Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've played a few games of Armada now, and while I very much enjoy the game, the fear I had when I first demoed it has kind of been confirmed (in my opinion), and that is: In a game where precise measurement really can have a huge impact on how things play out, having to reach down and try to slide the activation tabs and adjust the damage dials on fighters makes it almost impossible not to have their position fudged a bit each time you have to do this, and often times in the process of doing this for one fighter, other nearby fighters also get fudged. Then you have to try to remember things like: wasn't fighter 'X' supposed to be in engagement range of fighter 'Y'? On top of that, the way fighters tend to stay fairly spread out means the board gets kind of covered in them (at least where the action is happening), meaning the amount of times you actually get to cleanly put down the ship measurement tool on the table and move properly like that doesn't occur all that much as the game progresses.


There are certainly ways to minimize fighters getting accidentally fudged, like sliding the activation tab over on the model *before* moving it, for example, but even doing that doesn't help when adjusting the fighter's damage dial. And while I (or you) might be super careful about trying to keep our fighters in place while we do these things, you know there's some guy out there with fat hands (no offense to fat-handed people intended ) who just isn't going to be able to do the same.

Soooo, long story short, here is my suggested house rule to help alleviate this situation a bit. Note that this does in some cases fundamentally change the way the game works, so please don't read this thinking of it as 1-to-1 solution for the problem, but rather an alternate way to play Star Wars Armada for those who are so inclined. Plus I think it has the side benefit of both making the fighter battles look more 'cinematic' IMHO, because at the scale the game is set at it seems right to me that squadrons should have to be in contact with their targets in order to attack them.

Anyway, here's the house rule (this is my second version of the house rule, the original version is in spoiler tags below):

When a squadron is performing an attack, after confirming range to its declared target, if the attacking squadron is not in contact with the target (in the case of a ship, this would be the specific hull zone that is being attacked) nor in contact with a friendly squadron that is in contact with that target, then it must immediately make a special attack run move before completing the attack.

An attack run is a special move whereby the squadron is moved by the shortest distance possible in order to contact its target. An attack run must still be performed even when the attacking squadron is engaged.

If the squadron cannot possibly contact its target with the attack run (due to other ships/squadrons completely surrounding it, for example), then it must be moved as close as possible (by the shortest distance possible) before completing the attack.

So what does everyone think? Have you not felt what I describe as being an issue at all in your games? If you have, do you think the above house rule is a good potential solution (even though it does change the abilities of fighters a bit)? Feedback is most certainly welcome!


Here was the original version of my house rule, for those interested:

I think you can do this more simply -- just agree not to touch the fighters until engagement has been determined.

 Manchu wrote:
I think you can do this more simply -- just agree not to touch the fighters until engagement has been determined.

What I've found in my first few games, is that engagements can last over several turns potentially, and more importantly, you can become engaged when a squadron makes a 'squadron' order (you move and fight then), but then the capital ship moves, things happen and in the squadron phase you potentially have to check over and over again, especially across multiple turns and it can get incredibly complex at times trying to remember which fighters were supposed to be engaged with which other fighters (or within '1' of which capital ships).

There's just no way around it...fighters get bumped/moved and unless you have an incredible memory, its really hard to always remember that fighter 'X' was supposed to be engaged with fighter 'Y' or within range '1' of capital ship 'Z'.

I have only played games using one core set so far -- that may color my perception. We have played using all 10 fighter stands and not encountered a problem yet.

As I see it, you simply determine engagement whenever any fighter moves. If you need to touch a fighter stand in the interim (for example, to turn the damage dial after a capital ship shoots the squadron), just make sure to determine engagement (if necessary) before doing so and replace the fighter stand to be consistent with that determination. This does not require breaking any rules/using a houserule because there are no rules against pre-measuring, so far as I am aware.

Of course, you won't need to do this in every instance -- only in those circumstances where engagement is not obvious to the eye because the stands in question are right on the line of being within range. It also helps that once fighter stands are engaged, they are stuck that way (barring special rules) until one is destroyed or forced out of the way by capital ship movement.

Wouldn't the simpler solution be to just replace the tab with a two-sided token that you place next to the ship? Now you can mark the ship's activation without having to touch the model, and you don't have to modify the movement rules in ways that can significantly change how the game plays (for example, a single squadron engaging two squadrons just within range 1 in different directions, creating a large "engaged" zone and acting as area/movement denial).

