I hope FFG rectifies the Tie Defender in Armada and makes them absolute beasts, but at a steep cost.

Armada is a good platform for really going to town on the Defender, i agree. Balance issues meant they simply HAD to scale it down for X-Wing, but there's no reason we cant see 20-25pt squadrons here

Yes, make them basically interceptors with 6 hitpoints and 1 black die against ships. Bomber ability and Counter 2.

pro wedge:

spending cap ship squad activation command on him is more effective. its unclear if the same squad can be activated multiple times by the same cap ship in the same command. if so this explodes. so hes a defensive guy protecting a cap ship from incomming (thus activated) squads in that role.

I am pretty sure whenever a squadron activates, it flips its initiative counter and cannot activate again that round. The squadron command ability is basically there to let you move and attack in the same turn. If you bring the "Yavaris" Nebulon B, they can attack twice if they don't move. Pretty good.

Also, is it me, or is Vader kinda bleh? 9 more points for an extra black die and 2 hull points, and okay abilities, when 8 points buys you an extra TIE squadron for 3 blue dice (plus swarm re-roll) and 3 hull points for. I'm not overly upset, since the PT ruined his character for me anyway. Maybe once the Executor shows up, they will make him an Admiral upgrade that detracts from his ship's performance because he keeps choking out senior officers and replacing them with random novices.

Don't forget he also has 2 def tokens (half damage I think), making him much harder to destroy.

What does it say about a guy who, yes, while being hard to destroy, was very nearly bathed in lava and is more machine now than man? If you are just shy of being utterly destroyed and then you go untouched, are you really hard to destroy? Or are you just an average bloke who took a lifetime of hurt all at once? Methinks Vader is less so hard to destroy than he is efficient with his life experiences.

Just like how he is with his wardrobe.

But not junior oficers.

This is my favorite post of all time. That is all.

Two points regarding that post: Vader is still in constant pain, so no efficiency there, just an infinite mortgage of pain with a big downpayment. And there is nothing efficient about capes.

I concur regarding the capes .

But black equally hides the blood of junior officers and the late night blue milk runs.

At 100pts max for fighters do people think lists will see the full allocation used?

And I know they're balanced but I feel like that point limit really smacks the Rebels. If they want to bring heavy hitters those points go fast, nevermind using named pilots.

I think I will have the same problem I had in X-Wing most of the time.

I can't count the times I thought of a squad and realized it came in at 101 points.

I was looking forward to fielding: Luke + X-Wing Squadron x3 + Y-Wing Squadron x2 + A- Wing Squadron x2 ... = 101

My Capital Ship Setup would have been 199 points. But 101 is just one to many for 1/3 of fleet points

By the way: Hello all (as this is my first post in this forum)

My Capital Ship Setup would have been 199 points. But 101 is just one to many for 1/3 of fleet points

I'm also not really a fan of that rule. It seems needlessly constraining. You already lose if you lose all your ships, which to me should be adequate reason to not just go and spend all your points on fighters.

My Capital Ship Setup would have been 199 points. But 101 is just one to many for 1/3 of fleet points

I'm also not really a fan of that rule. It seems needlessly constraining. You already lose if you lose all your ships, which to me should be adequate reason to not just go and spend all your points on fighters.

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Funny fact I noticed while translating the article and other stuff, FFG didn't shared full TIE-Fighter card anywhere, but talking of it like we have one. We have only halved version. =(

My Capital Ship Setup would have been 199 points. But 101 is just one to many for 1/3 of fleet points

I'm also not really a fan of that rule. It seems needlessly constraining. You already lose if you lose all your ships, which to me should be adequate reason to not just go and spend all your points on fighters.

I guess that they want to make sure that Armada is about the Capital Ships, but maybe spending points 60:40 would have been OK.

We can't be sure how this all plays out before actually playing the game, but my impression was that Imperials are centered areound their SD and Rebels are a bit more reliant on their fighters.

Maybe spending 110-120 points on Squadrons could be possible without causing to much imbalance?

I don't see how one more Squadron of TIEs or X-Wings could take the focus from big ships duking it out.

But the cut-off at 100 insted of10x points is probably more simple and "elegant" from a rules point of view.

(Is it 100 points, actually, or am I only allowed to spent 1/3 of what I am spending overall? So for example 98 points in a 295 points list? I guess not, because that would get overly complicated... )

My Capital Ship Setup would have been 199 points. But 101 is just one to many for 1/3 of fleet points

I'm also not really a fan of that rule. It seems needlessly constraining. You already lose if you lose all your ships, which to me should be adequate reason to not just go and spend all your points on fighters.

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Probably this exact thing. It wont be a number arbitrarily picked for no reason....i strongly suspect balance issues are behind it.

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Then they should have balanced fighters better in the first place. I dislike hard limits in game design, especially in a game like this where building your fleet is half the fun. Could you imagine x-wing where there were limits on how many points you could spend on certain components?

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Then they should have balanced fighters better in the first place. I dislike hard limits in game design, especially in a game like this where building your fleet is half the fun. Could you imagine x-wing where there were limits on how many points you could spend on certain components?

I can, and i think if done well it could be excellent....

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Then they should have balanced fighters better in the first place. I dislike hard limits in game design, especially in a game like this where building your fleet is half the fun. Could you imagine x-wing where there were limits on how many points you could spend on certain components?

Yeah, and it likely would change the game but not be a problem. Many people have asked for specifically that, for various reasons. I disagree with it, solely because switching horses of that nature midstream isn't something you do unless you absolutely must.

But your assertion that they should have just balanced the squadrons better is, I feel, missing alot.

First, you already have hard component limits in many regards. Ships have a finite number of upgrade slots. Unique pilots, ships, upgrades, etc; are all limited by thier uniqueness.

Secondly, your stance precludes the possibility that it was not possible to balance squadrons "better" while maintaining thier purpose and place in the game. