Yes, Salvo and LTT synergize well together, unsurprisingly because they were introduced at the same time. DTT was introduced with the Arquitens in 2016, so they couldn't anticipate the introduction of Salvo. However, supposedly DTT has been updated in the UCC, so it might work differently now.

Yes, which could mean that Reserve Hangar Deck is used more often, or TIE Advanced and TIE Defenders will become more prevalent. I love to fly TIE Defenders and now that I can't bring as many Aces, Defenders are an easy substitute. Defenders are very difficult to kill with flak.

DTT was useful for the Arquitens because before LTT, the Arq couldn't equip any cards that granted rerolls, which was a big problem for a primarily red dice ship. With DTT, if the Arq got into range with its front or rear arcs, it could remove a black blank die or an unnecessary blue accuracy, to add a red die and roll for a better result. It made sense for the Arquitens, whereas LTT can't help with the Arq's black or blue dice. DTT was less useful on other ships because they had other reroll options and were better off equipping something else in the valuable Turbolaser slot. Now LTT essentially does the same thing as DTT with an added strong anti-squadron attack for only 2 points more. Another factor is that Rebellion in the Rim came with 2 LTT cards so they're far more common and accessible than DTT.

As predicted, the Hardcell Transport has the Fleet Support slot. And 2 Officer slots? I wasn't expecting that. Not only does this mean that the Separatists won't be limited to one ship with Fleet Support, like the Republic, but they can have more than 2 Fleet Support ships in a standard fleet, because the Hardcell isn't a flotilla.

I was thinking the same thing as the OP when the move to AMG was announced -- except obviously the forum can't literally be transferred to AMG. The problem is that AMG's website is very basic compared to FFG's. It doesn't have a forum. Unless AMG decides to greatly expand the functionality of their website, I think we'll have to continue using FFG's forum. I don't think there's any urgency. I think it's unlikely that FFG will shut down the Star Wars sections of this forum because the games have been transferred to AMG.

DTT doesn't add a die. DTT is very similar to the reroll aspect of LTT. DTT happens after you roll attack dice, like LTT -- not before as some players think. The difference with DTT is that the rolled die that you choose to remove can be any colour, and it gets replaced with a red die that you then roll. Whereas LTT just rerolls a red die. It's a small difference. I believe the reason why DTT wasn't as popular was because it was exclusive to the Imperial Light Cruiser (Arquitens) expansion, which has always been difficult to acquire. So even though it's 2 points cheaper, it never caught on the way that LTT did. LTT also has greater versatility thanks to its anti-squadron attack. Also, DTT is a Mod, so that was another reason why it couldn't be equipped sometimes.

I don't know how LTT snuck through without getting Mod considering that Dual Turbolaser Turrets is a Mod, is similar but worse, and less popular. I suspect LTT's popularity spared it from getting Mod. The same with TRC and XI7.

Yes, but QTC's 10 points cost is ridiculously overpriced when it's dependent on rolling a red accuracy, which ties with red double-hit for the lowest probability result. In comparison, Clone Gunners costs half the price and can be used far more often because token generation is only getting easier with Clone Wars. The logic is wildly inconsistent and it seems like Clone Wars cards are better and cheaper, but most classic upgrade cards have not been points adjusted relative to CW upgrade cards, despite the Upgrade Card Collection being the perfect opportunity to update and rebalance all of the cards.

That's lame. I don't see how equipping certain types of turbolasers (or ion cannons) should be classified as a Modification while other types don't. Enhanced Armament and Spinal Armament make sense as Modifications because more weapons are being added to the ship's hull, hence a modification. But equipping a H9 Turbolaser or XI7 Turbolaser or XX-9 Turbolaser isn't a "modification" to the ship, which is why they weren't Modifications. But if H9 and QTC become Modifications, more than half of Turbolaser cards will be Mods -- and Swivel-Mount Batteries is also a Mod. Basically, if you equip the Phylon Q7 Tractor Beam, you're screwing yourself out of Turbolasers. I think Modification on so many Turbolasers would be acceptable if PQ7 Tractor Beam wasn't a Mod. I understand why FFG doesn't want the most powerful Turbolaser, Ion Cannon, Ordnance, and Super Weapons to be equipped on the same ship because they'd be OP'd, so Mod only permits one. But why make PQ7 Tractor Beams a Mod too? Most ships in Star Wars, including virtually every large warship, are equipped with tractor beams by default, so it doesn't make sense that it's a Mod. I'd prefer if Mod was removed from PQ7 Tractor Beams and its points cost was increased or it required a token to refresh. It's not like PQ7 can reduce a ship to Speed 0 like the Starhawk's MCTBA can, so I think it would be fine if it could be used in combination with a Turbolaser Mod.

