Also who says that there won't be adjusting points cost of squads? Some Aces should go up in price, some could come down. The same goes for generics like the YT-2400 is to efficient for its cost while the YV-666 and Gauntlet Fighter are to expensive.

I think some people will be surprised what effective fleets you can build with 4 aces - looking over my full squadron fleets from last years most were mostly generics with ace support. Y-Wings with Norra, X-Wings with Biggs/Jan, Interceptors with Howlrunner backed up by Reserved Hangar Deck, medium imperial fighter wing + 4 TIE-Bomber group, Sloane with Phantoms.

Yes. The classical (two-ship) Sloane Ace Ball and Rieekan Aces will be gone and that is a good thing. Hopefully this change will give a rise to medium fighter coverage's as they don't have to the deal with the much higher efficiency of aces as much.

25 minutes ago, Pikeman84 said:

This does nothing to address the root of the problem; aces are simply more cost efficient than generics.

This simply isnt true. I will agree that the perception of the majority of Armada players is that this is true, however I will disagree on it actually being true.

Generics shoot twice as much, have twice the hull and twice the deployment gain. The discrepancy is that when a force multiplier (Yavaris, Adar, Jendon etc) is being used aces offer clear advantages. This is a specific case, not all cases.

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Generics shoot twice as much, have twice the hull and twice the deployment gain. The discrepancy is that when a force multiplier (Yavaris, Adar, Jendon etc) is being used aces offer clear advantages. This is a specific case, not all cases.

They do have twice as much hull true, but without defense tokens that oftentimes equates to less effective hull overall. And I want to see the two generic TiE-Fighter squads that do more damage than Mauler can do consistently with a single move for less cost. And that is not the only example, there are definitely some more aces that outperform generics of the same combined cost (Steele, Shara, Cienna).

Also aces need fewer squadron activation/carriers and can combine more firepower into a single activation - I mean that's why two ship list are so formidable. However, as in my post above I in general agree that people underestimate generics, but also let's not undervalue aces here. Some of them are definitely too cost effective.

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

This simply isnt true. I will agree that the perception of the majority of Armada players is that this is true, however I will disagree on it actually being true.

Generics shoot twice as much, have twice the hull and twice the deployment gain. The discrepancy is that when a force multiplier (Yavaris, Adar, Jendon etc) is being used aces offer clear advantages. This is a specific case, not all cases.

Valen? Tel? (just two examples)
They are WAY to cheap for what they do. And outperform even generics that are more expensive.
or just take Stele (as one example). Only 30% more expensive (far from twice). With the defense tokens normaly way more than 30% more hull. With the two blue and the effect way more damage against ships. Just the damage against squadrons is a bit lower.

I think the only squadrons that cost really twice as much as the generics, are Mauler and Howlrunner. Most are around 30-70% more expensive. But with their effect and defense tokens they are worth it.

I dont think the question to ask is if Aces are better than generics as I would suggest FFG outright introducing rules to limit Ace usage means they do consider them to be too much.

The question is whether squadron heavy fleets will still be any good with just 4 aces when going into the squadron light builds (the classic "I just brought Shara and Tycho to buy me time if you do have squadrons and not to be a tto great loss of points if you did not" style)?

I do wonder what will happen to the mid tear aces that usually only see table time because they are slightly better than their generic version and there is a couple of points to spare? Actually I dont, because the answer is they will not be seen any more.

7 minutes ago, DDolan said:

The question is whether squadron heavy fleets will still be any good with just 4 aces when going into the squadron light builds (the classic "I just brought Shara and Tycho to buy me time if you do have squadrons and not to be a tto great loss of points if you did not" style)?

They will be, depending on the player and the squadron composition. Just as an example, I played a three-games series a few weeks ago using Ciena, Howlrunner, Saber, and 7 x TIE Interceptors (had 4 x Reserve Hanger Deck cards in my fleet too). Absolutely shredded my opponents' squadrons, including an opponent squadron balls that included Hera/Dash/Ketsu/Nym/Luke and Hera/Lando/Shara/Tycho. Just one example, but I definitely think heavy squadron lists will still have a place.

57 minutes ago, Thrindal said:

No per 100 fleet points.

