Jump to content
X Wing Nut

FFG stop teasing me

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

I feel the argument for a pass rule is a natural extension from arguments about first/last and how powerful it can be.  In order for 2 ships lists to compete currently they MUST have first player.  They get obliterated if they don't.  With the current game mechanics activation count and First player advantage are aspects of the game that need attention.  The game designers feel they can address this by releasing upgrade cards.  I hope they're right, but I think they're wrong.

I hope I'm dead wrong and that Governor Pryce is a massive success and gives large ships the nudge they need to bring their ability to compete with everything else that is out there.  I'm one of the pessimistic ones out there as I think the new card will be considered worthless a month after release.  Joining the ranks of Tagge, NK-7 Ion and other sad forgotten cards that just dont work.

I'd like to see a slight tweak in the rules vs an upgrade card.  Somethings need a rule change vs a bandaid card and that's ok!  Saying a rule needs to be tweak is NOT saying Armada is dead.  Its something that is natural and common in a miniatures game.  Look at Dang near any other miniature games' rule book and you'll see an edition number.  It's a natural evolution of any game as it gets bigger.  40k, fanatasy, infinity, and Flames of War are all miniatures games that I've played in the past and they all have been through multiple editions of rules... some huge changes with others that only had minor tweaks to an already great rule set.

 

Not dead, just a different game with the same name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a 40K refugee from all the way back to Rogue Trader days, every time GW would “tweak” the rules with a new edition, the game just shifted the OP-ness to a different area.  I don’t like the saying, but if you don’t like the Armada rules, then maybe it isn’t for you.  I’m not a blind follower, I’m just stating my opinion on what I see as a relatively balanced rule set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40k has been around for a very long time.  So obviously when you introduce new units/things to a game the meta and the "OPness" changes.  Can't avoid that.  Armada comparitiviely is still in its infancy.

@emsgoof So dont miss understand me by thinking this would be a 1 and done thing.  Balancing a game that has new product released as much as Armada does is a life long pursuit and there will always be things that can be improved upon.  Every other miniatures game including 40k proves this out.

*edit

Let me add that this is coming from someone that really really likes the armada ruleset... but perfection?  Please dont kid yourself.

Edited by PartyPotato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

With a couple of tweaks? 

 

Perfect no... better yes. 

Balance Perfection for a games that releases new content is an illusion.  But I fully understand that there are always people that take it as a personal attack when someone even humors the possibly that armada is anything other than perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that the best route, especially now that there is Pryce, is to make Flotillas a separate phase, and I would love to see them not count as ships. I have only played against 2 flotillas and I did not enjoy that game, I hate watching games with 3+ flotillas. I know the game is not truly cinematic, but multiple flotillas just makes the game feel like moving plastic hunks shaped like Star Wars ships around in a min/max game and not a Star Wars naval battle game. This is one of the issues I have with X-Wing, half the time I go to a tournament I do not recognize a single ship on the table from any of the movies and it sucks. I also hate that from the beginning to last FAQ, all rebel ships were designed with Biggs in the build, nothing worse than having to include something in your build to be susuccessful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cusm said:

I still think that the best route, especially now that there is Pryce, is to make Flotillas a separate phase,

No. One million times no.

14 minutes ago, Cusm said:

and I would love to see them not count as ships.

I think most people are fine with this idea. But no flotilla phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that to strive for perfection is a dangerous end in and of itself. That old saying about the eye of the beholder and what not. It's all subjective, one person op aspect is another's bog standard. I don't think this game is perfect, but it is enjoyable. Nothing absolutely trounces everything, which is a sing a game has a legit problem (or an intended dilemma). Yes last first is painful, and yes msu vs one big bad can be fairly one sided. That being said I can't think of anything that runs rampant as a gauranteed win. I could be wrong. 

Seeing pryce just leads me to believe that she dose two things. Capitalizes on the power of last frist, and diminishes the threat of being out activated. It's not a bad mechanic, just adds some flavor and a depth of forethought to acitvation, essentially rewarding the long game planner (which you already have to be with ISD). Raddus and his pack look to be rewarding to on the fly players more. An intriguing choice on the game devs. Catering not just to playstyle, but to the litterall aproch  to the game.

