1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Can you see that making definitive statements on the basis of incomplete information might be setting yourself up for defeat? I can see why some may be concerned that high activation MSU fleets may be affected. I cannot see how this can be certain yet.

Which of my predictions regarding pass tokens do you have an issue with? Or that they generally are predictions? As far as predictions go I think they are actually somewhat reserved. Obviously we dont know the entire story, but I think my guesses are likely. Also I generally do not care to win anything by posting here. I have no influence on any person's opinion or actions, least of all the game designers. I came here to defend another person. Its generally all the reason I post anymore, I do not enjoy the atmosphere on this forum - not because its overly toxic but rather overly self-affirming.

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

Which of my predictions regarding pass tokens do you have an issue with? Or that they generally are predictions? As far as predictions go I think they are actually somewhat reserved. Obviously we dont know the entire story, but I think my guesses are likely. Also I generally do not care to win anything by posting here. I have no influence on any person's opinion or actions, least of all the game designers. I came here to defend another person. Its generally all the reason I post anymore, I do not enjoy the atmosphere on this forum - not because its overly toxic but rather overly self-affirming.

Its the propensity for making definitive statements which drives the culture of this forum in my view. I have no issue with your predictions, I have an issue with the tone of language that came with them. The issue is grammatical.

The sky is red.

I believe the sky is red.

One of those statements starts an argument, the other does not, despite both being seemingly absurd.

2 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Which of my predictions regarding pass tokens do you have an issue with? Or that they generally are predictions? As far as predictions go I think they are actually somewhat reserved. Obviously we dont know the entire story, but I think my guesses are likely. Also I generally do not care to win anything by posting here. I have no influence on any person's opinion or actions, least of all the game designers. I came here to defend another person. Its generally all the reason I post anymore, I do not enjoy the atmosphere on this forum - not because its overly toxic but rather overly self-affirming.

I think it's too early to say that high activation lists will be "obsolete." But the rest of your above post is pretty interesting; in my meta most people want to go first, but I've definitely met players who prefer second. Depends a lot on the list too.

I don't think it's self-affirming to say "let's wait until all the rules are released." This isn't defending the game or FFG blindly, this is giving them a fair chance.

The self-affirming part was not specifically targeted at this thread but meant in general.

11 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

Assuming that a pass system is designed to simply allow parity with the opposing fleet as opposed to an "I go last" mechanic, this will likely have a positive impact and induce more incentive for balanced fleets that are not designed around last-first or unopposed final maneuvers.

As I want this discussion to maybe go on if someone wants to, I'll talk some more about this aspect. And yes, we don't know all the actual facts so this is a discussion on an assumed problem. I realize many people likely do not want to participate in such a discussion, I really do not force anyone to do so (meant politely).

I think tournament players will always attempt to figure out an advantage of their fleet over a large amount of other fleet archetypes in order to win tournaments. Hopefully strenghts in some aspects come with weaknesses in other aspects of the game, otherwise we are landed with a list type or ship that dominates the meta. I think we agree we dont want that. If there is now a mechanic to easily balance out specific weaknesses and for a "significant" portion of the game, there is little reason not to do it - at least from a competetitive point of view. Coming back to pass tokens, lets assume all they do is that they allow you do go last in a turn of your choice (I really dont think this is an out of the world assumption given what exists and we know), low activation lists that aim at objectives now have a free method to account for their main weakness: vulnerability to a last-first. I like thinking up lists. I really am unable to figure out why I should make a tournament list with many activations. One/two large, speed three ships to bunker points with a/two flotillas and squads would be my go to - assuming pass tokens work the way I assume.

I generally do not understand why it is seemingly considered bad that large ships with a bunch of dice also have weaknesses. I agree that it is not fun when 7 CR90s with TRC murder your ISD, nor should it be as easy as it was prior to the recent focus on large ships. Armada should be a game of skill were lists of a certain quality are generally on equal footing and wins are decided by strategy and planning. Of course it was never perfect but it was pretty good and the reason why I started playing the game. Two/Three years back it started to feel more like Rock-Paper-Scissors, and with the last wave it feels like slow rock vs extreme range scissors.

Summing up: Armada game designers have the tough job of balancing a very complex game. With other games this is done in small increments. I think Bail/SA/Pryce and my assumed pass token mechanic are drastic changes that allowed and potentially will allow for more problems to sprout up than they solved. The introduction of extreme range was incredibly drastic, not in itself a bad mechanic, but the dice output the Onager allows at this range is far over the top. I dont know why things are done this way now, maybe there are good reasons for it.