What's the nerf to QTC? It exhausts? Is it still 10 points? Because the cost has always been the biggest obstacle to using it. The only time I equip QTC is in combination with Jonus or H9. Without a guaranteed red accuracy, I'm not spending 10 points on QTC. If QTC cost 6-8 points and exhausted, I'd be fine with that, as long as it auto-refreshed in the Status Phase. If it requires a CF token to ready, it should be only 5 points and come with 1 CF token in its supply, like the Clone Officers. Clone Gunners is 4 points and is similar to QTC, except it grants a blue accuracy for a CF token from a friendly ship. So reducing QTC from 10 points is entirely justified, even if it must be exhausted.

Ok, I wasn’t aware that the updated ET card had been revealed/leaked.

Does ET work like that? Because the wording of the card just says "After you execute a maneuver..." According to the rules: My reading of that rule is a ship does execute a maneuver even if it ends up temporarily reducing to speed 0 and staying in its original place. I couldn't find any Rules Clarifications about Engine Techs and Overlapping that said ET could not be used after ramming. I suppose it's possible that my friends and I have been using ET wrong... but I could've sworn that I've seen Battle Rep videos from more experienced Armada players wherein they double-rammed using ET -- maybe not often, but I'm sure I've seen it happen.

I agree with @EBerling and @Sybreed that FFG's goal with Clone Wars/Armada 1.5 seems to have been to make Armada "less radical" by nerfing black dice ships and changing the best, most popular upgrade cards, whereas the "binder fodder" cards have been completely ignored. For example, what if anything will happen to Advanced Transponder Net? That card was originally intended to counter the infamous Yavaris Bomber build, but it was introduced 2+ years too late and the META had already moved on, which is why it was rarely ever used (after the honeymoon phase of players just trying it out soon after release). FFG had to know that the change to Intel would render Advanced Transponder Net utterly useless. If FFG hasn't changed Advanced Transponder Net, it would be pointless to even include it in the UCC. There are plenty of other examples of binder fodder cards that should have been changed: all Liaison Officers, Sensor Team, Engineering Team, Nav Team, NK-7, QTC, virtually all Def. Retrofits other than ECM (despite its revealed change), and roughly half of all ship titles. But we know from FFG that they've only changed 18% of the cards, which isn't nearly enough to fix the binder fodder.

I understand what you mean, but I think the reason why players wanted Demo nerfed is because the "triple hit" was so powerful it could kill most Rebel ships (with ACM or APT). My point was that if Demo has to ram the target to retain that third close-range attack, it's well worth it if it destroys the target, because the enemy ship will be dead and unable to retaliate against Demo (unless Rieekan). I think it's absolutely worth the risk to ram, especially against an enemy large ship, because even if Demo fails to destroy it, its triple hit should nearly kill it, so it can easily be finished off by another Imperial ship (or squadron) that round. It's a worthwhile sacrifice because Demo is cheaper than the enemy's large ship. If Demo pulls it off and destroys the enemy, it only sustains 1 facedown damage, it didn't take any hits to shields, and it didn't spend any defense tokens -- and if Demo has ET and a Nav command, it can still make a Speed 1 maneuver after the enemy ship is destroyed. I think this is definitely how I will use Demolisher going forward, because it counteracts the "nerf" just made by FFG at the cost of only 1 damage. Worth it! 😁

I'm aware of Adar Tallon; I didn't mention him because his card is 10 points and I was trying to make the point that it's absurd that new Brunson costs 2 more points than the Rebel's second best exclusive Officer. I suppose I could've argued that it's absurd that Captain Brunson is 1 point less than the Rebel's best exclusive Officer, Adar Tallon. It doesn't make sense to me that a defensive Officer that only benefits one ship is suddenly 9 points, whereas Toryn Far and Adar Tallon are offensive Officers, the Rebels two best exclusive Officers, worth 7 and 10 points respectively. Brunson's points increase makes her the Empire's second most expensive Officer, which implies she's the second most powerful Imperial Officer. Brunson is great, but I don't think she ranks that high. This seems really unfair to the Empire and I don't understand why Brunson is being singled out for one of the few points increases that has been revealed (leaked) from the UCC. Especially when compared to some of the Republic and Separatist Officers that have been revealed so far, who have great abilities and cost 4-5 points. Brunson was 5 points! She was already in the sweet spot for a good Officer, but FFG has nearly doubled her cost for no apparent reason.

