I Have You Now - Not-so-new (but still opinionated) Armada blog

By Green Knight, in Star Wars: Armada

Posted at

Tiny Addendum for “Marked for Destruction”

Any time a ship is marked with an objective token - it’s Jyn Bait 🙂

Posted at
44 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Tiny Addendum for “Marked for Destruction”

Any time a ship is marked with an objective token - it’s Jyn Bait 🙂

Thanks for that. Corner case, but really cool nonetheless!

latest?cb=20180104005655

Posted at

In your text is a little error. You say during Setup : " Then the 3 asteroids and 2 debris are placed as normal, i.e. 3 for the 2nd player and 2 for the 1st player." But the Objective Card says: "Then, starting with the first player , the players alternate placing the remaining obstacles, excluding the station." For that it would be the first player who places 3 obstacles.

The only Objective Card, that lets the First Player start with placing obstacles, I admit.

Posted at
9 minutes ago, Triangular said:

In your text is a little error. You say during Setup : " Then the 3 asteroids and 2 debris are placed as normal, i.e. 3 for the 2nd player and 2 for the 1st player." But the Objective Card says: "Then, starting with the first player , the players alternate placing the remaining obstacles, excluding the station." For that it would be the first player who places 3 obstacles.

The only Objective Card, that lets the First Player start with placing obstacles, I admit.

Good catch. Thanks!

Will update.

Posted at

@Green Knight tell your friend to quit spying on my phone and stealing my builds.

Posted at

I LOL'd when the SSD article was revealed and I saw that it came with PDR...but now it looks like a fairly legit upgrade.

Posted at
1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

I write a short one about running a more balanced 5-activation SSD Command fleet:

https://armadaihaveyounow.blogspot.com/2019/05/balanced-ssd-command-fleet.html

I've been focused more on writing Assault Prototype lists, but I do quite like this idea of using the cheaper Command version (plus some of the options it brings) to get more out of the list.

Then again I've been focused more on writing Tagge SSD lists so maybe ignore what I have to say 😂

Posted at

I intermittently write blog posts.

I make no promises as to quality or regularity.

Sometimes I descend into theory-crafting and might-have-beens.

Best to stay away.

You've been warned.

https://armadaihaveyounow.blogspot.com/

Posted at

Ah, the never ending work on the objectives so drasticly neglected by FFG. Some feedback:

  • AG: As far as I understand it, I cannot as second player attack the same ship twice (even on different hull zones). I fear that the second player advantage is not big enough.
  • CO: One should keep in mind that with the Onager in play it has become a trap for everything that is not an Onager/Starhawk fleet (same is true for Station Assault - and maybe also Planetary Ion Cannon - which has become utter garbage thanks to the Onager). Don't know how to fix that. Maybe also including the two dust fields?
  • FA: I like this version!
  • MF: Dito

Two general remarks:

  • l I'd like to mention that another aspect of objectives is adding a small bit of thematic representation to the game. Also in this regard, a lot of objectives fail. But I have to confess that this bothers me a lot less than gameplay fails.
  • A rework of objectives also needs a rework of strategic. Strategic made a lot of objectives boring, if the second player has strategic (CtVIP, IS, FL, SN), but if the first player has it, it goes exactly the other way round turning a second player bias into a first player bias, because the first player can activate squads first and thereby steal important tokens. Hence, strategic made objectives boring and/or increased match-up lottery. Best would have been, if it had never come into existence IMO.
Posted at
2 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

Ah, the never ending work on the objectives so drasticly neglected by FFG. Some feedback:

  • AG: As far as I understand it, I cannot as second player attack the same ship twice (even on different hull zones). I fear that the second player advantage is not big enough.
  • CO: One should keep in mind that with the Onager in play it has become a trap for everything that is not an Onager/Starhawk fleet (same is true for Station Assault - and maybe also Planetary Ion Cannon - which has become utter garbage thanks to the Onager). Don't know how to fix that. Maybe also including the two dust fields?
  • FA: I like this version!
  • MF: Dito

Two general remarks:

  • l I'd like to mention that another aspect of objectives is adding a small bit of thematic representation to the game. Also in this regard, a lot of objectives fail. But I have to confess that this bothers me a lot less than gameplay fails.
  • A rework of objectives also needs a rework of strategic. Strategic made a lot of objectives boring, if the second player has strategic (CtVIP, IS, FL, SN), but if the first player has it, it goes exactly the other way round turning a second player bias into a first player bias, because the first player can activate squads first and thereby steal important tokens. Hence, strategic made objectives boring and/or increased match-up lottery. Best would have been, if it had never come into existence IMO.

AG: The 2nd player can target 2 different hull zones on the defender, same as the old 1st player benefit.

Onager/SH sigh. Yes, I know they exist. One upsets the range limitations, the other is a slow whale/points fortress that work with exactly 1 commander. Great wave that.

Strategic. Yeah, I agree. For DT, for example (and some others) I had to add special rules to punish strategic.

Edited by Green Knight
Posted at

How do I feel (strongly) about Armada 1.5 in general, and the new rules in particular?

https://armadaihaveyounow.blogspot.com/2020/12/armada-15-rules-have-changed.html

To prove I'm not all grumpy: I think Grogu is cute, and the Mandalorian is a great show. I've even changed my mind re. Boba - he's now what the fanbois always wanted him to be, and I'm looking forward to The Book of Boba like a little kid.

Posted at

I just read the suggested objective changes and I love it! I wasnt even aware of some issues, that too was an excellent summary!

Strategic should be better for second player, or worse for first. Maybe just move it distance one of itself, instead of distance one of the squad with strategic? Less distance for first player. We can dream...

Posted at
9 hours ago, Xeletor said:

I just read the suggested objective changes and I love it! I wasnt even aware of some issues, that too was an excellent summary!

Strategic should be better for second player, or worse for first. Maybe just move it distance one of itself, instead of distance one of the squad with strategic? Less distance for first player. We can dream...

Only an asymmetry of strategic does not solve the issue that it makes some objectives plain boring: What fun is a CtVIP if the second player steals the token in the first round and runs with it along his player edge. Maybe we need also a rule that you cannot move an objective token with strategic into our within distance 3 (maybe even 5) of any edge of the play field.

Posted at
On 12/18/2020 at 8:01 AM, Green Knight said:

How do I feel (strongly) about Armada 1.5 in general, and the new rules in particular?

https://armadaihaveyounow.blogspot.com/2020/12/armada-15-rules-have-changed.html

To prove I'm not all grumpy: I think Grogu is cute, and the Mandalorian is a great show. I've even changed my mind re. Boba - he's now what the fanbois always wanted him to be, and I'm looking forward to The Book of Boba like a little kid.

Agreed on Contain needing a buff. I wish it could give a flat damage reduction of 1. It would make some of the smaller ships that have one much more durable.