 Manchu wrote:
I have only played games using one core set so far -- that may color my perception. We have played using all 10 fighter stands and not encountered a problem yet.

As I see it, you simply determine engagement whenever any fighter moves. If you need to touch a fighter stand in the interim (for example, to turn the damage dial after a capital ship shoots the squadron), just make sure to determine engagement (if necessary) before doing so and replace the fighter stand to be consistent with that determination. This does not require breaking any rules/using a houserule because there are no rules against pre-measuring, so far as I am aware.

Of course, you won't need to do this in every instance -- only in those circumstances where engagement is not obvious to the eye because the stands in question are right on the line of being within range. It also helps that once fighter stands are engaged, they are stuck that way (barring special rules) until one is destroyed or forced out of the way by capital ship movement.

Nope, it just potentially requires you to check range for a squadron everytime your'e going to touch the stand. Certainly if that's a concept that appeals to you, then yeah the rules work perfectly fine. But IMHO, that's an incredibly clunky way to play a game. Because it isn't always just checking for pure engagement. Sometimes your squadron can be engaged with an enemy squadron so then you're not very careful with how you put it back on the table, but then later that enemy fighter squadron gets destroyed by something else, and whether or not your squadron is within range '1' of capital ships supposedly becomes incredibly important.

So essentially everytime you're going to touch a squadron, you have to double check to see which squadrons and which capital ships it is within range '1' of. Personally I find that level of constant re-checking annoying, and I prefer if you instead just move the squadrons that are engaged into contact with each other to reduce the amount of checking necessary (which is what this house rule attempts to do).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Wouldn't the simpler solution be to just replace the tab with a two-sided token that you place next to the ship? Now you can mark the ship's activation without having to touch the model, and you don't have to modify the movement rules in ways that can significantly change how the game plays (for example, a single squadron engaging two squadrons just within range 1 in different directions, creating a large "engaged" zone and acting as area/movement denial).

Yep! If you wanted to play the totally correct rules and be super precise, the best way would be to keep the activation slider set dead-center (under the base) and keep separate cards for each fighter squadron (or a mod cube) to track damage for them. However, if you were playing a fighter-heavy force, I would imagine this would be kind of a pain to do as well.

 yakface wrote:
Nope, it just potentially requires you to check range for a squadron everytime your'e going to touch the stand.

That's overstating the original problem (engagement ambiguity), inventing a new one (clunkiness of determining engagement), and then overstating that one as well. First, engagement is not that ambiguous in a lot of (maybe most) cases ... certainly not enough to significantly change the star fighter rules. Second, determining engagement in ambiguous cases where it could be a serious issue is not going to suddenly make the game clunky. To the extent those are questions of personal taste, using Peregrine's token solution in those ambiguous circumstances would be ideal.

 yakface wrote:
then later that enemy fighter squadron gets destroyed by something else, and whether or not your squadron is within range '1' of capital ships supposedly becomes incredibly important

Your houserule doesn't really solve that one because a stand could be replaced so that it is in contact with an enemy stand but still slightly out of place enough such that it is out or in range of a capital ship/vice versa. You'd still need to pre-check range/engagement there.

The game comes with a bunch of extra chits that you will never use. Place one so that the middle of the flat edge touches the base. Then remove it, move the dial, an replace. It's not that hard unless you get to tourney nazis that scream that you moved it 1mm. If you are careful even those problems can be avoided.

If a lot of people have the same concerns as yakface, I bet we will see third parties start making clear acrylic semi-circle templates like they made those corner markers for X-Wing (which Armada actually comes with).

 Mike1975 wrote:
The game comes with a bunch of extra chits that you will never use. Place one so that the middle of the flat edge touches the base. Then remove it, move the dial, an replace. It's not that hard unless you get to tourney nazis that scream that you moved it 1mm. If you are careful even those problems can be avoided.

we did this and had no problem with the flow of the game or measuring range to fighters/capitals from fighters

I haven't had too much of a problem with the moving of fighter squadrons... We pick them up to mess with them or to move them so we can maneuver, and put them back in as close to their original position as possible as long as we both agree as to where it was located.

