I especially like how you never pick from your own objectives, you have to pick your opponents, or your opponent picks from yours. That really helps balance as you can't just gear your fleet toward a specific objective since there is no guarantee your opponent will have that one for you to choose, nor that they will select the one you want from your list.

Yep, its also going to be healthy for the game and it's expansions I believe as no one ship will be able to do everything well, so it might avoid the "this new ship is unbeatable" danger of power creep.

Video mention of objectives here http://youtu.be/961twwVpeac?t=6m55s

Doesnt allow to really clearly see the other cards though, but here are a couple:

ADVANCED GUNNERY (Red/Assault) -- points

SETUP: After deploying fleets, each player chooses one of his ships to be an objective ship, starting with the first player. Mark each objective ship by placing an objective token next to that ship's card.

SPECIAL RULE: The first player's objective ship may perform each of it's attacks from the same hull zone. It cannot target the same hull zone or squadron more than once each round with that hull zone.

The second player's objective ship may perform each of its attacks from the same hull zone, and it may do so against the same targets.

END OF GAME: The fleet point cost of destroyed objective ships is doubled but do not double the cost of it's upgrade cards.

FIRE LANES (Yellow/Defense) 30 points

SETUP: After placing obstacles, the second player places 3 objective tokens in the setup area beyond distance 4 of both parties' edges of the play area. Then the first player may move each objective to within distance 1-3 of its current location.

END OF ROUND: Each player gains one victory token for each objective token he controls. To determine control of each token, players measure attack range and line of sight (something - from?) of each of their ships hull zones as if (something- making?) attacks with battery armament (something, against?) that objective token. The player with the highest total number of dice in his (something, combined?) attack pool controls that token. If a players ship or squadron overlaps an objective token, his opponent controls that token. If both players ships or squadrons overlap the same token, neither player controls it.

INTEL SWEEP (Blue/Navigation) -- points

SETUP: After placing obstacles, the players alternate placing a total of 5 objective tokens on the setup area, starting with the second player. Each token must be placed beyond distance 5 of both players' edges of the play area and beyond distance 3 of all other objective tokens. Then each player chooses one of his ships to be an objective ship, starting with the first player. Mark each objective ship by placing an objective token next to the ship card.

SPECIAL RULE: When a player's objective ship reveals a command dial, that player may choose 1 objective token at distance 1 of that ship and remove it from the play area to gain 1 victory token.

END OF GAME: If a player has more victory tokens than his opponent, increase his score by 100.

So it seems there is a range of missions that are quite cool - and they do often favour the second player, so like the Gunnery one, even if your opponent was say fielding an ISD, yes, he could attack twice with its (no doubt) brutal front arc, but cant target both at the same ship, whilst the Rebel (or other) player, whos ship might not be quite so powerful - could

In the same chain of thought - it would be pretty suicidal to choose that card as the first player if the second player had a ship like that in his fleet and you didnt

Gotta say, the objective system has me much more excited for Armada than I was previously

I hope the game takes here, so we have less chasing a fat turret as it runs the clock and more strategic play

Wow, those objectives really add some dynamism to the game. I gotta say I can't wait to find out what the rest are. Picking your 3 Objectives is going to be an integral part of fleet building, as you not only have to play to your strengths, but avoid your weaknesses.

You now have me sold on objectives, yet again a +1 for Star Wars Armada.

While I certainly like the idea of objectives, it seems to me that these are too balanced to make them make sense. By balanced, I mean that it doesn't differentiate between the players aside from the way in which they're chosen. From an in-universe perspective, why would certain ships on both sides have a 'most wanted' effect.

"There's this particular enemy we want to kill on that ship over there. Make sure we also bring a person that they also really want to kill, otherwise this mission's a bust!"

"But sir, if we bring that person, then they can do to us what we want to do to them!"

"Silence, fool!"

Or:

"We really don't want to run into the asteroids right now."

"Why, because running into the asteroids any other given day is a better deal?"

"Shut up, smart a$$! Nobody asked you."

While I certainly like the idea of objectives, it seems to me that these are too balanced to make them make sense. By balanced, I mean that it doesn't differentiate between the players aside from the way in which they're chosen. From an in-universe perspective, why would certain ships on both sides have a 'most wanted' effect.

"There's this particular enemy we want to kill on that ship over there. Make sure we also bring a person that they also really want to kill, otherwise this mission's a bust!"

"But sir, if we bring that person, then they can do to us what we want to do to them!"

"Silence, fool!"

Or:

"We really don't want to run into the asteroids right now."

"Why, because running into the asteroids any other given day is a better deal?"

"Shut up, smart a$$! Nobody asked you."