I just find it very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PartyPotato said:

I'd like to see a slight tweak in the rules vs an upgrade card.  Somethings need a rule change vs a bandaid card and that's ok!  Saying a rule needs to be tweak is NOT saying Armada is dead.  Its something that is natural and common in a miniatures game.  Look at Dang near any other miniature games' rule book and you'll see an edition number.  It's a natural evolution of any game as it gets bigger.  40k, fanatasy, infinity, and Flames of War are all miniatures games that I've played in the past and they all have been through multiple editions of rules... some huge changes with others that only had minor tweaks to an already great rule set.

In a game like 40k though, all of the rules are in the book.  It's not hard to rewrite the rules and just ignore the old rules.  The stats aren't printed on the minis.

In Armada though, the rules are on the cardboard ship inserts, the ship cards, the squadron cards, the upgrade cards, the commander cards, the title cards, etc, etc, etc...

If you rewrite the rules in any meaningful way, all of that would suddenly be wrong.  Just take a look at a pass rule as the only change.  It's already been stated that it basically makes light ships ineffective and pushed everyone to heavier ships.  To counteract that you'd need to increase medium and large ships in price while reducing small ship prices.  After some playtesting with that, they'd probably find something else that is affected by the change that wasn't predicted.  Some combo of cards, or further adjustments to shields/firepower for various ships.  Now how do you distribute the rule changes to the players?  Give away tons of free addendum kits so players can adjust their stuff?  That would be a huge cost to FFG.  Force players to buy addendum kits? That's likely going to turn off a lot of players, especially if there is existing stock of older units still floating around (not to mention core units).

Also consider the confusion and chaos at tournaments where people don't have the right set of addendum pieces.

This can be done in a game where all the rules are in the book.  But when it's done to games where parts of the rules are on the pieces, it typically marked the beginning of the end of that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

In a game like 40k though, all of the rules are in the book.  It's not hard to rewrite the rules and just ignore the old rules.  The stats aren't printed on the minis.

In Armada though, the rules are on the cardboard ship inserts, the ship cards, the squadron cards, the upgrade cards, the commander cards, the title cards, etc, etc, etc...

If you rewrite the rules in any meaningful way, all of that would suddenly be wrong.  Just take a look at a pass rule as the only change.  It's already been stated that it basically makes light ships ineffective and pushed everyone to heavier ships.  To counteract that you'd need to increase medium and large ships in price while reducing small ship prices.  After some playtesting with that, they'd probably find something else that is affected by the change that wasn't predicted.  Some combo of cards, or further adjustments to shields/firepower for various ships.  Now how do you distribute the rule changes to the players?  Give away tons of free addendum kits so players can adjust their stuff?  That would be a huge cost to FFG.  Force players to buy addendum kits? That's likely going to turn off a lot of players, especially if there is existing stock of older units still floating around (not to mention core units).

Also consider the confusion and chaos at tournaments where people don't have the right set of addendum pieces.

This can be done in a game where all the rules are in the book.  But when it's done to games where parts of the rules are on the pieces, it typically marked the beginning of the end of that game.

You just hit one of my biggest complaints with Armada right on the head... which has nothing to do with the rules themselves but with how FFG chooses to deseminate rules (this problem is present in x-wing and legion too).  It requires FFG to get it perfect upon release, which is impossible... there wouldn't be an errata if it was possible.

BUT... thats a topic for another day.

Any and every change, release, FAQ, errata has that risk of rocking the boat/meta too much.  The funny part is that if you take that change, print it on a card and charge money for it the masses love it.

I also think its entirely doable to make changes to the 20 page rule book with out rendering the cards incompatible.

Edited by PartyPotato
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Perfect no... better yes. 

Balance Perfection for a games that releases new content is an illusion.  But I fully understand that there are always people that take it as a personal attack when someone even humors the possibly that armada is anything other than perfect. 

I don't take this things personal. It is quite subjective. I like Armada as it is. You don't. FFG supports me thus far.

