Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hockeyzombie

  1. Why are you hoarding tokens with CR90s in the first place? Low command value means you should generally be using the dial to full effect. Why reroll when you can add another die entirely? 


    That said you're right about how CR90s get a better "value" out of squadron tokens, but again why are you even doing that? One early attack from a squadron seems less valuable than another die on your attack or the maneuvering power of a Navigate dial. You may get better value for your Squadron token than an ISD, but you still didn't get much out of it. And as other people have pointed out, three CR90s have more health in total but the ISD laughs off five to the hull while the CR90s lose a full third of their firepower (possibly more, if there were any upgrades involved). The CR90s also have to position themselves very carefully if they're actually going to get more than one double arc attack without crashing into each other or the ISD, and the ISD can handle a faceup damage card much better than a CR90. 


    Also, keep in mind that by your own logic the CR90s are getting screwed on upgrades. The ISD pays one 6 point investment for Navigation Officer, if that's what it wants. To do the same, the CR90s spend 18 points. With no upgrades the CR90s might have a chance but once you start equipping things the ISD will soon be cheaper than the corvettes and can throw in a Gozanti to offset the activation disadvantage. Maybe even a Raider if the CR90s are buying a lot of upgrades. And it bears repeating that the most likely outcome of a fight between three CR90s and one ISD-II is a dead corvette, maybe two and a wounded but living ISD. Once you get into an actual game scenario the ISD will have a small ship or two available to smash up CR90s while it fights contributes with side arcs. The front arc will probably have better things to do, but the CR90s are ****ed if it actually does get a medium range shot from the front at one of them. 


    Short version: It doesn't matter if tokens provide a higher "percentage" of value to small ships because they should be using the dial, big ships are the ones that can hoard tokens. The slight hull and firepower advantage is offset by the fact that they can easily lose firepower whenever enough damage is dealt to the same target while the ISD doesn't. Activation advantage is real but manageable in an actual game by adding flotillas or small ships and positioning well or using objectives that force confrontation. 

  2. I usually go with whatever is the most durable. Interdictors tend to be my flagship when I have them thanks to the high engineering value and the fact that you'd probably rather shoot at the Victorys or Gladiators that are doing all the damage. I can understand the logic behind placing the Admiral in a flotilla and cruising along the back of the map but I'm not really a fan of that for flavor reasons. I'm planning to suggest a house rule against Admirals in flotillas, since thematically it doesn't make much sense. 

  3. On 2/10/2017 at 6:38 AM, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

    So if we look at the values on a ship's card, we see that every value has a matching command except one. The navigation chart matches the navigation command, the attack values are matched to concentrate fire, squadrons go to squadrons, and repair to repair. The one missing is the command value itself. So my take on it would be:

    Reassess: Spend your dial to choose new commands for any of your command dials. Before revealing your command dial you may spend a reassess token to chose a new command on your top command dial.

    so either this or a command command that does it for other ships in the fleet.

    I feel like that's way too good with Tarkin. He just always hands out Reassess tokens, and then having a high command value stops being a mixed blessing and just becomes a question of how many tokens you can store on turns that you don't want to change your command dials. If you aren't using Tarkin, it's a fairly weak command because it does nothing until the turn after you reveal it. It would be the best token and the worst dial, basically. I'm not sure I'd ever use it except to grab the token for later, although it would be my default pick for my first or second command every game. 


    Then again we are talking in hypotheticals, so if Armada had ever had a fifth command it's safe to assume that upgrades would have had costs or effects that properly accounted for the fifth command. So maybe Tarkin would say you can't choose Reassess. Or maybe ships would have higher command values to account for the core mechanics giving you a way to change your mind, so you'd see ships with four or five command. I thought this idea was stupid at first but now that I'm imagining how Armada would look if this was a thing from day one I think it's one of the better suggestions in this thread. 

  4. 15 hours ago, Darthain said:

    Taunting only ever had any ground, and even then little, when dealing with non intelligent opponents.  I'm not going to stand and fight the bigger guy in armour when I could clobber the pesky thing stabbing me in the side and hurting me more, same goes for that wizard over there that is the real threat.  It is a pretty silly mechanic that pops up in MMO games to create their odd ideas of boss fights, they don't ever seem to be able to taunt you though..  it exists to make those (relatively poorly) made games playable, and provide comfortable rolls.