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

As I want this discussion to maybe go on if someone wants to, I'll talk some more about this aspect. And yes, we don't know all the actual facts so this is a discussion on an assumed problem. I realize many people likely do not want to participate in such a discussion, I really do not force anyone to do so (meant politely).

I think tournament players will always attempt to figure out an advantage of their fleet over a large amount of other fleet archetypes in order to win tournaments. Hopefully strenghts in some aspects come with weaknesses in other aspects of the game, otherwise we are landed with a list type or ship that dominates the meta. I think we agree we dont want that. If there is now a mechanic to easily balance out specific weaknesses and for a "significant" portion of the game, there is little reason not to do it - at least from a competetitive point of view. Coming back to pass tokens, lets assume all they do is that they allow you do go last in a turn of your choice (I really dont think this is an out of the world assumption given what exists and we know), low activation lists that aim at objectives now have a free method to account for their main weakness: vulnerability to a last-first. I like thinking up lists. I really am unable to figure out why I should make a tournament list with many activations. One/two large, speed three ships to bunker points with a/two flotillas and squads would be my go to - assuming pass tokens work the way I assume.

I generally do not understand why it is seemingly considered bad that large ships with a bunch of dice also have weaknesses. I agree that it is not fun when 7 CR90s with TRC murder your ISD, nor should it be as easy as it was prior to the recent focus on large ships. Armada should be a game of skill were lists of a certain quality are generally on equal footing and wins are decided by strategy and planning. Of course it was never perfect but it was pretty good and the reason why I started playing the game. Two/Three years back it started to feel more like Rock-Paper-Scissors, and with the last wave it feels like slow rock vs extreme range scissors.

Summing up: Armada game designers have the tough job of balancing a very complex game. With other games this is done in small increments. I think Bail/SA/Pryce and my assumed pass token mechanic are drastic changes that allowed and potentially will allow for more problems to sprout up than they solved. The introduction of extreme range was incredibly drastic, not in itself a bad mechanic, but the dice output the Onager allows at this range is far over the top. I dont know why things are done this way now, maybe there are good reasons for it.

Under your predicted pass token system, which ships (or fleets) would get pass tokens? Would flotillas get pass tokens? (I'm predicting that flotillas do not get pass tokens. Based on following FFG's previous flotilla nerfs.)

As for the Bail, Pryce, SA, Onager: yeah, I'm not going to defend those game decisions. But I like the changes they've made to flotillas so far (no commander, 2 max, don't prevent tabling) and am hoping that the pass token change means that less players bring flotillas for no other reason than cheap activations.

1 hour ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Under your predicted pass token system, which ships (or fleets) would get pass tokens? Would flotillas get pass tokens? (I'm predicting that flotillas do not get pass tokens. Based on following FFG's previous flotilla nerfs.)

Well, assuming the goal is to give the fleet with fewer activations a "last", you would need to give them the difference between the opponent's activations and your own. Your idea seems to give the list with fewer activations a pass token per ship, maybe excluding flotillas. I think I would prefer the first option in any case. Effectively doubling the activations of a list in a given round seems even more disruptive in fringe cases, even if it is just for non-flotilla activations. Making a list with 3 ships and 1 flotillas gives you 3 eextra activations if your opponent brought 5 activations, but only one in the other case. However I like your idea of somehow excluding flotillas from the pass token system if it is possible, maybe flotillas can never pass?

1 hour ago, Bertie Wooster said:

But I like the changes they've made to flotillas so far (no commander, 2 max, don't prevent tabling) and am hoping that the pass token change means that less players bring flotillas for no other reason than cheap activations.

Agreed

Clarifying question @RapidReload to make surr I'm understanding right but are u predicting that the new pass mechanic would allow the player with fewer activations (who we assume would be the one getting thr pass tokens) to get the last activation in a round that they use there tokens regardless of wether they are the first player or not?

10 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

Clarifying question @RapidReload to make surr I'm understanding right but are u predicting that the new pass mechanic would allow the player with fewer activations (who we assume would be the one getting thr pass tokens) to get the last activation in a round that they use there tokens regardless of wether they are the first player or not?

I would assume its tailored to counter a last-first somehow. I hope they dont design it to enable a last-first for the first player - that would make noone happy.

12 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

I would assume its tailored to counter a last-first somehow. I hope they dont design it to enable a last-first for the first player - that would make noone happy.