I am not against all those who don't like it as it is. But I see more personal offense from those who point to the fact that ffg is ignoring their complaints. When they don't. They are solving all those "issues" from a creative point that mess with less things as possible. Now I find complaints cause they are not doing the things the way they like. And, again, it is fine. 

The true is that I didn't see a rule change that I like or really could help to solve the issue without breaking other things.

I mean: why 2-3 ship fleets MUST be better than 4-5 or 6-7?

 

The problem I see is that you based your opinion on a game where they work in some way and you liked the result. You start from the fact you liked the result. But that doesn't make the game better. It does better for you. It is not the first time some argue pointing to people blindly saying Armada is perfect. It is a game. It has nothing to do with perfection. It just happen Armada is something they like.

If you don't I wonder why you play it. I never asked for a rule change for Risk. I play Diplomacy instead.

Also if you like it but you would like something being different. Awesome. Write here, cross fingers but don't think your money is better than mine.

 

Note: I don't bother too much about this kind of discussion but I read this:

2 hours ago, emsgoof said:

, I’m just stating my opinion on what I see as a relatively balanced rule set.

And this:

1 hour ago, PartyPotato said:

... but perfection?  Please dont kid yourself.

And I cannot avoid the though of you dismissing him for free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I like Armada as it is. You don't.  FFG supports me thus far.

Generalizations are tricky and I apologize to @emsgoof if I offended him with my generalization of his post.  But you doing that same to me doesn't correct a wrong.

Never have I said I dont like Armada.  I wouldn't be here I didn't like the game.  There are plenty of other games out there that can have my money if I didn't like it.  But I get it, you like it as is.  Which is fine while I think there is room for refinement.  We can agree to disagree with an exchange of ideas.

But FFG releasing an Errata and acknowledging imbalances shows that even the designers believe there is room for refinement.  So sorry if this offends you, but I disagree that FFG supports the notion that "the game is fine as is".

The latest article itself even says the Governor Pryce is a card specifically created to address an issue that the author thought needed attention by the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Generalizations are tricky and I apologize to @emsgoof if I offended him with my generalization of his post.  But you doing that same to me doesn't correct a wrong.

Never have I said I dont like Armada.  I wouldn't be here I didn't like the game.  There are plenty of other games out there that can have my money if I didn't like it.  But I get it, you like it as is.  Which is fine while I think there is room for refinement.  We can agree to disagree with an exchange of ideas.

But FFG releasing an Errata and acknowledging imbalances shows that even the designers believe there is room for refinement.  So sorry if this offends you, but I disagree that FFG supports the notion that "the game is fine as is".

The latest article itself even says the Governor Pryce is a card specifically created to address an issue that the author thought needed attention by the developers.

Yep. I miss the "?":D

I also pointed to ffg addressing issues. But they are not changing the core rules... They should like them as they are, at least right now. 

Also is not the author a player? That player thought it was an issue. The solution was not a rule change though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Yep. I miss the "?":D

I also pointed to ffg addressing issues. But they are not changing the core rules... They should like them as they are, at least right now. 

Also is not the author a player? That player thought it was an issue. The solution was not a rule change though.

At the end of the day we had an exchanging of ideas and no one rage quit... so hey... I'm counting that as a win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Fixed that for you, but the basic sentiment of "dual ISD fleets can be successful" I don't disagree with, and I know @GiledPallaeon could certainly tell you more.

Triple ISD fleets shouldn't be good because the only real way to afford that is to spam 3 of them with barely anything else in the fleet. If it was that simple to do well at Armada, you've got a fairly shallow game.

I was summoned? Yeah triple ISDs is bad, no room for critical upgrades, and intelligent people take one wing one and run. All kinds of coordination problems.

As for two ISDs, that dissertation has passed 2200 words and I'm only 40ish % done. TL; WR: number of newer players using them notwithstanding, dual ISDs are a niche fleet that requires ice water for blood and a lot of experience to understand engagement control. That said they're probably one of the deadliest ship to ship fleets as a rule and very good at castling points. They also adore fleets kitted to kill one. They cut those to ribbons and hang them on the Christmas tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I was summoned? Yeah triple ISDs is bad, no room for critical upgrades, and intelligent people take one wing one and run. All kinds of coordination problems.