So if you are playing a 400 point game but only took 395 points, 3 or 4 squads?

I think 4 but am I misunderstanding?

3 minutes ago, Admiral Calkins said:

They will be, depending on the player and the squadron composition. Just as an example, I played a three-games series a few weeks ago using Ciena, Howlrunner, Saber, and 7 x TIE Interceptors (had 4 x Reserve Hanger Deck cards in my fleet too). Absolutely shredded my opponents' squadrons, including an opponent squadron balls that included Hera/Dash/Ketsu/Nym/Luke and Hera/Lando/Shara/Tycho. Just one example, but I definitely think heavy squadron lists will still have a place.

I kind of think Rebels going Squadron Heavy outside of the weird 8 YT-2400 lists is dead in the water because the concentration of aces is the only reason their death balls tend to work.

24 minutes ago, Rune Taq said:

So if you are playing a 400 point game but only took 395 points, 3 or 4 squads?

I think 4 but am I misunderstanding?

You are allowed 4 squadrons in that fleet.

You consider the fleet limit and are thus not penalized in your squadron limit, due to the presence of a bid.

1 hour ago, Decarior said:

Also aces need fewer squadron activation/carriers and can combine more firepower into a single activation - I mean that's why two ship list are so formidable.

...I certainly wouldn't hate an 'Armada 1.5' rules update that generic squads only cost 1/2 a squad command point when activated.

And then change the 'squadron phase' and 'deployment phase' to be - instead of alternating back and forth 2 squads at a time, alternate back and forth 1 squad command point (IE., 1 ace or 2 generics) at a time.

1 hour ago, Rune Taq said:

So if you are playing a 400 point game but only took 395 points, 3 or 4 squads?

I think 4 but am I misunderstanding?

Hrm. Good point, they didn't call that out. I'd actually like that to be 3 - so if you want all 4 aces, you have to build right to 400 points. Gives you another counter-balance against going all-in to Aceball, then, as it guarantees you lose the initiative game.

But probably it's 4.

4 minutes ago, xanderf said:

...I certainly wouldn't hate an 'Armada 1.5' rules update that generic squads only cost 1/2 a squad command point when activated.

And then change the 'squadron phase' and 'deployment phase' to be - instead of alternating back and forth 2 squads at a time, alternate back and forth 1 squad command point (IE., 1 ace or 2 generics) at a time.

You want a 12-tie/bomber alpha? That's how you get a 12-tie/bomber alpha....

1 minute ago, rasproteus said:

You want a 12-tie/bomber alpha? That's how you get a 12-tie/bomber alpha....

*whistles nonchalantly*

You want generics to be a thing, right? That'd be a thing ...

1 hour ago, DDolan said:

I kind of think Rebels going Squadron Heavy outside of the weird 8 YT-2400 lists is dead in the water because the concentration of aces is the only reason their death balls tend to work.

What about Jan, Biggs and X-Wings?

Thank you so much for bringing this to us @shmitty . I thought the questions were excellent, and was really happy that Michael Gernes was so enthusiastic and forthcoming with his answers.

I am more excited about the future of Armada! I can't wait tho see all of the new ships and changes they have planned.

5 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

I withdraw my thanks from @shmitty Garm sucks.

Nope, you heard it straight from Gernes. Garm is the best.

1 hour ago, DDolan said:

The question is whether squadron heavy fleets will still be any good with just 4 aces when going into the squadron light builds (the classic "I just brought Shara and Tycho to buy me time if you do have squadrons and not to be a tto great loss of points if you did not" style)?

They will send a single scatter ace to lock down Shara, and bury tycho under a wall of fire. Just like before...

Or they will bring intel and ignore the jack squat damage Shara and tycho will do. Just like before...

Or pound at them with flight controller fueled Squads that starter with 4 dice anyway. Just like before..,

Or any number of viable strategies which didn’t change

1 hour ago, DDolan said:

I kind of think Rebels going Squadron Heavy outside of the weird 8 YT-2400 lists is dead in the water because the concentration of aces is the only reason their death balls tend to work.

Really?