I feel like squadron movement is far less accurate than the capital ship movement/placement to begin with considering how they move according to the rules. The only time I could see it really being a problem is if you have a squadron placed next to two enemy squadrons, yet only engaged with one (I do this often). However, if your opponent knows who is engaged with what, it shouldn't be a problem.

Use a token or glass bead to denote a squadron that is activated. In the end Phase, like X-Wing, you remove tokens.
You can also use those spare target locks from X-Wing to show which squadron is engaged with which (Red AA on Imps, Blue AA on Rebs). That way if a base gets moved it doesn't matter about placement. You already know who its locked with regardless of any 'range fudging.'
A dice or small token stack on the Squadron card can also be used to show damage.
Though I think the intent of the sliders and rotating dial is to try and keep the field as uncluttered as possible.

Nice idea about the target lock tokens.

I guess I will need to play a few games against others to see why this is so concerning. I can see where moving the squadrons out of the way is bothersome, however with measuring tools that already have variation in them I'm not sure you're looking at some sort of massive problem unless you're playing TFG. If that's the case though any game is unpleasant because it's not about the game at that point.

Throwing down tokens and chits to track things seems like it will just make things even more convoluted, and I'm not certain the minor variation you'd see from the "gentleman's agreement" method on the status of the squadrons is going to make a game-changing difference for all the mechanical annoyance it adds. Is this an issue that's actually rampant with people pulling shenanigans on? Like the "measure from the front of the Rhino but put the back of the Rhino and the end of of the tape measure"?

I'm also confused why you would have the "who is engaged with whom" aspect to worry about; isn't that just "keep the position roughly accurate and look at who's in range 1"? Can someone elaborate on why I'd bring in tokens to mark that?

IMO/IME, there can be situations where you have a bunch of fighter stands clustered up, like where A is engaged with B and C but not D while B is engaged with A and D, etc, etc. In some subset of those cases, one or more stands might be right on the edge of engagement range with one or more other stands such that moving any of them a bit to flip the activation tab or twist the damage dial might imperceptibly change the stand's engagement status.

I can see certainly see that happening in a particularly ugly scrum of fighter-heavy fleets; I'm just not sure that the introduction of more clutter is going to help or proximity is going to help (as mentioned in the OP). I can also agree that when you're discussing tournament play that appeals to sportsmanship and fair play are (sadly) a losing proposition and should be avoided in the rules/design of the game if you want an enjoyable experience so I'm not trying to hand-wave it away entirely. I do have to wonder though if this is actually worth being concerned over, or if it's our gamer paranoia because we're all familiar with the fact that people WILL abuse mechanics that they can and we're devising a cure that's worse than the actual problem.

If the solution to the BtB contact issue making it too hard to adjust dials in the proposed house rule is "you know who it's engaged with because of who it's touching", I'm just failing to see where "measure around range 1 and establish who it's engaged with your opponent before doing anything" is dramatically worse. Under the house rule, I see Conga lines of fighters being formed with squadrons that ordinarily would not be in engagement range being able to do while perhaps out-ranging a nearby ship without further rules to prevent that loophole (i.e. - a ship can attack all engaged squadrons, which is open to abuse on the reverse where ships can fire on squadrons they ordinarily wouldn't). Adding in those loophole closes (and the fixes for the fixes, of course) would then reach the point you've torpedoed some of the simplicity of the game for higher fidelity. While that seems objectively good in a competitive setting, it circles back to my original question: is that fidelity actually required?

Granted, without more variety of fighters and especially the ace squadrons, I suppose that's something that is still TBD.

I am not sure if the concern is really about cheating specifically, which would be pretty tough, so much as unintentionally moving things around. That also highlights that fighter tactics in this game can be more a matter of what you end up with rather than what you intend, in contrast to the capital ship. I know some people argue this is a design feature rather than flaw.

 Krinsath wrote:
I can see certainly see that happening in a particularly ugly scrum of fighter-heavy fleets; I'm just not sure that the introduction of more clutter is going to help or proximity is going to help (as mentioned in the OP). I can also agree that when you're discussing tournament play that appeals to sportsmanship and fair play are (sadly) a losing proposition and should be avoided in the rules/design of the game if you want an enjoyable experience so I'm not trying to hand-wave it away entirely. I do have to wonder though if this is actually worth being concerned over, or if it's our gamer paranoia because we're all familiar with the fact that people WILL abuse mechanics that they can and we're devising a cure that's worse than the actual problem.