    As far as escort, kind of a taunt yes, but with squadrons zipping about around eachother it makes more sense they could get in the way.  Failing that it is often easy to get around escort (you need 3 for 'perfect' protection).   Ships don't have that kind of positional flexibility.

    It's been a while since I played a game with Taunt, but I do recall seeing it explained as a magic effect that compels the target to attack you in a few games. I see your point about going after the real threats but a lot of games these days include a "threat" mechanic. Threat is basically a measurement of how dangerous the enemy thinks you are, so tanks usually have abilities themed around making themselves seem more dangerous than the actual dangers. How well implemented these are is going to vary, but the idea of tricking your enemy into focusing on the wrong guy makes sense. Especially if none of them live to learn from their mistake. 

    It might be important to specify that I don't mean the classic "Taunt" ability specifically, I've been talking about any ability that either forces an enemy to focus on you or inflicts a strong penalty for not doing so. I do agree that it makes very little sense that yelling an insult is enough to make a genius wizard attack me instead of the healer that's been trivializing all the damage I've taken since the fight started. 

  5. 14 minutes ago, Darthain said:

    Let's hope we never get a 'taunt' effect, they are lazy and never make sense.

    As a general rule I disagree; lots of games have perfectly reasonable explanations on how one character forces enemies to attack him when they should not be doing that. But I do agree that it makes very little sense in Armada for every ship to be able to do it. I mean, can you imagine how obnoxious flotillas would be if you didn't have a lot of attacks or dice with accuracy results? 


    It could maybe work as an upgrade that represented a ship having a device that drags enemy targeting systems over to itself, but that seems like it would be a unique upgrade and probably go in a rare slot like experimental retrofit. Definitely should not be on literally any ship that chooses that command. 

  6. I usually start with the ships and upgrades that motivated me to make a new list, then think about what I want the list to do better and pick some upgrades accordingly. I might also swap out a ship for a different one depending on how many points I have to work with. Then I add TIE fighters to fend off bombers (it's almost always just a ****load of TIEs). If I plan to use squadrons for anything more than fending off bombers, I might start with them instead. 

    For example, I wanted a list that slows enemy ships down and pummels them with black dice. I started with an Interdictor that had the G-8 and title, and a Victory I with Expanded Launchers. So there I had a way to slow the enemy and a ship that has huge damage but struggles with hitting fast targets. From there I would add something with range (probably an Arquitens), maybe a Gozanti flotilla with Slicer Tools (to change Navigate commands to something else) and then I'd fiigure out my squadrons after picking upgrades. 

  7. 15 hours ago, Darth Tam said:

    On a very secondary note, should you switch JerJer to the other Vic? Because the Rapid Launch one will be dumped right into a lump of enemy ships. 

    Probably, now that you mention it. Especially if I stick with Hyperspace Assault since I can't use his ability until I drop that ship in. Currently waiting on a game or two to see if I want Expanded Hangar Bay or Rapid Launch Bay, since it all comes down to whether or not I can get within immediate bombing range. If I can't get in close without being covered in fighters I'll use EHB instead.

    5 hours ago, herod1204 said:

    Fire lanes is a superb yellow objective, forcing the enemy to come to you, and it fits so well with the slow moving victorys. I've yet to lose a game with my JJ dbl Victory dbl kitten lists when playing fire lanes.

    I'll have to try that one. Not right away though, lately I've been kind of obsessed with Hyperspace Assault. I think it's because I was building a list while trying to find that scene in Rogue One on YouTube. You know, where that ship comes out of hyperspace. Not going to spoil anything in case someone hasn't seen it but I'm sure everyone who has knows exactly what I'm talking about. 

  8. Alright, so I've adjusted the flagship to have EHB and Spinal Armament. My new squadron list is Jonus, Marrek, Tempest, Dengar, 3 TIE Bombers, and 4 TIE Fighters. I keep having to remind myself that Maarek and Tempest don't have to focus on bombing ships. The numbers work out nicely though, I can send all the Bombers at someone with a single squadron command from the flagship and then hit them with my main guns once I tear through the shields.


    I had 13 points left over after my changes so I also moved the Ordnance Experts to the second Victory and put Gunnery Team on the flagship. I added a set of Tractor Beams to the Raider to give me another use of them against small ships. Won't help against every list, but the Cracken lists seem like they'd naturally prefer small ships so the Raider can still help when I need it most. Madine less so, but against lists that run a few medium/large ships I'm confident I can do some catastrophic damage if I can get a good hit with my front arc(s) and Bombers. In Magical Christmas Land I can hit someone with 5 black dice, 2 blue, and 7 red (+3 black for each Victory that actually gets in close) so even when we tone it down to something more realistic it should hurt. 