Maybe think of it less as targeting as a grudge match?

Han Solo: Imma gonna get ya!

Zsing: No, Imma gonna get you!

Meanwhile...

General Melvar: I'm so sorry about this.

Captain Onoma: [fish noises]

General Melvar: Seriously.

EDIT: Correction in rank of Onoma to Captain from Admiral.

While I certainly like the idea of objectives, it seems to me that these are too balanced to make them make sense. By balanced, I mean that it doesn't differentiate between the players aside from the way in which they're chosen.

On a more serious note, yes, I wish we saw more contrasting objectives. More of a protect vs defend than a first-to-five kind of dynamic. But I remain hopeful that there will be those as well. I imagine that might be because the only mechanics availible for deciding objectives is the destruction of ship X or control of # locations. If there was a hyperspace mechanic you could have capture vs. escape. Civilian ships would allow for raiding a convoy, escort the defecting shuttle, steal the prototype, etc.

Plus there's no reason why you can't create your own house rules objectives. Come to think of it, that'll surely be a blast.

Scenarios in the various inevitable rules booklets will also most likely use custom Objectives as well. There could be some awesome ones, and I totally agree that homebrewqed ones should be fantastic.

The main argument against asymmetrical scenarios is probably because you'd need to switch sides after playing the first game to give each player the opportunity to play the other side, a la the LCG. Though I might be considering this in a more competitive light rather than a for fun perspective. I'd agree that asymmetrical scenarios would both be more thematic and enjoyable.

I agree....asymmetrical scenarios tend to carry a host of balance issues at a competitive level unfortunately. They are often more fun for themed games, but it is SO hard to balance them out for tournaments.

I don't always like the fact that tournament balance is a major driving factor, but it is. It drives a lot of sales, and more sales = more support for the game. I expect we'll just have to homebrew them, which is fine.

Yep, plus you can still put some story into it, like the imperial fleet is trying to finally crush general dodanna, while the rebels know if they take out tarkins star destroyer the battle is theirs. Or its an imperial defector, or rebel training scenario.

The good thing about the scenarios being on cards is that, if the asymmetrical objectives don't work out, FFG can always release symmetrical ones

I am liking the navigation objectives, though, because they award victory points to both players. (as for why they'd get close to obstructions...well, they might be rich in scifinaium ore)

Or the rebel fleet fled into the asteroid belt to find a better battleground, leveraging their maneuverability against the lumbering behemoths of the imperial's. The imperials followed, empowered by their arrogance and belief in their own indomitable might.

INTEL SWEEP (Blue/Navigation) -- points

SETUP: After placing obstacles, the players alternate placing a total of 5 objective tokens on the setup area, starting with the second player. Each token must be placed beyond distance 5 of both players' edges of the play area and beyond distance 3 of all other objective tokens. Then each player chooses one of his ships to be an objective ship, starting with the first player. Mark each objective ship by placing an objective token next to the ship card.

SPECIAL RULE: When a player's objective ship reveals a command dial, that player may choose 1 objective token at distance 1 of that ship and remove it from the play area to gain 1 victory token.

END OF GAME: If a player has more victory tokens than his opponent, increase his score by 100.

This existence of this objective makes me think that Victory-Victory-Gladiator will be a popular archetype. Victory-heavy lists will probably have trouble with maneuver objectives. VSDs move like lazy, out-of-shape slugs. But you are required to take a blue objective, which will almost always be chosen by your opponent if you are the second player. So, you have three solutions: first of all, you can make an initiative bid, so that you never have to be the second player (and thus never have to play a blue objective). Or you can just tough it out, and choose a blue mission that is not worth a ton of points, hoping that you can kill enough enemy ships to make up for the deficit. Or you can field a single Gladiator to go with your Victories and choose Intel Sweep as your blue objective. The Gladiator would be a very strong choice as the intel sweeper because it is as fast as/faster than anything but a CR90, but it is much harder to kill than a CR90.

I agree....asymmetrical scenarios tend to carry a host of balance issues at a competitive level unfortunately. They are often more fun for themed games, but it is SO hard to balance them out for tournaments.

I don't always like the fact that tournament balance is a major driving factor, but it is. It drives a lot of sales, and more sales = more support for the game. I expect we'll just have to homebrew them, which is fine.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It's simply a fact of life that the competitive tournament scene drives X-Wing, and given X-Wing's success, FFG would be foolish to mess with the model.

Also, FFG shouldn't have to hold our hand in creating more interesting narrative-heavier games.

While I certainly like the idea of objectives, it seems to me that these are too balanced to make them make sense. By balanced, I mean that it doesn't differentiate between the players aside from the way in which they're chosen. From an in-universe perspective, why would certain ships on both sides have a 'most wanted' effect.