I should start by prefacing my response with: It is probably way too early in the game's life cycle to even suggest a house rule. People (including myself) are still struggling just to learn strategies/tactics for the game let alone considering trying out a house rule.

Its just that having 'fiddly' moments where the ships are unintentionally scooting around and potentially changing the 'true' outcome of the game is one of my big pet peeves of space combat games, and as much as I love Armada, and applaud them for the innovative ways they've used the bases of the fighters to track both activation and damage, I feel like the side-effect of this innovation is that, if anything, that 'fiddliness' is worse than other space games.

So honestly this house rule is, more than anything, my own version of how I would have created the game if I had made it. I have played with these house rules in effect now a few times, and I can safely say they do help with this issue. Fighters are more often than not now in contact with each other, which makes picking one up to adjust its slider/dial not so bad because there is a clear reference point of where it should be put back, and accidentally 'bumping' other fighters when adjusting another is way more noticeable (and therefore easily correctible).

But more than that, I really think it makes the game just play and look better. Fighter battles are now clearly defined and tend to be in tight groups, which means there is a lot more space for capital ships to maneuver without having to move fighters out of the way or hold the maneuver template above them.

Does it change the game? It does. A single fighter squadron can no longer swoop in and engage a bunch of enemy fighter squadrons at once, but beyond that, the overall impact is fairly minor (it does make 'engaged' abilities fairly weaker as well).

So for me personally, with the scale of what these fighter stands are supposed to represent, I like having them have to be in contact to be fighting each other. I like the way it looks on the table, and I think it makes the rest of the game play much cleaner and more enjoyably.

But I do also understand why it just might be me who craves this alteration.

If the solution to the BtB contact issue making it too hard to adjust dials in the proposed house rule is "you know who it's engaged with because of who it's touching", I'm just failing to see where "measure around range 1 and establish who it's engaged with your opponent before doing anything" is dramatically worse. Under the house rule, I see Conga lines of fighters being formed with squadrons that ordinarily would not be in engagement range being able to do while perhaps out-ranging a nearby ship without further rules to prevent that loophole (i.e. - a ship can attack all engaged squadrons, which is open to abuse on the reverse where ships can fire on squadrons they ordinarily wouldn't). Adding in those loophole closes (and the fixes for the fixes, of course) would then reach the point you've torpedoed some of the simplicity of the game for higher fidelity. While that seems objectively good in a competitive setting, it circles back to my original question: is that fidelity actually required?

While the house rule might be harder to explain (because I'm suggesting an alteration to a printed set of rules), I can tell you the implementation of the rule in the actual game does make the entire game play easier, not more complex. And FYI, in my house rule, a squadron can only be engaged by being in contact with an enemy squadron, or by being in contact with a friendly squadron that is in contact with an enemy squadron. So there is no 'daisy-chaining' beyond a single friendly fighter. And a squadron can only make a range 1 'attack run' move if they are at range 1 of an enemy squadron or ship. So even though they are allowed to move into contact with their friendly squadron (that is in contact with the enemy) in order to be 'engaged', they do still have to be within range 1 of that enemy to make the attack run in the first place.

Thematically I can appreciate the house rule and it does seem more "dogfight-y" on the table to have that proximity versus the possible stand-off distance of the base rules. I'm just not sold on the idea that the shift really adds that much to the game without also adding side effects. For example, a well-timed strike from maximum range essentially gets a free range 1 move under the house rule, though that could be resolved with "up to speed minus 1 if they plan to attack" or similar. On the other hand, you're also setting it up where someone who has planned quite well with their activation order and has struck with overwhelming force is getting a bonus, which is not a wholly negative side effect for a game that typically rewards forward-thinking. There's probably other side effects that just aren't springing to mind and may not be apparent until there's more squadrons to work with than 2 types, but that's something to worry about more when we actually have more information.

Maybe if I get a few games in with people I can better appreciate your viewpoint. It seems I am suspiciously okay with wherever I end up putting down the fighters when I'm playing myself for some reason, so the issue has not come up at all.

