Green Knight

The state of Armada Q3 2017 (CLICK-BAIT WARNING!!!)

67 posts in this topic

This is all very good discussion and I'm glad this topic seems to be popping up more and more lately because I too feel like this is one of the few areas the game is lacking...

 

Red objectives are imo particularly afflicted here. As has been stated MW is a no brainer, with niche lists taking AG/SA... the rest are either ultra risky or HOT GARBAGE!

 

And i feel like although MW is auto pick in a lot of cases, it's fairly mediocre overall... Flotillae helped 2nd player in this objective but also hurt 2nd player as well. If you have one flotilla to make your most wanted, then fine. But if you have one flotilla to make your most wanted, and 2 or 3 other flotillae after that, how many extra dice can you get out of the objective.

Yet another facet of flotillae/MW interplay is that if your opponent is delaying with flotilla of his own, it can be hard to cash in his ISD for the most wanted bonus because he can play keep away with it until your ships are in range, then he can GT away a couple of your ships next turn and be just laughing by that point... See euro final for a perfect example of this.


As for blue and yellow, I don't think they suffer as much at the moment because they at least have viable strategic and non-strategic objectives in each color... Still some blue and yellow objectives leave a lot to be desired.

 

 

Green Knight and Megatronrex like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SkyCake said:

Or just that tractor beams were good...

It should have been its own upgrade slot just like turbo-lasers and ion cannons then you could have it do different things like move asteroids or squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

40 minutes ago, SkyCake said:

Or just that tractor beams were good...

I want to note that I don't disagree with you that the Phylons are "meh" at best. I sympathize with the FFG designers, though, in that making a speed-control upgrade that's fair has got to be nearly impossible. If it's not good enough (like Phylons), then nobody takes them. If they're actually good, then "speed control" fleets become a workable archetype and regularly produce extremely unpleasant games where "I got stuck in place, unable to escape, and then the other guy beat the p*ss out of me" is a common outcome. Hence, I feel like they erred on the side of "don't ruin the game" and the Phylons are mostly there for the flavor.

I would absolutely love some tractor beams that let you push obstacles around a bit, though. That could be super fun and likely not too busted.

Edited by Snipafist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think the game has taken a step in a good direction. The discussion seen here is pretty constructive and I agree with a lot of what was said.

My personal gripes with the game are still these 2 things:

- Activation advantage is still too much of a deal IMO, to the point where big ship fleets need filler activations to remain relevant. And filler activations are just not much fun.

- Some older cards really need a rework. Again, an "errata" pack would be most welcome.

Edited by Sybreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to clarify something about the Red objectives in that it's been a piling on of "MW is the only good one, with occasional fleets wanting AG/SA."  Precision Strike is still good with Bombers, Opening Salvo with Hammerheads/Leia COULD work (yeah, i ram you turn 6 to trade 20 points of my ship for MORE than 20 of yours.  Plus HH throwing like 9 dice).  Station Assault is the outgrowth of CC, and may be better than people are thinking.  We haven't played CC here, so i can't tell you how good the CC version is.  Realistically though, its the Interdictor Objective.  And I'm glad it's there to make Interdictors viable.  Same for Targeting Beacons/Sato, and same level of gladness.  Neither of them (Interdictors and Sato) is really my cup of tea, but if they're someone's, then yes, you'd see them with those fleets.  The problem isn't with the red objectives there, it's that:

A) those are, for better or worse, niche fleets.  Targeting Beacons is good with strategic, yes, but it's still kinda wonky even in a non-Sato fleet.  You can't depend on it to save you as much as you'd want.  Interdictors and Sato are niches that some people want to play, but statistically aren't seen as "good." I'm not saying they secretly ARE, but you don't see them in huge quantities in tournaments.

B) You're dependant on both getting good with your niche fleet and that objective in it.  I've got half a Sato idea, with Targeting Beacons, Jamming Barrier/Hyperspace Assault, and Salvage Run.  THEORETICALLY, that's a great fleet for Sato and strategic.  In PRACTICE (and in fleet building), i don't care enough about Sato to get good with him.  I'd rather play Leia right now, and she wants different things than Sato does (and not really much strategic, but you could argue there's a Strategic build for her).

I make no claims on Close-Range Intel Scan, as that's even more niche than anything else.  Maybe a Home One Fleet that for some reason doesn't want Advanced Gunnery? No idea.  And AG goes in HMC80 fleets and Avenger fleets.  If they're dumb enough to let you have them..... I don't consider those niche, as Ackbar HAS been around forever....

I have had fun though with Blockade Run and Navigational Hazards, and I could potentially even consider using them in "professional" fleets.  They're enjoyable objectives that no one plays because they're "different," which could mean you'd have actual success playing them if you know what you're doing.  I'd wonder about blockade run with a heavier squadron approach, just letting you tag team whatever ship tries to stop you, and it having no where to go.  Nav Hazards if you go with a bunch of smalls can prevent you from getting concentrated on potentially, there's OPTIONS is what I'm saying.  Yes, the defaults of Most Wanted/Contested Outpost (which is weird, my default is Planetary Ion Cannon...)/Solar Corona are still defaults, but why not try some of the weirder ones out? I'm not saying you'll like them all, but you might find something you like playing and could develop into something better than you'd expect from them?

I've debated moving away from Precision Strike on my end with bombers as I've seen a lot of APTs on Gladiators here as then Precision Strike is the easy objective choice.  Yes, MW can give you some good points, IF you can kill their ship.  But what if you face the Cracken 4 CR90 fleet with 8 YT2400s? Most Wanted is not crazy helpful there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how they change the objectives there will always be a set that is simply better for tournament play than others, resulting in seeing the same ones over and over again as we do now.

 I wouldn't mind seeing a change to how objectives are selected.  A possibility is to allow the second player to randomly select one objective from each category and choose the objective that will be played. That way all objectives will see play and they don't have to be Supercritical in balancing them.  Or something along those lines.

Right now objective selection is boring, as pretty much everybody mentioned here, there are only a few that are selected as options and from those only a couple see play regularly, and there are objectives that never ever see tournament play, which isn't good.

Green Knight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm kind of considering Close Range Intel Scan for my red objective. Gunnery Teams mean I can't take Advanced Gunnery and we have pretty much agreed no one that brings a bid is willing to pick most wanted when I can choose a flotilla. 

 

If I don't want every opponent to just toss the red one and pick from the other two, I have to mix it up. With a list skewed to red and blue dice, you should have an advantage against lists that run more black. It probably won't get blowout scores, but you can add to your total here and there, and creates a weird long/medium range optimum engagement. It will probably do well against Gladiator and mc30c fleets, but they may be tempted to pick it over fire lanes. 

 

I want to make blockade run work, but I think the tournament rules strongly favor blowouts (I saw store championship results where the only 3-0 player was in third because their wins were too close) which means you need to have six or more activations to make it even slightly worthwhile. 

 

To close, there are clear leaders for objectives, but it is probably due to all the previous mentioned reasons (strategic, flotillas) and heavily influenced by tournament scoring rules.  FFG could mix it up if they feel the need, by adjusting scoring values. If there were no longer 6-5 games outside of exact ties, you could afford to squeak out three wins and end a tournament at 21 points. As it is, 10-10-1 wins the day over 6-6-8, and that influences tactics and objective choice. 

Edited by AEIllingworth
Spelling.
Green Knight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, geek19 said:

[...]

Paraphasing, the objectives are designed so that if you run up against someone who's been practicing stuff like Blockade Run, Nav Hazards, and something like Fleet Ambush, it's to give them and their build an option slash a chance to win/see something you haven't seen before.

[...]

Strangely, I haven't seen this working for quite some time now. On Vassal there are some top notch international players, but even they don't present us with the ultimate Blockade Run etc. list. And I think it is easy to see why: Yes, one can build the perfect Blockade Run list. I can imagine the ultimate Nav Hazards list even myself. However, what I cannot imagine is the ultimate Blockade Run list that is as good in the other two objectives. But they are the ones that will be picked by my enemy as soon as they have figured out that my list is designed for Blockade Run. Or to keep it short: As soon as I specialice my list to a single objective, it gets quite difficult to specialize for two other ones. And my weak spot will be picked. Not my strong one.

And you are right. I think a HH list with Opening Salvo is something I really want to try :-)

Edited by Darth Veggie
Green Knight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

And you are right. I think a HH list with Opening Salvo is something I really want to try :-)

I can confirm that Opening Salvo Hammerheads are fairly legit (8 dice with External Racks + Concentrate Fire dial), but it's super important to have a source of rerolls or else you're going to have issues with RNGesus at a crucial time.

They also do not like going up against opposing Raiders who get 9 dice under the same circumstances (usually 2 blue 2 red 5 black), which on average can one-shot your Hammerheads (average 9.25 damage). When I'm running my Ozzel MSU fleet, I'm all over Opening Salvo for that reason. So be careful when selecting it for your objective suite.

ryanabt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I usually play Stategic fleets these days, so opponents have usually avoided my Fire Lanes and Sensor Net objectives and chosen my red - usually MW or AG.  Therefore I consider it my "weakest" objective.  It really isn't great against a true MSU fleet either.  So I went with something different for the Autumn Vassal Tourney.

We'll see how it works out.  I'm hoping to give people a very tough choice.

 

Interesting point about Stategic decreasing the variety of objectives chosen for certain fleets....while I agree with that impression, I'm still glad they created that rule as it really makes second player fleets viable, and has thus increased the variety of fleet archetypes overall, if not the objective variety.

Edited by Maturin
SkyCake and Green Knight like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, AEIllingworth said:

I'm kind of considering Close Range Intel Scan for my red objective. Gunnery Teams mean I can't take Advanced Gunnery and we have pretty much agreed no one that brings a bid is willing to pick most wanted when I can choose a flotilla. 

