Gross

[Green Knight 9,731]

4 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I get that you are just kinda wish listing everything about the game you don't like, but not everyone shares that opinion. Including FFG, based on the existing RAW.

You are entitled to your opinions, but it is just that. From my point of view, FFG created a great game, that just requires steady additions.

 

And the Jedi are evil.

So basically you pointed out that my opinions are my own? I knew that already 

[Darth Sanguis 6,324]

7 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Thats a poison well. Stay out of that well.

I don't even know what that means. 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I don't even know what that means. 

It means that while we moan and complain about things X-Wing gets worse very fast. 

 

Or it could mean that you are Dipping into the sludge to prove a point. 

[Madaghmire 7,274]

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

I don't even know what that means. 

1. (Civil Engineering) a hole or shaft that is excavated, drilled, bored, or cut into the earth so as to tap a supply of water, oil, gas, etc

Idiomatically, "going back to the well" on an issue is to rehash or pull the same argument or evidence out repeatedly.

Obviously, a posion well is a bad thing because the people who drink from it would grow sick and die.

I am mixing the literal and idiomatic usage of the word to colorfully illustrate that wondering why we dont go play X-Wing is unproductive, at best.

[cynanbloodbane 3,435]

 

6 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

So basically you pointed out that my opinions are my own? I knew that already 

Winning an argument requires you to get your opponents to concede that your points are valid. 

One point conceded,on the long road to victory.

[Ken-Obi 381]

IMHO it isn't a Star Wars fleet battle without snub fighters that actually do threaten the capital ships... which is why you either need a fighter screen or some way of upgrading your capital ships to deal with them without a screen.  It's tricky to balance these cheap units that should be effective (to a point) against the big ships.  

Everybody is entitled to their opinion and we as a community really should be more tolerant of those opinions.  I've been playing FFG games for a few years now and I think they have a track record of eventually trying to smooth things over (emphasis on "eventually" and "trying").  Hopefully they'll give us the tweaks this game needs right now.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

4 minutes ago, Ken-Obi said:

IMHO it isn't a Star Wars fleet battle without snub fighters that actually do threaten the capital ships... which is why you either need a fighter screen or some way of upgrading your capital ships to deal with them without a screen.  It's tricky to balance these cheap units that should be effective (to a point) against the big ships.  

Everybody is entitled to their opinion and we as a community really should be more tolerant of those opinions.  I've been playing FFG games for a few years now and I think they have a track record of eventually trying to smooth things over (emphasis on "eventually" and "trying").  Hopefully they'll give us the tweaks this game needs right now.

I demand immediate satisfaction.

[Darth Sanguis 6,324]

6 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

1. (Civil Engineering) a hole or shaft that is excavated, drilled, bored, or cut into the earth so as to tap a supply of water, oil, gas, etc

Idiomatically, "going back to the well" on an issue is to rehash or pull the same argument or evidence out repeatedly.

Obviously, a posion well is a bad thing because the people who drink from it would grow sick and die.

I am mixing the literal and idiomatic usage of the word to colorfully illustrate that wondering why we dont go play X-Wing is unproductive, at best.

Yeah, well, I'm not exactly here on the forums spending my time discussing aspects of a game I have no control over to be productive.... it seems a perfectly valid thing to wonder.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

6 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Yeah, well, I'm not exactly here on the forums spending my time discussing aspects of a game I have no control over to be productive.... it seems a perfectly valid thing to wonder.

Its not tho.

[Norsehound 2,740]

3 minutes ago, OgRib said:

Norsehound you have been watching way too many Imperial propaganda vids

You mean Star Wars? I just happen to like space battleship play. Fighter combat is much more interesting in X-Wing. Here in Armada, I'd be more than happy to use, well, nearly half of the Imperial Navy selection if it was actually valid for more than just pushing fighters. The way the Empire is supposed to pus ship damage is through massive turbolaser attacks. Given the power of Yavaris and Rebel aces, Empire is forced on the defensive by having to field their own aces just to fend off the powerful rebel bombers. Since Empire is hyper specialized, once those fighters are dead they can't do much against capital ships (unless, Sloane?).

