I am reserving judgement here, but this seems odd to me:

"Games of Armada are played over six rounds, each of which is broken into four phases."

This makes sense for tournament/competitive play but sounds odd to me for some reason for regular play. I hope this is optional at the very least. I dunno, whats everyone take on this? Just to keep it to a 90 min game I suppose? But almost seems limiting. Not a huge deal at the end of the day, but curious what everyone else thinks.

That would seem to be the tournament rule length in order to keep the gameplay moving. For casual games I am sure that players will be able to agree beforehand on alternate game lengths or changes to objectives if they so desire.

Timers can keep objectives meaningful. So 6 rounds to nab as many victory points as possible, whereas with say 10, things can be rather lax and might enforce tabling to win over objective grabbing

Ditto what truegreek said. Without a round limit, the objective's become fairly meaningless.

Coming from a 40k background where games would average about 6 rounds, I'm excited about the turn limit. By turns 4 and 5 you were trying to arrange your units to have favorable position for the important last round. Trying to balance objective grabbing with killing the enemy made for some tense, interesting conclusions for games.

Tabling opponents wasn't unheard of though. Certainly not the norm, but common enough in a bad matchup.

Im all for the turn limit under tournament format and regular game formats, but will definitely be looking at altering the number of rounds for home brew scenarios. That said I'm fully cognizant that this game is still on the tabletop rules lite end of the spectrum which is where much of the market is because of playability. It looks to be more rules heavy than xwing, but not nearly to the degree of battletech or many of the old world war 2 table top games.

Several things to think about here that were probably pushing this design element.

1. Round limits prevent slow boating to a great degree. Slow boating won't get you objectives and while it might save your ships you won't likely get wins going this route.

2. Round limits make the objectives worth a lot more since tabling is going to most likely be somewhat of a rarity hopefully. Instead players will push to claim objectives with the victory most often going to the player who times his taking of objectives so that he doesnt lose a bunch of ships in the process.

3. Round limits loosely simulate the fact that one side will usually retreat when things go poorly.

4. Round limits were probably play tested a good deal and it was realized that tournament format requires them to be viable.

What I would like to see is a friendly format having some form of round adjuster. Say one side wants to press the battle and one side wants to retreat. Retreating player has to declare he is retreating and make some sort of roll for each ship to hyper out. Ships that pass are removed, ships that didnt are stuck for another round. Each additional round the retreat roll should be easier. So maybe roll an attack die looking for crits. Each round increase the number of dice or something. After the second turn anything left on the table is likely going to be in a bad way. To add to the excitement squadrons without hyperdrives cant retreat so they will have to return to a cap ship to be removed. Any squadrons within range 1 of a cap ship may exit with the cap ship when its removed representing their last moment docking.

Im all for the turn limit under tournament format and regular game formats, but will definitely be looking at altering the number of rounds for home brew scenarios. That said I'm fully cognizant that this game is still on the tabletop rules lite end of the spectrum which is where much of the market is because of playability. It looks to be more rules heavy than xwing, but not nearly to the degree of battletech or many of the old world war 2 table top games.

Several things to think about here that were probably pushing this design element.

1. Round limits prevent slow boating to a great degree. Slow boating won't get you objectives and while it might save your ships you won't likely get wins going this route.

2. Round limits make the objectives worth a lot more since tabling is going to most likely be somewhat of a rarity hopefully. Instead players will push to claim objectives with the victory most often going to the player who times his taking of objectives so that he doesnt lose a bunch of ships in the process.

3. Round limits loosely simulate the fact that one side will usually retreat when things go poorly.

4. Round limits were probably play tested a good deal and it was realized that tournament format requires them to be viable.

What I would like to see is a friendly format having some form of round adjuster. Say one side wants to press the battle and one side wants to retreat. Retreating player has to declare he is retreating and make some sort of roll for each ship to hyper out. Ships that pass are removed, ships that didnt are stuck for another round. Each additional round the retreat roll should be easier. So maybe roll an attack die looking for crits. Each round increase the number of dice or something. After the second turn anything left on the table is likely going to be in a bad way. To add to the excitement squadrons without hyperdrives cant retreat so they will have to return to a cap ship to be removed. Any squadrons within range 1 of a cap ship may exit with the cap ship when its removed representing their last moment docking.

Some really good points here and the others as well; especially number 3. I am definitely warming to the idea now and with victory conditions all battles aren't a battle to the death necessarily but a race for the objective(s) so it certainly makes sense to have a time limit.

I am reserving judgement here, but this seems odd to me:

"Games of Armada are played over six rounds, each of which is broken into four phases."

This makes sense for tournament/competitive play but sounds odd to me for some reason for regular play. I hope this is optional at the very least. I dunno, whats everyone take on this? Just to keep it to a 90 min game I suppose? But almost seems limiting. Not a huge deal at the end of the day, but curious what everyone else thinks.