 Krinsath wrote:
Thematically I can appreciate the house rule and it does seem more "dogfight-y" on the table to have that proximity versus the possible stand-off distance of the base rules. I'm just not sold on the idea that the shift really adds that much to the game without also adding side effects. For example, a well-timed strike from maximum range essentially gets a free range 1 move under the house rule, though that could be resolved with "up to speed minus 1 if they plan to attack" or similar. On the other hand, you're also setting it up where someone who has planned quite well with their activation order and has struck with overwhelming force is getting a bonus, which is not a wholly negative side effect for a game that typically rewards forward-thinking. There's probably other side effects that just aren't springing to mind and may not be apparent until there's more squadrons to work with than 2 types, but that's something to worry about more when we actually have more information.

Maybe if I get a few games in with people I can better appreciate your viewpoint. It seems I am suspiciously okay with wherever I end up putting down the fighters when I'm playing myself for some reason, so the issue has not come up at all.

The overall 'range' that a squadron is able to attack is the same either way, cause you're losing the range 1 attack, but gaining a range 1 move. So in the actual rules a squadron activated using the 'squadron' order gets to move up to its squadron value and then attack up to range 1. With the house rule, you're getting to move up to your squadron value and then tack on another range 1 move to attack (in base contact).

Similarly, if a squadron is activated in the squadron phase in the actual rules, you get to attack up to range 1. With the house rule you get to move up to range 1 to attack (in base contact).

Like I said, I've played with the rule a few times, and the ways it mainly changes how effective squadrons are by the following:

1) Its harder to 'lock down' (engage) several enemy squadrons just by moving a single squadron of your own (which I actually like quite a bit, honestly).

2) Squadrons that have abilities based on engagement (the Tie's 'swarm' ability and Howlrunner's ability, for example) aren't quite as powerful as any given squadron stand tends to be engaged less enemy squadrons overall, and often you need to activate the squadron with that ability 'first' (like Howlrunner) to get them engaged into the scrum to use their ability, whereas in the actual rules its much easier for a squadron to passively just end up being engaged.

I foresee using dice to track damage. The game doesn't use 6-sided dice, so it should be easy.

Also, cutting for yourself a stick the size of the range 1 on the distance template would be helpful for quick measurements.

I guess I just don't see why they even need to be picked up tbh. I adjust dials & sliders just fine while using one finger to hold them on the table & the thumb & index finger of the other hand to adjust things.

There really aren't any issues with models sliding around if you're using the new Fantasy Flight playmats (or similar). The slight 'sponginess' of the neoprene material combined with the fabric facing keeps the bases largely pinned in place if you apply a slight downward pressure to the base while adjusting it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There really aren't any issues with models sliding around if you're using the new Fantasy Flight playmats (or similar). The slight 'sponginess' of the neoprene material combined with the fabric facing keeps the bases largely pinned in place if you apply a slight downward pressure to the base while adjusting it.

Just FYI, I've played every game on the FFG mats, and have seen fighters get fudged around accidentally in the demo game I played at Adepticon and in every game since. I'm not saying it can't be done (the amount of people in this forum telling me they don't have the problem says that pretty clearly), I'm just saying that it does happen, and if its your opponent accidentally doing it, it would still be frustrating.

I've been tinkering more around with the rule to make it closer to the actual rules while still getting fighters clumped up together when they're fighting, and I think I've got a good compromise (I've update the OP with this as well, and changed the thread title to make it less confrontational):

When a squadron is performing an attack, after confirming range to its declared target, if the attacking squadron is not in contact with the target (in the case of a ship, this would be the specific hull zone that is being attacked) nor in contact with a friendly squadron that is in contact with that target, then it must immediately make a special attack run move before completing the attack.

An attack run is a special move whereby the squadron is moved by the shortest distance possible in order to contact its target. An attack run must still be performed even when the attacking squadron is engaged.

If the squadron cannot possibly contact its target with the attack run (due to other ships/squadrons completely surrounding it, for example), then it must be moved as close as possible (by the shortest distance possible) before completing the attack.