I mean, given the fighter lineup of the Empire, bombers are kind of an exception. We don't have our own B-Wings for example- Firesprays are kind of close but they're more costly in points and you only get one out of a R&V Pack. So if you have to go Imperial bombers to compete against large Rebel fighter lists, you reduce a large swath of fighters down to two: TIE Bombers and Firesprays, or aces. Meanwhile, it feels like Rebels can mix and match a lot of good fighter squadrons and still have a good lineup.

5 hours ago, player2484790 said:

Star Trek seems to have a different take on space opera warfare. SFB changed it as the rules were developed from a WWII naval game. But if one likes capital ships and no fighters, maybe try a game more closely representing the Star Trek universe? There have been some more realistic space combat simulations around every so often but everyone apart from physics students find them boring.

The problem with this is, Star Trek's latest and hottest space combat game rips off X-Wing so hard it's basically space fighters with capital ship masks. If you ever felt Armada was overpowered, try witnessing the Enterprise-D one-shot by a decloaking Klingon bird of prey. I had the impression Star Wars was jutland in space, because y'know, giant steel battleships in space with massive guns that have inertia pulling on them wherever they go.

 

I mean, fighters wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for a few things:

1. Capital ships as a whole have a hard time hurting fighters, even from two AA dice ships. The AA upgrades don't seem to be working, and they hyper-specialize a ship in a way that isn't as rewarding as taking a fighter enhancement upgrade with starfighters. This forces ships to take fighters of their own to stop enemy fighters. Problem is, Rebel fighters are better at doing everything.

2. Fighters striking with multiple small attacks is almost unparalleled of a strategy for anything else in the game. It's the same principle that makes CR-90s with TRCs popular by snapping off a guaranteed 2 damage or a crit on something from long range. Rebels exasperate this with a token-carrying Yavaris, able to string out six attacks out of only three fighters they paid for. Since exhausting defense tokens is a workable strategy, it's better to take massed bombers for multiple attacks to get around the contain token. Again, Rebel fighters are better at stacking these multiple attacks with powerful bombers (B-Wings) and something to enhance their lethality (Norra). Empire doesn't really have a combination like that except for the ever-reliable Rhymer, but that's a matter of range, not ship-killing combination potential.

3. Fighters help the rest of a list gain positional advantage. If you have six of them for instance, that's three deployment delays. Three deploys to force the opponent to, say, drop his Star Destroyer. Then your heavies are placed in response to that.

4. Competitively it's better to buy clouds of units for those activation advantages and multiple sources of attacks. As the Rebels have ways of enhancing their defensive play (Rieekan, Mon Mothma) it's more rewarding to field their lighter ships in large numbers than their large ships.

 

I'm not opposed to fighters, it's just strategically speaking it's a better idea to buy max squadrons with enhancements becuase they're hard to kill, and they make very short work of large ships when unopposed. The reason I still push large and medium Imperial ships is a matter of stubbornness.

[Green Knight 9,731]

14 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Winning an argument requires you to get your opponents to concede that your points are valid. 

One point conceded,on the long road to victory.

My own personal wishlist, yes. Some ppl might agree with some of it - others not so much.

Put 2+ gamers in a room and I can guarantee they won't agree about much at all

[Democratus 1,698]

If you watch the Star Wars movies, it's pretty clear that squadrons are king.

New Hope: Squadrons blow up Death Star

Phantom Menace: Squadron blows up Federation flagship.

Rogue One: Squadrons disable Star Destroyer

In the Star Wars universe, does a Star Destroyer ever do anything more impressive than ram a transport?

The whole franchise shows again and again that Star Destroyers are not very good ships and fighters are the answer to nearly every tactical problem.