    Any thoughts on my objectives? Advanced Gunnery seems like a no-brainer for any list with VSDs or ISDs, but I'm never entirely sure what to do for my other objectives. 

  9. I have a rough outline of a list. 

    Victory I

    -Moff Jerjerrod

    -Ordnance Experts

    -Rapid Launch Bays

    -Expanded Launchers

    -X17 Turbolasers

    Victory I

    -Assault Concussion Missiles

    -X17 Turbolasers

    -Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams

    Raider I

    -Ordnance Experts


    Captain Jonus

    Maarek Stele

    Tempest Squadron

    3 TIE Bombers

    Valen Rudor

    5 TIE Fighters

    Advanced Gunnery

    Hyperspace Assault 



    So the basic plan seems clear enough. Get the flagship on top of something and vomit the unique squadrons with bomber in their faces. If I'm playing a Hyperspace Assault, drop in where I can hit one of two ships at close range (or pin a target between both Victory-classes) and hit them with the unique bombers from RLB and the generic Bombers thanks to the objective. Instigator and the TIEs exist purely to make sure my bombing runs happen as planned. I was thinking Superior Positions for the last objective since I can possibly get six squadrons (more if I'm really lucky) behind something and pummel it for victory tokens. I also thought about switching Advanced Gunnery out for Precision Strike but I'm really hoping for Hyperspace so I want objectives that look scarier. That and getting a double-tap with the Expanded Launchers at close range would be magnificent. 


    I'm interested in suggestions on what objectives I should use and what upgrades are mistakes. I'm iffy on the Tractor Beams but I keep thinking I might need the Tractors to keep the target in black dice range for that huge hit from the flagship. Very interested in people's thoughts on that. 

  10. I was thinking of using this as my initial fleet in a CC campaign. 

    Victory I

    -Admiral Screed

    -Assault Concussion Missiles

    Gladiator I

    -Assault Concussion Missiles

    Gladiator I

    -Assault Concussion Missiles

    Gladiator I

    -Assault Concussion Missiles

    Morna Kee


    Darth Vader

    Mauler Mithel

    TIE Fighter x2

    Objectives are not set in stone but I'm thinking Advanced Gunnery, Fleet Ambush, and Superior Positions. AG seems like a no brainer when I have a Victory-class and Fleet Ambush could let me hammer a ship with my Gladiators while the rest of the Rebel fleet is scrambling to close in. Superior Positions because I have had a lot of success circling around enemy ships with my Gladiators. 

    My main concerns are the lack of fighter coverage and my helplessness at range. My fighters could struggle against 133 points of fighter-bombers because if I spread out enough to engage them all I'll rapidly lose my squadrons. I think I'd have to send the whole group in to smash the opposition before pouncing on the next group of fighters, which could mean handing over a lot of free bombing runs to my opponent. I also have a lot of uniques at risk if thing go sideways. The temptation to replace them all with 9 Interceptors is there but I've seen how troublesome those defense tokens can be. 

    The short range could be an issue but it's not as concerning to me. I'm confident I can keep my Gladiators alive long enough to punish anyone that shot them from medium-long range. Still, those are turns where the Rebels are shooting that I'm not. 


    The other Imperial fleet is not planned yet but it will likely involve Tarkin on an Interdictor. I like the idea of trying to smash up Rebel fleets with this list here and then using the Interdictor to hold scarred ships in place for the kill.

  11. Screed can be pretty brutal. I played with with two Gladiators armed with Assault Concussion Missiles (and maybe Ordnance Experts?). Absolutely tore through the Home One while it tried to focus down my Avenger. 


    If you don't already have one I feel like the ISD is the must-have, though. I mean, I don't know about you guys but Star Destroyers are what brought me to this game in the first place. There are also a lot of upgrades in the box, and while I haven't used him yet Vader looks pretty scary.

  12. @StevenO - more developed games (tournament structure-wise) do use opponent match win percentage as the first tiebreaker because it is the best indicator of your strength of schedule, as you intuited. Both Chess and Magic use it, for example.