I see. I personally think they will only give enough tokens to match your opponents activations and since we know the new tokens are 1 time use that would allow you to only match your opponents activations once during the game assuming u save all your tokens for 1 round/dont lose any ships. It would help lower activation list without comepletely killing high ativation lists

7 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

I see. I personally think they will only give enough tokens to match your opponents activations and since we know the new tokens are 1 time use that would allow you to only match your opponents activations once during the game assuming u save all your tokens for 1 round/dont lose any ships.

I agree with this guess. But that is actually much more powerful than Pryce. You can choose the turn during which you delay in the game instead of after deployment, and you are able to delay multiple activations during that turn, while Pryce only delayed a single activation. So a high activation list would still get all its "last activations" against the non-Pryce ships, if every enemy ship gets a pass token you get only about half of them. Also Pryce could be planned for after deployment and was locked to a specific ship. You cannot plan for when your opponent decides to use pass tokens or which ship will go last. And you dont need to actually include Pryce of course, free officer slot :-).

34 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

I agree with this guess. But that is actually much more powerful than Pryce. You can choose the turn during which you delay in the game instead of after deployment, and you are able to delay multiple activations during that turn, while Pryce only delayed a single activation. So a high activation list would still get all its "last activations" against the non-Pryce ships, if every enemy ship gets a pass token you get only about half of them. Also Pryce could be planned for after deployment and was locked to a specific ship. You cannot plan for when your opponent decides to use pass tokens or which ship will go last. And you dont need to actually include Pryce of course, free officer slot :-).

Yes and no. Pryce telegraphs a lot earlier, it’s true, but she also seems a lot harder to bait out (as in, you have to trick them on engagement timing starting at deployment. They know exactly when they are 100% committed to forcing a fight.) And only the second player gets that last activation.

Here if you can get them to spend one pass token a round too early, possibly before most of your ships have even moved, you’re back to getting last activation when it matters.

I predict that’s going to be achievable for high-vs-low activations or lists with good speed control, but who knows.

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

I agree with this guess. But that is actually much more powerful than Pryce. You can choose the turn during which you delay in the game instead of after deployment, and you are able to delay multiple activations during that turn, while Pryce only delayed a single activation. So a high activation list would still get all its "last activations" against the non-Pryce ships, if every enemy ship gets a pass token you get only about half of them. Also Pryce could be planned for after deployment and was locked to a specific ship. You cannot plan for when your opponent decides to use pass tokens or which ship will go last. And you dont need to actually include Pryce of course, free officer slot :-).

Pryce allows a ship to go last regardless if u are second or first player. If the pass token work the way I think they will they wouldnt enable a last first tactic (by themselves) because the second player will always have the last activation on the round the tokens are used (assuming no ships have been lost) since you are only given enough tokens to match activations with your opponent for 1 round if u decide to use them that way

Another thought. Any amount of Pass Tokens are worthless against a two ship alpha-strike (last first attack) with Price onboard.

They aren‘t the chosen ones to bring balance to the for... fleets.

24 minutes ago, Triangular said:

Another thought. Any amount of Pass Tokens are worthless against a two ship alpha-strike (last first attack) with Price onboard.

Theay aren‘t the chosen ones to bring balance to the for... fleets.

This feels a lot like all the predictions that an SSD with Tua was going to be unstoppable. Turns out you couldn’t put her on the SSD. I doubt FFG is going to change up the activation game without doing something to Bail/Pryce/SA.

2 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Well, assuming the goal is to give the fleet with fewer activations a "last", you would need to give them the difference between the opponent's activations and your own. Your idea seems to give the list with fewer activations a pass token per ship, maybe excluding flotillas. I think I would prefer the first option in any case. Effectively doubling the activations of a list in a given round seems even more disruptive in fringe cases, even if it is just for non-flotilla activations. Making a list with 3 ships and 1 flotillas gives you 3 eextra activations if your opponent brought 5 activations, but only one in the other case. However I like your idea of somehow excluding flotillas from the pass token system if it is possible, maybe flotillas can never pass?

If it's 7 Ackbar CR90s vs. 2 ships + max squads, I don't think they're going to give 5 pass tokens to the list with 2 ships and squads. That seems ridiculous. I don't know what solution they'll come up with, but I'm sure it'll be more thought-out than that.