I agree, the wording of the new Demolisher card could definitely be improved. The card should say that it can execute its second attack after its maneuver to clarify that it can't attack only once. Upon my first reading, I panicked and thought, "Can Demolisher only attack once per activation? That's crazy!" Then I realized that when Demolisher uses its ability, its Attack Step has always been been uniquely divided in two with its optional maneuver in-between. Now it appears that the maneuver isn't optional: It either executes its second attack after it moves or it just doesn't attack a second time during its activation. I heard the rumours that Demolisher was getting nerfed, but out of all the possibilities, I think this is the most tame.

I was hoping for this after FFG revealed Leia's 10 points reduction, and I'm pleased that it came true. It seems like command tokens will be more important than ever before, so it's possible Tarkin will become more popular than ever before! I'm definitely going to try Tarkin in more builds now that he's only 28 points. I'm not a fan of this change. Increasing Brunson by 4 points to 9 is a big jump, and surprising, because I don't recall anyone complaining much that Brunson was "unfair" -- just that she was good. I don't think it's fair that Brunson is higher points cost than a more powerful faction-exclusive Officer like Toryn Far -- unless TF's points cost has been increased to 10+. This makes Brunson more expensive than Foresight! But Foresight can use its ability anywhere on the table and the ship has 2 Evades so it can use it twice per round (or more if it discards Evades), whereas Brunson must exhaust so can only be used once. This makes no sense! Considering how most of the card updates we've seen so far have been points reductions or nerfs, it's really strange that a balanced, un-controversial card like Brunson has nearly doubled in cost. I mean... WHO WANTED THIS!? 😕 I liked Sato already but even more now that he's 27 points. The changes to Konstantine are welcome, but aside from making him work with a SSD, I don't know if these changes will be enough to make him viable, because he still requires 2 friendly ships to be at distance 1-5 of an enemy ship. I know that it should be a lot easier to get a Raider, Arq, or Gladiator near enemy ships, but I'm not convinced it'll be enough. I really wish FFG had enhanced Konstantine's ability to also reduce the enemy ship's yaw by 1 on one segment. I think both changing the enemy ship's speed and reducing its maneuverability would make sense and be very effective, especially when increasing the enemy ship's speed because it could force the ship off the table, making Konstantine very tricky! (I was already planning to use Konstantine against Acclamators 😈) After the Evade update was revealed, I was wondering what that would mean for MM? MM forcing an additional reroll at close range/distance 1 makes sense. I was hoping MM would do something at Long and possibly Extreme range. MM cancelling a 2nd die at Long range would be the logical progression of her ability since Evade cancels 2 dice at Extreme range; unfortunately, the existence of Foresight rules this out because a ship with 2 Evades that could cancel 3 dice at long range would be virtually un-killable! Nope, can't allow that. However, the Evade update sparked an idea: At Long range, MM's Evade could cancel 1 die and force 1 reroll. Combining MM's Close and Medium range abilities for Long range makes perfect sense! If MM could do that, she could've stayed at 30 points. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, so MM doesn't help at Long range. But at least MM is better and cheaper. After the ACM reveal, I'm not surprised about this change to APT. I like that both are exhaustible now because double-arcing and using the Ordnance crits twice per activation was broken. Now they're balanced and more affordable. I like it! This is a nerf to Yavaris that needed to happen, but at least it maintains the spirit of the original. If I'm reading this right... Demolisher always has to Attack-Move-Attack? 🤨 I don't really understand the point of this change because it was Demo's ability to Attack-Move-Attack that made it so deadly and so "controversial". How is locking it into that attack pattern supposed to make it more balanced? The only purpose this serves is when last-first-ing, to maybe prevent Demo from double-arcing the target's same hull zone when it activates first the next round. But just because it has to execute a maneuver before executing its second attack doesn't always mean it won't be able to attack the target ship twice -- it might even still be possible to attack the same hull zone after a Speed-1 maneuver. It depends on positioning and how wide the hull zone is on the target ship. For example, Demo double-arcing a Starhawk or MC-80's side arc should be relatively easy at Speed 1, maybe even Speed 2. Even if Demo couldn't attack the same hull zone after it completed its maneuver, the simple solution is to ram the target ship so it can't complete its maneuver; then it's free to attack the same hull zone. Sure, Demo will suffer 1 facedown damage card, but it will also inflict 1 facedown damage card to the target ship (unless it's a large ship with Hardened Bulkheads), and that +1 damage could be the difference between the target ship surviving Demo's second attack and it being destroyed. If anything, adding ramming to Demolisher's META would make it even more deadly and make its name more fitting. Furthermore, the updated card has removed the "first maneuver" stipulation, which apparently means it has reverted back to being able to execute its second attack after using Engine Techs. I mean... I suppose I could be totally wrong, and I don't realize that this change somehow "ruins" Demolisher. But it doesn't seem like it's too bad. This seems like such a "meh" change to Demolisher... I can't help but wonder if Insidious has been changed? Improved? It would be nice if Insidious became viable for once.