So what do you guys think now? 'Engagement' still works exactly as in the actual rules, you're just moving the models into contact with each other when attacking with a squadron. This changes squadron's abilities very little but gives the following benefits (IMHO):

1) Creates a more cinematic looking table (because IMHO, at this scale fighters attacking should be in contact with each other).
2) Creates a table with more open space for capital ships to move without having to hold the measurement tool over other models more often.
3) Makes it generally easier to spot when a squadron gets accidentally fudged (as its easier to spot when two stands previously in base contact with each other suddenly aren't).
4) Makes it generally easier to pick up a squadron stand and put it back in roughly the same spot (as putting it back into contact with another squadron/ship is easier as you have a specific point of reference, the ship/squadron, to work with).

Only major hiccup I see is ace squadrons, in particular Major Rhymer; he and bomber squadrons near him have a larger engagement range when attacking ships which may interact somewhat poorly with this rule by pulling them further on the tabletop than their player might wish. Essentially the range of a TIE Bomber near Rhymer is going to be a slight bit less than a range 3 move. Hence, they could be at medium range from a CR90 but out of range of a Nebulon B since their anti-fighter is blue only. Actually, if my eyeballing of the scenario is correct, the bombers could be out of long range of the frigate, but moving them into BtB contact with the CR90 could easily bring them into range, which is not exactly the desired effect. However, limiting them to a range 1 attack run move obviously neuters Rhymer's elite squadron ability (assuming it's not changed between the preview and release, which can happen).

Any other rule that alters engagement ranges has the potential to interact badly with the rule, but for now it's an isolated circumstance involving exactly 1 type of fighter. Still, perhaps BtB contact for anti-ship attacks should be dropped? As I understand it, the core problem you're attempting to address is the issue of tracking damage/activation for fighters involved in a furball where bumping things accidentally while recording damage is trivially easy. As it really doesn't address bumping unengaged squadrons taking anti-fighter fire from capital ships, I'm not sure that's a part that needs to stay in. If the squadrons are out on their own you still need to pay attention, it's just easier to be careful because they're on their own.

Another concern that I wouldn't call "major" is the Heavy rule wherein the squadron does not count as engaging nearby ships. That does have to the potential of turning those squadrons into an unintended quick stepping-stone. If I attack those TIE Bombers (or Y-Wings) with any squadron, I essentially pick up a free Range 1 move. Let's take a hypothetical B-Wing squadron a bit beyond range 5 from an activated VSD with a Bomber squadron at range 3 and in range of a Rebel ship that's using a squadron command and following along towards the VSD. The B-Wing moves 2, then conducts an attack run on the Bombers, moving to range 3 (which amounts to a 50% speed buff in the case of the B-Wing). The rebel ship follows to keep it in command distance. If the Rebel player activates that ship before the VSD, the B-Wings can move away from the bombers at their speed of two, and are now at that range 5 mark. Normally, that mark would be the limit of their firing range (speed 2 + speed 2 and their standard range of 1 = range 5), but because of their free range 1 attack run the turn before, they are now in a position to carry out an attack run on the VSD (speed 2, attack run 1, speed 2, attack run 1 = range 6).

Not a circumstance I expect to occur on a regular basis since it does require a peculiar set of ranges and 2 consecutive squadron commands/tokens to be utilized (which again you can argue as a reward for recognizing the situation and how to take advantage of it). However, that's likely not the effect you're aiming for with the rule where your fighters become strangely faster in certain circumstances. Not sure there's a good way to address it, and it's too early to think of it, so maybe go with the "in the 1% of times this happens, the person who saw it gets that perk" approach.

I haven't seen the issue in the OP but I've only played a few games. We've got a Core Tournament coming up here at the FFG Event Center on the 28th so I'll let you guys know how that goes and what I see.

http://www.gamewire.belloflostsouls.net/new-accessories-for-star-wars-armada/

 Mike1975 wrote:
http://www.gamewire.belloflostsouls.net/new-accessories-for-star-wars-armada/

Damn, that didn't take long.

I'm seriously tempted to pick some of their Armada stuff up... I love acrylic goodness!

The issue I have with this is that it just makes it easier for fighters to get chewn up by cap ships. If you're going to do something like this, then you need to randomize damage from capital ships into the furball amonst all participants. Otherwise this would make it easy to just bundle up an opponent's fighters for your ship to chew up.

I didnt see any accessories there that really adressed the issue mentioned here... but I now totally have an idea on how to address the issue!