 

If I don't want every opponent to just toss the red one and pick from the other two, I have to mix it up. With a list skewed to red and blue dice, you should have an advantage against lists that run more black. It probably won't get blowout scores, but you can add to your total here and there, and creates a weird long/medium range optimum engagement. It will probably do well against Gladiator and mc30c fleets, but they may be tempted to pick it over fire lanes. 

 

I want to make blockade run work, but I think the tournament rules strongly favor blowouts (I saw store championship results where the only 3-0 player was in third because their wins were too close) which means you need to have six or more activations to make it even slightly worthwhile. 

 

To close, there are clear leaders for objectives, but it is probably due to all the previous mentioned reasons (strategic, flotillas) and heavily influenced by tournament scoring rules.  FFG could mix it up if they feel the need, by adjusting scoring values. If there were no longer 6-5 games outside of exact ties, you could afford to squeak out three wins and end a tournament at 21 points. As it is, 10-10-1 wins the day over 6-6-8, and that influences tactics and objective choice. 

Amusingly, I recently realized that CRIS is probably the most abuse-prone objective for certain list types, but it is tremendously obvious and just like MW there is no counter-play.  In fact, there's actually even less counterplay because many ships are physically incapable of getting two accuracy results without a CF command.  So nobody will ever take it.

Edited by thecactusman17
AEIllingworth likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Amusingly, I recently realized that CRIS is probably the most abuse-prone objective for certain list types, but it is tremendously obvious and just like MW there is no counter-play.  In fact, there's actually even less counterplay because many ships are physically incapable of getting two accuracy results without a CF command.  So nobody will ever take it.

That is super true, but I guess I'm hoping opponents won't have seen it much and won't have thought about it that hard? 

 

That seems unsporting, now that I consider it. Give them the obvious trap to avoid or the potentially hidden trap to fall into (and maybe have less fun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree with GK more. Objectives need an overhaul to enliven the game. They should be the manner in which FFG addresses overperforming or underperforming list archetypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ryanabt said:

I couldn't agree with GK more. Objectives need an overhaul to enliven the game. They should be the manner in which FFG addresses overperforming or underperforming list archetypes.

You want to be careful with that as a fix for list archetypes.  Objectives can be played by and against every type of ship and squadron and their upgrades.  You might "fix" one ship squad or upgrade but end up breaking several more.

I do think that one or two objectives should receive Erratas in the interest of diversifying options.  The first one should probably be Fleet Ambush, but I also think an errata to Most Wanted would help that entire objective suite.

Most Wanted:  The flagship of each fleet is the Objective Ship.  When attacking the enemy objective ship with a ship, add a die of any color already in the attack pool to that attack

End of game:  If the First Player destroys the Second Player's flagship, they receive victory points equal to half the ship cost.   If the Second Player destroys the First Player's flagship, they receive victory points equal to the full cost of the enemy ship.  Do not include upgrades or Commanders when calculating the ship cost.

Fleet Ambush:  (setup as per usual).  Place an objective token on each ship deployed in the Ambush zone.  Special Rule:  During the first turn, when a ship with an objective token activates, before revealing a dial the second player may choose to either change that ship's top command to a command of their choice or change its speed by 1 (to a minimum of one).  Then remove objective tokens from all ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

You want to be careful with that as a fix for list archetypes.  Objectives can be played by and against every type of ship and squadron and their upgrades.  You might "fix" one ship squad or upgrade but end up breaking several more.

I do think that one or two objectives should receive Erratas in the interest of diversifying options.  The first one should probably be Fleet Ambush, but I also think an errata to Most Wanted would help that entire objective suite.

Most Wanted:  The flagship of each fleet is the Objective Ship.  When attacking the enemy objective ship with a ship, add a die of any color already in the attack pool to that attack

End of game:  If the First Player destroys the Second Player's flagship, they receive victory points equal to half the ship cost.   If the Second Player destroys the First Player's flagship, they receive victory points equal to the full cost of the enemy ship.  Do not include upgrades or Commanders when calculating the ship cost.

Fleet Ambush:  (setup as per usual).  Place an objective token on each ship deployed in the Ambush zone.  Special Rule:  During the first turn, when a ship with an objective token activates, before revealing a dial the second player may choose to either change that ship's top command to a command of their choice or change its speed by 1 (to a minimum of one).  Then remove objective tokens from all ships.

I don't object to that Most Wanted change offhand. It's certainly thematic. For Fleet Ambush, your wording seems to imply I can only screw with one ship. Was that intentional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I don't object to that Most Wanted change offhand. It's certainly thematic. For Fleet Ambush, your wording seems to imply I can only screw with one ship. Was that intentional?

Yes.  For additional options, you can set a fleet with other short range disruptors like Slicer Tools, Tractor Beams, etc.

Edited by thecactusman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now