    Magic has no alternative. You could try to go by remaining life, but a lot of decks pay life as a key part of winning. Or they do little to no damage before obliterating the opponent in one or two turns. There's no reliable way to determine something comparable to MoV in Magic because good plays don't necessarily translate to anything that can be measured objectively. In X-Wing, damage can be measured. They should probably add a variant of the half points rule for small based ships but overall MoV is a more reliable means of determining how well I'm doing. Sure, maybe I lucked out and played two bad players in a row but as the weaker players are beaten it's inevitable that I'll have to play someone at or above my level. Especially if it's big enough to merit a cut to the top eight, since those are settled by the old "winner moves on" system. Or so I believe, I haven't gone to a large enough tournament to see for myself. 

  13. I think it's fair to say that the number one thing Flotillas have done is made players rethink the value of large bids. You now have a value for every single point, be it a bid for going first or adding a ship activation or messing with enemy dials or improving your bomber dice.

    Coming from X-Wing, it is really ****ing with me having nine points unspent and realizing that maybe I should just leave it as an initiative bid. A three point bid is entering the realm of madness in X-Wing and four is just ridiculous, for those who don't play X-Wing. 


    Also, update: For some reason I bought Phoenox Home instead of a flotilla. I'm not exactly sure why, but the squadron possibilities are probably my reasoning? I've been very sleep deprived lately, I basically just stared at all the stuff on the wall until I grabbed Phoenix Home and decided to buy that one. I'll grab the Gozantis tomorrow and hopefully use them on maybe the second or third Saturday in January. 

  14. Thanks for the information everyone, I'm starting to see why flotillas are a thing. I'll have to pick up a Gozanti expansion next time I'm adding to my Armada collection. If nothing else, I can remember times when 18 points to move my flagship second would have been valuable just by itself. I'll only be able to really see their worth once I play some games with them but now I see why I would spend money on them instead of putting it toward a third Gladiator. 


    The friend I mentioned ultimately decided to abandon Armada because he was unimpressed with the reveal of flotillas. I kind of want to show him a few of the tricks you've told me about. He will learn respect, and suffering will be his teacher. To borrow a line from Ozai. 


    (Okay if I do try to get him back in I'd probably offer to go very light on squadrons since he's not a fan of them but I can still do evil, right? Slicer Tools are pretty nasty)

  15. I'm a fan of squadron lists, the other guy wasn't. At one point he said he'd rather they weren't in the game. That may have been because I recall thrashing him with X-Wings. So the Pelta does sound fairly appealing if it's a small carrier type. 


    I'm also liking the look of that MC80 build. I wasn't too sold on Rebels back when we used to play but I find it hard to resist the lure of building a Rebel list around squadrons. I used to struggle with getting past fighter screens and just smashing through with a bruiser and puking bombers everywhere sounds like fun. It definitely forces a change in our old approach of sending out our fighters in such a way that they formed a thin line stretching across a lot of the playmat (we used a 3x3) and occasionally shifting it as ships moved into the line or fighters were destroyed. Rapid Launch Bays renders that a very bad idea, since we rarely if ever had any fighters in reserve. 

  16. Hi. I used to play Armada with a friend of mine, but he lost interest in it*. Now I'm looking to get back into it. Wave II was the last time we played, so I've never seen a flotilla on the table and I'm not sure what I would do with them. 


    The obvious use seems to be squadron commands, but most of the good setups for that feel kind of expensive for something that can be killed by a sideways glance once their scatter token is unavailable. The Leia/Repair Crews build holds a lot of appeal to me because being able to switch to an Engineering command at a moment's notice is always good, and I like the hull regen from the Repair Crews. But my experience was that I often had at least one side arc that had nothing I could damage** and squadron flotillas seem like exactly what I would have been shooting at if they'd existed back when I played. Basically, I'm having trouble seeing a scenario where the GR-75 or Gozanti can be worth the points I spent but not worth quickly swatting aside. At the same time, more activations and the idea of using squadron commands while my ISD Concentrates Fire makes me really want to be able to use flotillas effectively. Can anyone help enlighten me? 


    *Hoping the Liberty addresses his main complaint, which was Rebels having no real choice but to try and circle around. Also hopeful that the Corellian Conflict gets him interested. Games between us could get a little repetitive, but this might be enough to get him interested again.


    *More common was having a VSD with Gunnery Team, but only one ship in the front arc. I know that I can choose to ignore the Gunnery Team, but honestly I'd rather obliterate a minor annoyance than tickle an Assault Frigate with my two/three dice. 