My thought is that they would have a hard time with the objective mechanic if this were not the case. Based on who has the lowest fleet cost, either the Rebel or Imperial player may be choosing the objective. You could still have the card say "Rebels: defend blah blah Imperials: Blah blah destroy", but to be truly unique you'de have to make it so Rebel specific scenario missions could only be brought to the table by the Imperial player and vice versa. The second problem then would be that I might be able to bring two assymetrical missions that would be disadvantageous for my opponent, almost forcing him to pick the symmetrical objective I wanted in the first place. That would give me the advantages of both going first AND very nearly getting to pick the objective as well. Granted the right assymetrical objectives could make that a total non-issue, but just my thinking on it.

I agree....asymmetrical scenarios tend to carry a host of balance issues at a competitive level unfortunately. They are often more fun for themed games, but it is SO hard to balance them out for tournaments.

I don't always like the fact that tournament balance is a major driving factor, but it is. It drives a lot of sales, and more sales = more support for the game. I expect we'll just have to homebrew them, which is fine.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It's simply a fact of life that the competitive tournament scene drives X-Wing, and given X-Wing's success, FFG would be foolish to mess with the model.

Also, FFG shouldn't have to hold our hand in creating more interesting narrative-heavier games.

My only competitive experience is with WFB and 40K. Several of the tourneys I played in there added custom Scenarios.

I will almost bet that this will be the case with Tourneys for Armada. It might even convince me to compete: particularly if we get to keep the special scenario cards from the tourney

My only competitive experience is with WFB and 40K. Several of the tourneys I played in there added custom Scenarios.

I will almost bet that this will be the case with Tourneys for Armada. It might even convince me to compete: particularly if we get to keep the special scenario cards from the tourney

Could you expand more on that idea?

I agree....asymmetrical scenarios tend to carry a host of balance issues at a competitive level unfortunately. They are often more fun for themed games, but it is SO hard to balance them out for tournaments.

I don't always like the fact that tournament balance is a major driving factor, but it is. It drives a lot of sales, and more sales = more support for the game. I expect we'll just have to homebrew them, which is fine.

Yeah, that sounds about right. It's simply a fact of life that the competitive tournament scene drives X-Wing, and given X-Wing's success, FFG would be foolish to mess with the model.

Also, FFG shouldn't have to hold our hand in creating more interesting narrative-heavier games.

My only competitive experience is with WFB and 40K. Several of the tourneys I played in there added custom Scenarios.

I will almost bet that this will be the case with Tourneys for Armada. It might even convince me to compete: particularly if we get to keep the special scenario cards from the tourney

To be fair, WHFB and 40k are a hellscape of some very weird design choices and some terrible balancing (Both inter and intra faction) so the decision people make to heavily customize the tournaments is really one built out of necessity.

It would be great to design custom scenarios and objectives for casual games (or dream of having ffg take you up on your idea), but I doubt we'll need to do it in competitive events unless FFG really drops the ball on armada.

I reckon there will be a good chance that some new objective cards will come with the wave 2 large ships i.e. ISD and Mon Cal.

By having the objectives intrinsic to the game, it allows the opportunity for ship's and upgrades to alter and manipulate them e.g. Interdictor and its grav wells

My only competitive experience is with WFB and 40K. Several of the tourneys I played in there added custom Scenarios.

I will almost bet that this will be the case with Tourneys for Armada. It might even convince me to compete: particularly if we get to keep the special scenario cards from the tourney

Could you expand more on that idea?

Seems like he is saying that as a possibilty for organized play like tourneys it would be possible for FFG to supply the objective(s) to be used or chosen from for the events over a given period of time. These would be different from those supplied with product. There could then be a campaign feel to the events, or even a storyline to the events (similar to how L5R did (does?).) All of this could culminate in a national event or maybe a release event for new expansions or something.

My only competitive experience is with WFB and 40K. Several of the tourneys I played in there added custom Scenarios.

I will almost bet that this will be the case with Tourneys for Armada. It might even convince me to compete: particularly if we get to keep the special scenario cards from the tourney

Could you expand more on that idea?

Seems like he is saying that as a possibilty for organized play like tourneys it would be possible for FFG to supply the objective(s) to be used or chosen from for the events over a given period of time. These would be different from those supplied with product. There could then be a campaign feel to the events, or even a storyline to the events (similar to how L5R did (does?).) All of this could culminate in a national event or maybe a release event for new expansions or something.

Aha!

Yes, if they put their minds to it, they could then work to make the scenario both balanced and compelling.

Bit like how they did the X-Wing phantom, defender, z-95 and E-Wing event then?