I don't know why you're phrasing it like "someone might guess that FFG meant to say something else?" I think it makes sense that Grievous' ability works against all generic squadrons, and ships and Ace squadrons with exhausted (or discarded) defense tokens, but I think the wording on the card could be misinterpreted by some players as Grievous' ability only targets ships and squadrons that have defense tokens, which are exhausted. I never said that was my interpretation of Grievious' card. I was just pointing out something that I recognized could be confusing to some players, and suggested that FFG clarify the issue. I don't why suggesting that FFG do their job and post a one or two sentence official clarification for General Grievous' Squadron card sparked such "controversy". I often refer to the Armada Fandom wikia as a reference, and it seems like half of all entries have a Rules Clarification section that refers to the FAQ, indicating that there was something confusing that had to be officially clarified by FFG. Similarly, Ryan Kingston's Fleet Builder also has Rules Clarification notes for certain cards, like Luke Skywalker. Rules Clarifications are very prevalent in Armada, so I don't understand why certain people here are so dismissive that I have identified a card from Clone Wars Armada that might be confusing, and resistant to the possibility that it might receive an official rules clarification by FFG (or AMG) in the future to resolve any ambiguity -- regardless of whether certain people are willing to acknowledge the ambiguity exists or not. Furthermore, why did my post get attacked like this? Whereas when someone creates a new thread asking a n00b question about Armada, the only responses that post receives are helpful, non-judgmental answers? 🤨

The fact that Grievous' ability is very similar to Vader isn't in dispute. It's the conditional parameter specified on the card that dictates when Grievous' ability applies that is the source of the confusion. Vader has no such conditions; Vader always gains +1 damage from rolled crits, hence why people easily understood Vader's ability 5 years ago, as you said. The reason why Vader's ability is easily understood is because it is worded very clearly. Whereas Grievious' conditional ability is not as easily understood because it is not worded as clearly as it could have been. Assuming the certain people's interpretation of Grievious's ability is correct, I would've written the card as follows, to ensure there wasn't any confusion: "General Grievous: While attacking a ship or squadron without defense tokens or with no readied defense tokens, each of your Crit icons adds 1 damage to the damage total." That is clearly worded and easily understandable because it accounts for squadrons without defense tokens (including ships and squadrons that discarded their def. tokens) and for ships and squadrons that have no readied* defense tokens -- *meaning that all defense tokens are exhausted. I guarantee that there will be some Armada players who will read Grievous' Squadron card and interpret it as only pertaining to ships and Ace squadrons with exhausted defense tokens, but not generic squadrons that don't have defense tokens. I've played against players, including veteran players, who have misread or misinterpreted cards that I believed were perfectly straightforward, which led to disputes and sometimes players storming off. And I'm certain that many players have had similar experiences in casual games and even tournaments. That's why I think that the people here dismissing the idea that anyone could misinterpret the Grievous Squadron card are being obtuse and naïve -- as if they'd never played against other people, or only players in their own little bubble who all interpret things exactly the same way. That's not reality.

Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there and the excessive line spacing makes it difficult to read and follow, even on a laptop or monitor. If you want people here to read it and offer feedback, think it would be helpful to make it more readable by reformatting it from a computer so the text is redistributed horizontally, rather than vertically (like on a smartphone screen). Ideally, you want all the stats and info for each ship to fit on the screen together. But I do like your ideas of adding the MC40, General Solo, and Admiral Pellaeon to Armada. 👍

Of course, because you speak for every Armada player on this forum (and in the entire world) -- or so you think, apparently. So because you, and a few others, believe that you understand Grievous' ability correctly, there's no possibility anyone, anywhere, ever, could interpret the card differently, and therefore an official clarification from FFG (or AMG, in the future) will never, ever be necessary, and therefore will never happen. I wonder: How many times have people like you on this forum said that a card's meaning is "cut and dry", and months (or years) later, FFG added it to the FAQ to clarify the matter? Because I'm willing to bet that every Armada card or rule or update that appears in the FAQ was originally defended by someone like you, who dismissed someone else's concern about something being poorly worded, ambiguous, confusing, or just plain wrong (misprinted). But it turned out that there was a legitimate issue, which FFG recognized and ultimately addressed to resolve the problem. The 24-page FAQ is proof that FFG has had to make clarifications, updates, and fixes (errata) to Armada innumerable times during the game's 5-year lifespan. I think it's unreasonable to assume that FFG has it "perfect" this time, and the FAQ will never be updated at any point in time after Clone Wars Armada is released next week. What I can't comprehend is why you and others are so resistant to official clarifications, which have no conceivable downside and can only serve to benefit the game and the Armada community by ensuring that all players understand it?

Just because a handful of people on this forum believe that they understand a certain card's ability, doesn't mean that they are correct. And it certainly doesn't mean that all Armada players will interpret the card the correct way. Do you understand that a particular comment on this forum is only seen by maybe a few hundred Armada players? There are thousands of Armada players who have never visited this forum and probably never will; some of whom might be uncertain about how Grievious' ability works, which could lead to disputes, even in tournament play. FFG has made rules and card clarifications countless times, which have resulted in FAQs and card updates. So the dismissive attitude of "The card seems 100% clear to me. FFG doesn't need to clarify it," is unwarranted and unfounded. That unjustified attitude just plays into the fallacy that FFG never makes mistakes. If FFG never made mistakes, the most recent FAQ wouldn't be 24 pages long. That's a lot of uncertainty that had to be resolved by FFG.