    To those trying to silence the cries of outrage by saying that this isn't the right time or place need to grow up. EVERY platform is the right time and place. This is America, and having people say things to your face that you don't like is how it works. Now if they want to moderate this thread down, great! But until then (or until you become a moderator) maybe NOT telling people what to say or where to say it is the way to go.


    This is America? How did I get across the Atlantic ocean without leaving my desk?


    I'm not sure, still trying to figure out how long I've apparently been in America. Was under the impression I was in Canada this whole time. Nice to see Americans have started observing Remembrance Day and didn't celebrate with a sale, though. Always found that really tacky. 


    As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

    It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.


    Strictly speaking, he wasn't the one breaking rules because his opponent was moving out of sequence (I'm assuming this wasn't a game where he asked to do the same thing). That said, I feel that it should be a rule that you have to warn your opponent if you're revoking permission to do that, so that dirtbag moves like suddenly caring about proper move sequence when combat is about to start don't happen. While this was technically within the rules, it was so incredibly greasy that I actually dislike it more than a lot of actual cheating I've seen. There's a certain hostility to the opponent in what he did that just doesn't seem present in things like rigging your dice roll or trick shuffling your damage deck. Those suggest someone who cares too much about winning; PGS' actions suggest someone who really hates his opponent and wants to make them unhappy. 



    If the rules only apply when it suits him, how does that make him a "fair" player?

    Devil's advocate, it doesn't hurt to ASK for leniency. Just because a person is a rules lawyer doesn't mean everyone else has to be. I think it's only a problem if, when encountering another rules lawyer like himself, who denies his request, if he were to get upset about it.


    I'd disagree with that: you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold your opponent. There's no consensus on where the bad sportsmanship line lies but I think the majority would agree that asking for leniency and then refusing it in return crosses that line.


    I have to agree with Blue Five here. It was actually a huge point of contention between a friend and myself a while back, because we're both prone to being more or less forgiving of play mistakes depending on factors outside the game. I had recently buried the hatchet with a coworker and remembering nearly losing it when he wouldn't let me undo a move when I realized I had misread a rule and was making a very bad decision. Nowadays we have a fairly solid system of not worrying much in the first game or two (depending on rules complexity, of course) because the ugliest arguments we've ever had all stemmed from letting the other guy get away with something and then feeling that the favor wasn't returned. If I were a TO and someone tried to deny someone actions for something they had done themselves I would seriously consider disqualifying them, and if I warned them once they will not be getting warned again. 


    As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.





    I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

    What did he do to deserve that?!


    I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.

    If I remember correctly, he kept trying to incite a boycott of FFG, accusing them of knowingly selling us "broken" ships with the intent of selling us fixes later on. Most people rolled their eyes and told him to pay for his ships like everyone else. Then he started getting rude when nobody wanted to jump on his bandwagon. "Someone" sent him spoilers concerning the fate of a certain nerf-herder. I think he quit the game after that.


    What kind of broken did he mean. Underpowered so you have to buy a fix to make them playable? I know someone who thinks the opposite, that FFG deliberately release overpowered ships so you always have to buy the latest toys.


    He was mainly fixated on the Defender, and was accusing FFG of intentionally overcosting it so they could sell Imperial Veterans. He also made similar accusations regarding the TIE Advanced. My issue was mainly the sheer level of tinhattery in his posts, because he dismissed it entirely when people tried to point out that the TIE Advanced was part of wave one (meaning FFG didn't really know how to cost ships yet) and that the Defender's white k-turn and 3/3/3/3 stat line make it seem a lot stronger than it was before titles. He was very eager to flood the forum with threads about his stupid conspiracy theory, starting two or three threads back to back on the Defender, the Imperial Raider, and...I forget the third. He also just annoyed me personally with the way he made and backed up his arguments, and I was just in a hostile mood that day.


    I decided to PM him spoilers since I figured he probably hadn't seen The Force Awakens yet but would soon, since this was the Saturday after the movie came out. Admittedly it was a **** move on my part, but in his own way this guy was no better than PGS, and I wasn't willing to put up with his nonsense so I hit him in the most effective way I could. Then, like an idiot, he went and posted another thread called THIS IS HOW THE "COMMUNITY" DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH IT where he described himself as some sort of crusader fighting for lower prices and better value (really he just came across as cheap) and posted an unedited screenshot of the PM I sent him, with no spoiler warnings anywhere. I think that was what actually got him banned, because a lot of people hadn't seen the movie yet. I've never been especially sorry for it, but I did feel bad for the people that saw the spoiler in the thread and I've also never denied that I did deserve the warning point. 