In home games, ALL rules are optional.

I do get a kick out of how in the rulebook for the 2nd edition of Runewars, it specifically says that the new rules for determining victory are NOT optional. But I ignore them anyway, and FFG hasn't busted down the doors at my gaming sessions to arrest me for violating the rules yet...

I agree fully with most of the above posts. Altough at first I thought it was kinda limiting to have only a set number of turns it does give a certain weight to the game as you battle not only with your opponent but also with the time element.

Thematically this also fits a great deal. Rebel fleets where not favouring lenghty engagements but instead tried to destroy certain resources (Deathstar anyone?) and scatter pattern out of there.

Same goes for Hoth, fighters send out to stall for the transports to get out.

Rule theory as well as fluff seem really sound on the matter!

Im all for the turn limit under tournament format and regular game formats, but will definitely be looking at altering the number of rounds for home brew scenarios. That said I'm fully cognizant that this game is still on the tabletop rules lite end of the spectrum which is where much of the market is because of playability. It looks to be more rules heavy than xwing, but not nearly to the degree of battletech or many of the old world war 2 table top games.

Several things to think about here that were probably pushing this design element.

1. Round limits prevent slow boating to a great degree. Slow boating won't get you objectives and while it might save your ships you won't likely get wins going this route.

2. Round limits make the objectives worth a lot more since tabling is going to most likely be somewhat of a rarity hopefully. Instead players will push to claim objectives with the victory most often going to the player who times his taking of objectives so that he doesnt lose a bunch of ships in the process.

3. Round limits loosely simulate the fact that one side will usually retreat when things go poorly.

4. Round limits were probably play tested a good deal and it was realized that tournament format requires them to be viable.

What I would like to see is a friendly format having some form of round adjuster. Say one side wants to press the battle and one side wants to retreat. Retreating player has to declare he is retreating and make some sort of roll for each ship to hyper out. Ships that pass are removed, ships that didnt are stuck for another round. Each additional round the retreat roll should be easier. So maybe roll an attack die looking for crits. Each round increase the number of dice or something. After the second turn anything left on the table is likely going to be in a bad way. To add to the excitement squadrons without hyperdrives cant retreat so they will have to return to a cap ship to be removed. Any squadrons within range 1 of a cap ship may exit with the cap ship when its removed representing their last moment docking.

Some really good points here and the others as well; especially number 3. I am definitely warming to the idea now and with victory conditions all battles aren't a battle to the death necessarily but a race for the objective(s) so it certainly makes sense to have a time limit.

Precisely. With no time restriction, the game tends to end up being 'first one to die loses', because if you've got time to wipe out the enemy, who gives a flying monkey about any 'other' victory conditions.

If there's a defined point in time you have to survive until, then you can have a situation where a lone, battered, mostly-on-fire corvette hasn't "beaten" an intact star destroyer (which would be ridiculous), but has managed to evade it long enough to score a scenario objective. By, say, getting into range of a planet to launch an escape pod with two droids aboard....

I think the limit is a good idea. Of course I think a TO should be able to extend the round at his/her discretion for a tounomant. But for games just for fun you can do what ever you want.

Round limits are generally essential for objective or scenario based gameplay (unless you are automatically granted victory if certain conditions are fufilled, ala Warmachine)

Basically, it forces the players to keep victory conditions into account because they won't be getting all the time in the world to kill everything their opponent has, which greatly drives up the importance of specific objectives.

At the same time, it discourages Victory at All Costs because objectives do not automatically grant victory and your staggering loses will still grant your opponent the win.

Very in favor of anything promoting Objectives based play, as that is far more interesting than a slug fest.

To quote both Han Solo and Captain Onoma of the Mon Remonda

"I hate slugging matches"

the X-wing series, which I am currently re-reading, has plenty of instances where once the outcome of a fleet engagement is known, or one cannot meet its objectives without receiving a pounding, they hit the big red button and increase to ludirous speed.

Its the one major difference between contemporary naval warfare and space combat with faster than light travel. If you don't like how the battle is going, just jump away (yes, grav wells, inderdictors dependant of course)

I wonder what effect extending the round limit might have on the game balance? I would assume that the objectives have been designed around the 6 round limit, so changing the rounds might adversely affect the objectives.

Depends on the objectives - but generally, the less time you have, the more important faster, or longer ranged, ships are to achieve them.

Equally, shorter games favour position objectives over kill everyone - because killing a destroyer will take a long time, regardless.

With objectives in mind i am thinking that Assult frigate might be the best ship of wave 1, its well balanced ship that might be able to both brawl with victories and secure objectives.