The Separatist Squadrons are interesting -- albeit not as "mind blowing" as the Republic's Jedi. I suppose that should be expected. Clearly the Separatists squadrons' strengths are they're cheap and they can inflict more damage when activated by Squadron commands, but it might be difficult to activate all of the squadrons. I think that the Hyperwave Signal Boost will be a necessity for Separatist squadron-heavy builds. DFS-311 is expensive for a Vulture Droid and its ability is just ok, because most starfighter squadrons have 3 or 4 attack dice; 1 less die from obstructed means that 1 of the 2 or 3 remaining dice must be rerolled; so ideally, 2 hits are rerolled to only 1, or 3 hits to 2 (which can be Braced to 1). I suppose that makes DFS-311 more survivable, but I think Kit Fisto's ability is far superior -- even though he costs 8 points more. The real problem is that the Separatists don't have an Escort squadron so there's nothing to stop the enemy from focus-firing on DSG-311 and killing the Separatists' only Intel squadron early in the match. I'm not sure it's even worthwhile for the Separatists to use Intel (post-nerf) because they are more likely to outnumber enemy squadrons, so they could send a swarm of Vulture Droids and Tri-Fighters to tie up the enemy's squadrons, and have a separate group of Hyena Bombers attack ships. Speaking of Hyena Bombers... I'm really impressed with the Hyenas. 2 red Battery dice when activated by a Squadron command, with Bomber, and the potential to inflict 4 damage is huge! And only 11 points is very reasonable. The Baktoid Prototypes Hyena squadron seems to be made for countering ships with Evade, because the recent leaks reveal that Evade can now be used a close range or distance 1 to force a reroll of 1 die. The Baktoid Prototypes' Accuracy can block that Evade (and none of the Clone Wars ships revealed so far have 2 Evades). DBS-404 has a killer ability! Just the chance of inflicting 6 damage makes it worthwhile for 17 points. I anticipate that Sep players will place DBS-404 in the path of enemy ships, especially larger ships, and enemy players will do whatever they can to avoid overlapping DBS-404. In a strange way, DBS-404 could screen one or more Separatist ships from attacks from the enemy's heavy-hitter ship(s), and deter an Acclamator from getting in range to use its black dice. The Droid Tri-Fighter seems very similar to an A-Wing. It gives up 1 hull in exchange for a 4th Anti-Squadron attack die when activated by SC, which is a great trade-off! DIS-T81 combination of Snipe 3 and its attacks can't be obstructed is really potent. It could just camp out on an obstacle and snipe away at enemy squadrons. The Phlac-Arphocc Prototypes Tri-Fighter seems even better than Soontir Fel because it doesn't need an Escort squadron to help it use its ability; it just needs to be in a squadron ball to keep enemy squads from moving away from it and they'll suffer 1 damage. It's pricey but it could be the most effective way of getting around V-19 Escorts and inflicting damage to Jedi. And none of the Jedi abilities, like Luminara or Plo Koon, can interfere with its damage inflicting ability. However, similar to DFS-311, Separatists can't protect this Ace with Escorts, so enemy squadrons will be gunning for it! The Belbullab-22 seems like a tough, heavy-hitter, and will probably get a lot of use out of its Screen ability. I can see it being used a lot in the Squadron Phase because it doesn't have AI. General Grievous is certainly a beast! And also helpful with Relay 2. I know someone said Grievous could munch generics, but I'd like clarification from FFG that a "squadron with no readied defense tokens" does include generics, or if it's limited to squadrons with defense tokens, which must be exhausted. Also, if an Ace has discarded its defense tokens, does that trigger Grievous' ability? Grievous is a Jedi-Killer and there are a lot of Jedi Aces, so it would make sense if Grievous was more adept at killing Aces than generics. That's another card with wording fated to provoke arguments, so it would be helpful if FFG spelled it out from the start so we know with absolute certainty how it works. Overall, the Separatist Squadrons are great. I've decided to pre-order 2 additional Separatist and Republic Fighter Squadron packs. I think 3 of each should be enough, and I don't want to risk them being sold out for months or years at a time, like Imperial and Rebel Fighter Squadrons I have been in the past.

Yeah, both the Acclamator and Consulars look like they're eggshell white in that photo too. I can see some of the greebly details, but they're not as pronounced as in the promo photos. It's possible that FFG "enhanced" the look of the miniatures for the promo art and the production versions don't have those dark gray "highlights" that make the surface details more pronounced and visually appealing. But I'm clinging to hope that those photos just have poor lighting or the clear plastic window is washing out the details, or it's just a bad example, and the rest of the miniatures will look better. 🤞 🤞

With the introduction of Pass Tokens, I don't think flotillas will be as popular in Rebel and Imperial fleets as before, because while Fleet Support was useful, a lot of players just used them for cheap activations. Pass Tokens might not render flotillas obsolete, but the Fleet Support slot will probably be their main draw going forward. That should mean there's less need of Republic and Separatist flotillas with the Fleet Support slot. The Fleet Support slot can be given to any ship, like the Consular Corvette with the Radiant VII ship title. Many players predict that the unrevealed Hardcell Transport will have a Fleet Support slot (the revealed Battle Refit doesn't); we shouldn't have to wait too much longer to find out. Before the Radiant VII was revealed, many Armada players speculated that the Republic Pelta would have Fleet Support. Since Radiant VII is a unique ship title, I think it's still likely that the Republic Pelta will have Fleet Support. I think FFG just needed to give the Republic (and probably the Separatists) 1 ship with Fleet Support at the launch of Clone Wars Armada, and that should tide us over until the Republic Pelta is released -- supposedly in January. That doesn't necessarily mean there won't be flotillas for the Republic and Separatist factions, but it relieves the urgency for them. I'd like to see Fleet Support become available on larger ships than flotillas and small ships. I understand why Fleet Support was limited to flotillas originally, but that restriction doesn't seem necessary anymore. Fleet Support seems like something that ships like the MC80 Command Cruiser, Interdictor, Nebulon-B Support Refit, or a version of an ISD could do. If the Ship Cards are ever updated and released in standard card size in the future, AMG could take the opportunity to make changes like that -- and/or add new ship titles that add Fleet Support to certain non-flotilla ships.