[OgRib 388]

Since we are all posting thoughts we have shared before.

 

• Good players preparing for important competitions that they really want to do well in will analyze and test and practice to find a list that they think has the best chances of winning. 
• In any set of arbitrary game rules there will always be points of maximum viability - lists/combos that can consistantly perform better.  Even in chess, with all the same pieces and rules, white will have an advantage because of first player. 

Part of my joy of getting good at a game is learning and getting gud with the rules as written, and although I'd never be called a great player - as someone who has bought the game and invested a lot of time in building a local community I am entitled to have opinions about the game that differ from others.

This is a frigging game, it is for fun.  I come to these forums to share my joy of pushing plastic models around a playmat and reliving the fantastic experiences of the Star wars franchise.  Getting so bent out of shape because of diasgreements about the game experience makes me want to go back to www.reddit.com/r/xwingtmg - at least there Fly Casual still means something. 

 

On the calls to go play X-wing if you like squadron play so much - one of the first two concepts that sold me on Armada (coming from X-wing) was the whole squadron engagement mechanic which I envisioned as many fighters in a dogfight and unable to break away safely due to close interaction with enemy fighters.  It was completely uhnlike X-wing and immediately appealed to me.  I have no problems with the concept of Intel - it is part of what makes the squadron dance so challenging.

 

...

also @Norsehound - my propaganda comment was supposed to be funny

Edited May 9, 2017 by OgRib
fixed typo

[cynanbloodbane 3,435]

3 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

My own personal wishlist, yes. Some ppl might agree with some of it - others not so much.

Put 2+ gamers in a room and I can guarantee they won't agree about much at all

Agreed. Arguing over the minutiae of a game is all part of the gaming community experience. 

Lets all just remember the lessons of Admiral "Rage quit" Nelson, and keep it friendly.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

22 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I demand immediate satisfaction.

Get some speed 4 corvettes and go play with your man tool. Just whip it around and see where those CR90s will go.

[Thraug 1,066]

2 hours ago, moodswing5537 said:

My problem with nerfing demo now is that it's a bit too late now, isn't it? I mean, we shouldn't nerf something just because it's in a lot of lists. By this definition we should nerf rymer when you take bombers. Demo can be countered with different methods. Rieekan + flotillas + 134pt ace squads + Yavaris + relay is really only counterable with Rieekan + flotillas + 134pt ace squads + Yavaris + relay. That's grounds for a nerf IMHO. 

Every squad should have Rhymer's ability built in, and Rhymer should allow long range, but the squads woulf have to be renalances for this.

Requiring squads to be at range 1 to fire at ships is one of the worst design decisions in Armada. It causes a massive mess to manage on the table and frustrates lots of players.

 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

9 minutes ago, Democratus said:

If you watch the Star Wars movies, it's pretty clear that squadrons are king.

New Hope: Squadrons blow up Death Star

Phantom Menace: Squadron blows up Federation flagship.

Rogue One: Squadrons disable Star Destroyer

In the Star Wars universe, does a Star Destroyer ever do anything more impressive than ram a transport?

The whole franchise shows again and again that Star Destroyers are not very good ships and fighters are the answer to nearly every tactical problem.

They obliterated a fleet in Rogue One. Great scene

[Madaghmire 7,274]

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Get some speed 4 corvettes and go play with your man tool. Just whip it around and see where those CR90s will go.

If i did that there would be no space for the corvettes

[Democratus 1,698]

3 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

They obliterated a fleet in Rogue One. Great scene

True. But only once the Rebel squadrons left the scene. 

[Jondavies72 575]

As I've stated a few times, I don't think we should be looking to nerf one component of a list, the reason it has suddenly become dominate is a complex mix of rule interations and human factors. So just picking out reeikan and stomping him seems clumsy to me ( I did not play against a single reeikan list at tournaments last year, so this is not a long term issue).