    I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

    What did he do to deserve that?!


    I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.


    No, if that was all it took I'd have run out my three strikes many times over by now. Truth be told I'm now kind of wondering why I never did something similar to PGS (because he was more toxic than Vatutin or whatever his name was) but part of that is because PGS, ficklegreendice, and Hobojebus all had the same avatar and I sometimes got them confused. I think this all happened before I realized that if it's a vitriolic rant with a lot of personal attacks, it's always the same guy. 



    I don't think I've seen any other forum where the "capital punishement" is the first ban issued. It usually goes with lighter bans at first, like a week or a month, then a few months and only then a permaban - the system is based on the assumption that people might improve their behaviour. 


    Obviously it is impossible here because it'd require an actual moderation.


    I don't think permaban was fair, even though some sort of ban was needed.



    I really would like to meet and play against PGS if for no other reason than the first hand experience. There are a lot of things you don't pickup in reading posts.

    You might want to try TTS, but you might get disappointed.

    Do you know for sure it was a first?


    I have not heard about anyone on this forum that has been banned at any point in the past and now is able to post. Also people were pretty shocked when he got the ban, I'd think the reaction wouldn't be that strong if it happened before or if there was any form of ban here that isn't permanent.


    But no, I don't know for sure and I admit the possibility that I'm wrong.


    I'm fairly certain that you have to go really far to get banned without warning. I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite and all I got was warned in no uncertain terms not to do it again. Knowing ParaGoomba, he probably received several warnings and refused to listen because he seems completely incapable of reconsidering his opinion or entertaining the idea that he might be wrong. That Reddit thread linked earlier has him angrily denying that he's ever been wrong about anything X-Wing related (not hyperbole; his exact words were "I was right all the time" and he defends that claim when challenged on it). ParaGoomba is the kind of guy that thinks that if he's correct it justifies nearly any level of dickery when interacting with people that are not. A good example is his proud story about allowing a player to reveal several dials, move them all, and then perform all actions...right up until the first exchange of fire, when he insisted that the other guy missed his chance to perform actions on all but one of his ships. According to PGS, this is totally okay as the harsh treatment will encourage the other player not to take this (completely reasonable time-saving*) approach in the future. He's like that in arguments, too. A couple of new players at different times expressed a fondness for the Millennium Falcon and the Outrider, and PGS drove both away from the forum (and the Falcon guy away from the game entirely) through sheer hostility. When people called him out he refused to admit that he was being an ass on the grounds that there was one less turreted ship in the game. 


    *Moving several ships and then performing actions for them is fine, so long as none of them reposition in a way that might have interfered with other moves. I can't see any reason at all to say that a player who intends to move several ships straight forward and then focus should be absolutely required to move them one at a time if they all have the same PS or would otherwise move one after another anyway. If his issue was with someone executing barrel rolls with ships that should have bumped or something he would have a point.


    I don't think I've seen any other forum where the "capital punishement" is the first ban issued. It usually goes with lighter bans at first, like a week or a month, then a few months and only then a permaban - the system is based on the assumption that people might improve their behaviour. 


    Obviously it is impossible here because it'd require an actual moderation.


    I don't think permaban was fair, even though some sort of ban was needed.



    I really would like to meet and play against PGS if for no other reason than the first hand experience. There are a lot of things you don't pickup in reading posts.
    You might want to try TTS, but you might get disappointed.


    We get warnings, but I'm not sure other people can see them. If you see "1 warning point" below my name and avatar, then I'm mistaken. I know when I got my warning I was sent a PM by FFGEvan telling me what it was for and clearly stating that I should not do it again.

  23. TIE/D is the way the truth and the light when it comes to Ruthlessness. There may be some friendly fire but careful positioning will prevent most if not all of it, and you generally only want one Ruthless ship anyway because Defenders are expensive. Alternatively the TIE/SF might be a strong candidate thanks to the title allowing it to attack multiple targets, but since those targets have to be on opposite sides of the TIE you're at greater risk of Ruthlessness hurting your own ships. I've also seen a swarm of Ruthless Black Squadron Pilots do some work, although I believe they ultimately lost to a (pre-nerf) Phantom after easily slaughtering all of Whisper's allies. 

  • Create New...