, instead of being a Commander card that just takes up space?

I doubt it will surprise anyone here that I am not a believer in the status quo . I don't believe things should remain the same just because that's the way they've always been. (I think current events support my case.)

I estimate there are at least 5 Commanders that Armada players think should be changed. And there are over a dozen upgrade cards in Armada that FFG originally created to serve a purpose and presumably intended for players to use, but for various reasons, they're never/rarely used. Therefore, I ask: What is the point in having them? Or... more aptly: What is the point in keeping them the same?

For example, someone recently commented on Sensor Team; if the card's requirement to remove a die to change a die to an Accuracy face was changed, it might actually be used. I like that idea. So why not support that suggestion to revise Sensor Team?

Like Sensor Team, Mon Mothma is just one example of an Armada card that could benefit from a revision that would make it viable to use, and therefore benefit Armada. Because if every Commander and upgrade card was actually useful and used by player, that would undeniably improve the Armada game.

3 hours ago, LTD said:

The Jabbawookie doesn't exist.

No hyperbole.

He did exist in 2017 however.

5 hours ago, xero989 said:

I can see that it was more a half baked idea. personally I feel the issue is that mon Mothma only befits ships that want to be at medium or close range. The only ships that want to be there that can use mon mothma reliably is a CR-90 B and mc-30. Another ship and a way to help cr-90 b's generate crits I think would go a long way, also another close range ship with evades would help.

It seems much more sensible to me to provide more ships which better fit the roles of existing commanders than to lark about overpowering a commander just because.