1 hour ago, lunitic501 said:

Pryce allows a ship to go last regardless if u are second or first player. If the pass token work the way I think they will they wouldnt enable a last first tactic (by themselves) because the second player will always have the last activation on the round the tokens are used (assuming no ships have been lost) since you are only given enough tokens to match activations with your opponent for 1 round if u decide to use them that way

True, you are right. Maybe thats what they will do.

2 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Here if you can get them to spend one pass token a round too early, possibly before most of your ships have even moved, you’re back to getting last activation when it matters.

Feels like you are hoping your opponent makes a mistake that good players are usually not gonna make?

33 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

If it's 7 Ackbar CR90s vs. 2 ships + max squads, I don't think they're going to give 5 pass tokens to the list with 2 ships and squads. That seems ridiculous. I don't know what solution they'll come up with, but I'm sure it'll be more thought-out than that.

Your word in the game designers' ear. No really, someone tell them.

24 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

Your word in the game designers' ear. No really, someone tell them.

That assumes that they need someone to tell them.

Good thing I have these Advanced Projectors to keep me safe fom all the sky that's falling in here.

6 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Feels like you are hoping your opponent makes a mistake that good players are usually not gonna make?

More force it of them through better engagement control.

Take the Starhawks that have been so popular of late: slow, mid-ranged, and unable to change that much at all.

On the opposite end of that spectrum, a Leia CR90 or Ozzel Raider-2. Any speed or range of their choosing at a moment's notice.

When these extremes meet, it's not just about skill: the flexible player chooses when they fight, and the other player doesn't. 2-3 enemy ships in the back or flanks move before the Starhawk fleet has to commit to those pass tokens if the Hawk's going last.

Now, these are 2 extremes, but isn't that the concern really? That low activation fleets will become overly viable?

...And as an aside, I hate to think what this means for dealing with Ravager.

10 hours ago, bkcammack said:

This feels a lot like all the predictions that an SSD with Tua was going to be unstoppable. Turns out you couldn’t put her on the SSD. I doubt FFG is going to change up the activation game without doing something to Bail/Pryce/SA.

What‘s that for? I never complained about anything being overpowered, unstoppable or anything likely. It is a fact that FFG will bring Pass Tokens and the chief developer said in an interview (if I remember correctly) they try to even out activation unbalance and make last-first less of an issue.

Then someone said: don‘t speculate if you don‘t know all facts and playtesters like the new mechanic. I didn‘t speculate anymore, but the discussion was going on. And I just said Pass Tokens are useless against Pryce. Now you blame me for being ngative and speculate yourself about changes for even Bail, Pryce and Strategic Advisor.

How does it come that your speculation is good and mine has been bad? And in which way did I hurt your feelings? I‘m sorry, if I did.

All I conclude is: We need News

.

.

.

FAST!

.

.

.

please?

I've been hoping that SA would change or be removed completely ever since I realised how powerful and dull a card it is.

Hopefully, something happens to it in the latest updates.

2 hours ago, Triangular said:

It is a fact that FFG will bring Pass Tokens and the chief developer said in an interview (if I remember correctly) they try to even out activation unbalance and make last-first less of an issue.

I listened to that part of the interview again, and here's the quote:

"The difference in numbers of activations that each side has, has always been a strong part of the game that's arisen out of fleet composition and matchup. I think what the pass tokens do is to smooth that out just a little bit, and to integrate that advantage that having more activations gives you, err, to counterbalance that just a little bit with a fleet that has a number of low activations. This is all with the goal with the goal of trying to bring a little more parity between those, without necessarily a low activation fleet having to rely on gimmicks to get by."

I won't write out the rest (you can listen to the whole section starting at 18:38 of episode 23 https://steelstrategy.podbean.com ) but in summary,
1. Yes, they're trying to mitigate last-first advantage
2. Pass tokens are expendable, so you'll have to decide when to use them.
3. Players won't feel like they have to bring upgrades to give them an activation advantage.

He didn't say "even out," he said "smooth out just a little bit" and "counterbalance that just a little bit." If the number of activations were evened, that would be a drastic change. See above, my example of 7 CR90s vs. 2 ships with squads. 5 pass tokens for the 2-ship list? Insane. But what if it's just 1? Or maybe 1 for the CR90 list, and 2 for the 2-ship list? I'm not sure how it'll work, but I'm hopeful that they've learned from studying tournaments a way to make it fun.

It wouldn't surprise me if Strategic Adviser, Bail Organa and Governor Pryce were eliminated altogether (as you suspect), since SAd + pass tokens seems silly.