Squadrons:
• Biggs Darklighter (19)
• Jan Ors (19)
• 2 x X-wing Squadron (26)
• Dagger Squadron (15)
• Gold Squadron (12)
• Ten Numb (19)
• Norra Wexley (17)
= 127 Points

Go take this and run it. You’ll be fine.

oh wait. here is one with three aces.

Squadrons:
• Biggs Darklighter (19)
• Jan Ors (19)
• Norra Wexley (17)
• 6 x X-wing Squadron (78)
= 133 Points

Total Points: 133

Oh wait, here’s a meatball with one ace.
Squadrons:
• Jan Ors (19)
• 4 x X-wing Squadron (52)
• 3 x B-wing Squadron (42)
• 2 x Y-wing Squadron (20)
= 133 Points

But this last screen must not be able to do any damage. It’s got too many generics. /s

Its fine to be concerned about any changes, but you’re worried about nothing here

7 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Thank you so much for bringing this to us @shmitty . I thought the questions were excellent, and was really happy that Michael Gernes was so enthusiastic and forthcoming with his answers.

I am more excited about the future of Armada! I can't wait tho see all of the new ships and changes they have planned.

We had so much fun with this one. Michael seemed to be having fun as well and was really pleased to see how excited everyone is about Armada.

21 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Oh wait, here’s a meatball with one ace.
Squadrons:
• Jan Ors (19)
• 4 x X-wing Squadron (52)
• 3 x B-wing Squadron (42)
• 2 x Y-wing Squadron (20)
= 133 Points

But this last screen must not be able to do any damage. It’s got too many generics. /s

Huh, I've actually been tinkering with something hella similar, lately, as an OpFor vs my Imperial lists. Although I leave the B-Wings and Jan Ors on an MC80(cc) with RLB. (Only slight difference is replacing the pair of Y's with Norra, so if the enemy has no or few enough squads that the X-Wings are dealing with them, it's Norra and the Bs on the MC80 - which is *super* gross)

Let me tell you - you do *not* want to get close to that ship. And gods help you if you end up in a situation where it can last/first you...

My impression from the interview was that the change was about trimming back a few outliers. I think many/most fleets stay the same. This has no impact at all on my most successful fleets, but I do know some players and fleets that will have to rethink things.

I really loved to hear that they are addressing the last-first problem. But (and this is a bit odd coming from me, after I have complained about last-first for years) I fear that it makes MSU even less playable. I wonder, if there is coming something for this problem as well. Maybe something against point fortressing of big ships (like the half hull rule of the SSD)?

10 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

I really loved to hear that they are addressing the last-first problem. But (and this is a bit odd coming from me, after I have complained about last-first for years) I fear that it makes MSU even less playable. I wonder, if there is coming something for this problem as well. Maybe something against point fortressing of big ships (like the half hull rule of the SSD)?

That did get mentioned in passing in the interview - that seems to be what their thoughts were on the pass tokens; one of the reasons that was being introduced.

Just now, xanderf said:

That did get mentioned in passing in the interview - that seems to be what their thoughts were on the pass tokens; one of the reasons that was being introduced.

My bad English. Yes, I tried to refer to that. I love it. But I fear that MSU becomes even less viable.

2 hours ago, Rune Taq said:

So if you are playing a 400 point game but only took 395 points, 3 or 4 squads?

I think 4 but am I misunderstanding?

I also understood it incorrectly first, that only 400 gives you the 4th ace. Would have liked that better, but admittedly would be harassment re list building. Still, a positive change.

In any case, squad players are not due a lot of condolences imho: 4 aces, other uniques, strong rogues, they will find a way to be competitive; its MSU players (still; again) who are:

Pass tokens sound threatening, Onagers and Starhawks are there, and other potential changes (upgrades, point costs) have yet to be revealed and evaluated in the new context.

2 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

My bad English. Yes, I tried to refer to that. I love it. But I fear that MSU becomes even less viable.

From what I understood (I could be wrong) is that you'll get a fixed number of pass tokens for the whole game and you can choose to spend them each turn or more than one per turn. So you might get 3 pass tokens and you could use them all on turn 4 to wait out a particular attack or use 1 each turn on turns 2-4.

I doubt that will ruin the chances of MSU, it'll just make bringing two Gozantis to make up extra activations less common.