As for two ISDs, that dissertation has passed 2200 words and I'm only 40ish % done. TL; WR: number of newer players using them notwithstanding, dual ISDs are a niche fleet that requires ice water for blood and a lot of experience to understand engagement control. That said they're probably one of the deadliest ship to ship fleets as a rule and very good at castling points. They also adore fleets kitted to kill one. They cut those to ribbons and hang them on the Christmas tree.

What about 3 liberties ? If 1 is good, 2 are better, 3 there fore must be best! If 4 could be done I would!! ALL THE LIBERTY MUWHAHAHAHA!

Sorry bout that I just like that ship. Its the best, And that's a strong opinion based fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Noosh said:

What about 3 liberties ? If 1 is good, 2 are better, 3 there fore must be best! If 4 could be done I would!! ALL THE LIBERTY MUWHAHAHAHA!

Sorry bout that I just like that ship. Its the best, And that's a strong opinion based fact.

I would assume triple Lib suffers the same issues as triple ISDs , just more titled to maneuver and less to upgrades. As far as dual Libs are concerned, they are getting an as-yet-unwritten section in the comparisons (well, my dual Libs, Repulse and Renown). They're similar on paper to what I call a maneuver fleet (not as blindingly obvious as it sounds like it should be) but flies very differently from the ISD maneuver fleets because it isn't an ISD maneuver fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I would assume triple Lib suffers the same issues as triple ISDs , just more titled to maneuver and less to upgrades. As far as dual Libs are concerned, they are getting an as-yet-unwritten section in the comparisons (well, my dual Libs, Repulse and Renown). They're similar on paper to what I call a maneuver fleet (not as blindingly obvious as it sounds like it should be) but flies very differently from the ISD maneuver fleets because it isn't an ISD maneuver fleet.

Now I've got to try triple liberties. Just to see the facepalms across the board.  I'm sure someone has tried it but is sure sounds fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Noosh said:

Now I've got to try triple liberties. Just to see the facepalms across the board.  I'm sure someone has tried it but is sure sounds fun.

Upon further consideration the maneuver issue is again swapped from ISDs, since the latter is putting weapons on target where you're keeping them on your bow. They are almost a perfect inverse of each other on every notable characteristic. Fascinating, I have now mentally written that comparison section, thank you.

Share this post


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

Upon further consideration the maneuver issue is again swapped from ISDs, since the latter is putting weapons on target where you're keeping them on your bow. They are almost a perfect inverse of each other on every notable characteristic. Fascinating, I have now mentally written that comparison section, thank you.

Glad to help giled. I always find it interesting that everyone seems to treat the liberty as though it's a not as good ISD. It's a different animal, it likes different things than the ISD. But fills a similar battlefield role, just not in the same fashion as the ISD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoilers for my upcoming dual ISD thoughts essay.

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD maneuver fleet like my Regionals list:

 

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD castle fleet. Note that unlike the previous brawl, this is an objective matchup. (Also the manuever fleet usually wins, but details.)

 

Edited by GiledPallaeon
Better video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Truthiness and @JJs Juggernaut, you mentioned that you have played with a pass rule and that it took a lot of fun out of the game for you. I was always in favor of a pass rule, but qou two are well more experienced players than I am. So, I trust your judgement. However, this might be dependent on the specific pass rule. How did yours work? Was it one first and last player could benefit from? Could it be used at any point of the ship phase?

My favorite pass rule is that merely the second player is allowed to delay only his last activation after the last activation of the first player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Spoilers for my upcoming dual ISD thoughts essay.

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD maneuver fleet like my Regionals list:

 

The following is how to correctly play a dual ISD castle fleet. Note that unlike the previous brawl, this is an objective matchup. (Also the manuever fleet usually wins, but details.)

 

Wuxi Finger Hold is BTAvenger amirite*?

 

*I learnt this "word" yesterday I wanted to use at least once in my life XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...