I also agree with the posters who feel the fighter game is important and adds very much to the game. Wave one was a far less Ritch game when you could simply stop the fighter game by throwing handful of Awings into the fray. I love the complexity of the fighter game, even though I've never fielded more that about 100 points of fighters at most.

I do feel there is a component to the game which is lacking and therefore almost entirely missing and that's effective anti fighter/bomber fire from capital ships. You should be able to build in relatively effective AAA defences into a fleet. You have some options with a Demo glad 2 and instigator but we need some form of more dedicated AAA ships.... Maybe titles for Neb bs, CR90s, kittens and gladiators. Also some form of more focused AAA turbo laser, ion cannon and ordinance cards for larger ships ( say allowing a focused attack with all dice from an arc onto s single fighter ( a large capital ship should thematically be able to destory a single bomber squadron in a round)  or upping the standard AA dice of large base ships against bombers ( we don't want a ship to be able to remove a whole light fighter wing ( Awings, tie fights etc) but bombers should actually have to suffer if they go on an attack run against a major war ship. As is single ISD, MC80 would struggle to down a single bomber squadron in 4 rounds, that's just unthematic.

Even with limited options I do love fielding AAA focused lists supported by a light fighter wing over 134 points of fighters. Give me instigator, demo glad two and 60 points of fighters........and I will do my best, give me a true capital ship ( ISD) with effective triple A and I'm a happy man. 

 

 

[Valca 397]

7 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Every squad should have Rhymer's ability built in, and Rhymer should allow long range, but the squads woulf have to be renalances for this.

Requiring squads to be at range 1 to fire at ships is one of the worst design decisions in Armada. It causes a massive mess to manage on the table and frustrates lots of players.

 

Goodbye black AA dice. 

[AgentoftheEmpire 221]

1 hour ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Well truth be told I didn't say it was 'fine', as I am too far out on the outskirts to know exactly what was happening at the center of activity. I merely pointed out that without the 'pressure' of knowing what everybody else is flying the game has seemed balanced to me, and that thus one should consider that perhaps the 'metas' of tournaments and the fleets used to prepare for them are biased, in a way. So I don't believe that things that seem OP actually are in most cases of casual play, and that thus a blanket statement to that fact is a bit inappropriate. . . if I was the one who sparked this thread, then I must have been misunderstood or perhaps haven't expressed myself quite well.  

I don't know what the situation is in anyone else's area, but since it's fine here, with no 'auto-win lists', no meta, really, since we always try something different, I like to point out that when people are angry about a specific aspect of the game being OP they should take a breath and consider the ramifications of their demands for nerfs or erratas on players who have never heard of Rieekan Aces, for example, or for whom Demo isn't an auto-include. That's not to say that they don't have a point, but that they shouldn't assume their issue is universal and hence requires a universal and permanent fix. 

This. Right here

[Undeadguy 5,749]

9 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Every squad should have Rhymer's ability built in, and Rhymer should allow long range, but the squads woulf have to be renalances for this.

Requiring squads to be at range 1 to fire at ships is one of the worst design decisions in Armada. It causes a massive mess to manage on the table and frustrates lots of players.

 

How does this fix anything? Now B-Wings can double tap you from medium? Sloane can rip tokens from long? What's the intent here because I see a lot of ways this breaks the game.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

35 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

it seems a perfectly valid thing to wonder.

I play Armada over X-Wing because I enjoy the intricate waltz that X-Wing just does not have. 

 

All the pieces coming together, dancing across the table. Such a difficult and intricate dance that X-Wing just can't compare to. 

 

Is that a good enough reason to enjoy ALL that Armada offers? 

[Darth Sanguis 6,324]

Just now, Lyraeus said:

I play Armada over X-Wing because I enjoy the intricate waltz that X-Wing just does not have. 

 

All the pieces coming together, dancing across the table. Such a difficult and intricate dance that X-Wing just can't compare to. 

 

Is that a good enough reason to enjoy ALL that Armada offers? 

Absolutely.