With increased armament (+1 red dice iin the left and right arch) has 4 red and 1 blue on each side (considering how the arcs are divided you can fire both front or rear and a side on the same target) Also it was mentioned in the article that its fast and nible for the ship if its size so it can outpace nad outmanouver victory easily. It may have 2 hull point left but it gets 1 mroe shield front and rear.

With objectives in mind i am thinking that Assult frigate might be the best ship of wave 1, its well balanced ship that might be able to both brawl with victories and secure objectives.

With increased armament (+1 red dice iin the left and right arch) has 4 red and 1 blue on each side (considering how the arcs are divided you can fire both front or rear and a side on the same target) Also it was mentioned in the article that its fast and nible for the ship if its size so it can outpace nad outmanouver victory easily. It may have 2 hull point left but it gets 1 mroe shield front and rear.

I think the AFii is a nice ship and will probably do well. I think that extra front shield will help on the approach. I'm wondering though what its weakness is. Like all ships it will have something that it is weak in. Vsd is slow, gsd has range issues, corvette is weak hull and side arcs are weak, neb has very weak side arcs.

AFii is looking like he will be a good formation leader able to take the hits on approach and then turn to use broadsides. Good speed, good firepower. Maybe his cost is going to be a bit high bc otherwise I'm not sure what they did to balance the ship.

The AF's immediate weakness I can see is close range brawling. His firepower is not heavy at anything other than long range....it will get absolutely crushed by black dice heavy ships such as Gladiators.

Remember this isnt X-Wing now...dice colour is as important, or more, than number of them. Even with enhanced armament it has less damage output than a VSD-IIs front at medium, MASSIVELY less than a VSD-1's front at short, and a lot less than a GLadiator at short range almost anywhere.

It's going to have to dance around wearing stuff down before getting stuck in.

The AF doesn't want to go into a head to head slug match. It wants to cross the T, turn in circles and kite. Look at the AF's stat. It's best sitting at range 3 with enhanced armaments, it can actually out shoot a Vic.

The AF doesn't want to go into a head to head slug match. It wants to cross the T, turn in circles and kite. Look at the AF's stat. It's best sitting at range 3 with enhanced armaments, it can actually out shoot a Vic.

Quite right. That's its strength. If anything does close the range (and honestly, i can see Gladiators with Engine Techs being the AF's bane), it's weakness will soon become quite clear.

Gladiators or the Corrupter title, which turns Tie Bombers into max range projectiles that then shoot distance 1 black and blue dice.

Squadrons are a clear potential weakness for AFIIs. Short Range attacks, as has been stated before. Also its forward shield is its best shield, while its side armaments are its best weapons. This means it will be (if it wants to be placed to fire its best weapons) showing its side to the enemy, where its shields are weaker. The token that allows moving damage across different shields will mitigate this somewhat, but it is a weakness. The Vic has massive forward fire power and its forward shields are its best.

The AFII is an awesome ship that performs well in a variety of different roles, but it isn't a specialist. The Gladiator specializes in closing quickly and delivery brutal broadsides (Expanded Launchers just make the GSD kill anything it gets close to). The VSD specializes in long range gun fire, for the Vic 2, or in being a juggernaut that lumbers forward steadily, for the Vic 1. CR90s are clearly meant to destroy enemy squadrons while providing squishy targets to tempt enemy Caps into shooting them over other targets. Neb Bs we don't really know enough about to say for sure.

AF2 can fire 2 arcs on the same target quite easily (same ship not same hull zone), something that victory cant do. Also 4 red and 1 blue have same damage as 3 blue and 3 red. It also has advanced shields uprgade.

AF2 can fire 2 arcs on the same target quite easily (same ship not same hull zone), something that victory cant do. Also 4 red and 1 blue have same damage as 3 blue and 3 red. It also has advanced shields uprgade.

Its not that hard for Victory. And the red/blue isnt true. Red dice have a total of 6 hits and 1 accuracy each...blues have 6 hits and 2 accuracy. 3 Reds and 3 blues does more damage on average, the same max damage of 9 in a single roll (reds have a double hit side, which can lead to spikes) but also have FAR more accuracy, stripping defence tokens.

AF2 can fire 2 arcs on the same target quite easily (same ship not same hull zone), something that victory cant do. Also 4 red and 1 blue have same damage as 3 blue and 3 red. It also has advanced shields uprgade.

Actually Red and Blue dice are equal in terms of average damage dealt. Red has 2 blanks and 1 Accuracy, 3 hits, 1 crit and 1 double hit. That adds up to average 6 hits out of 8 dice, which is .75 hits per dice. Blue is 4 hits, 2 crits, 2 Acc. Which is also 6 hits out of 8 dice (average). Black Dice spice it up more by going for 4 hits, 2 hit + crit and 2 blank. Which averages to 8 hits from 8 dice rolled for an average of 1 damage per dice.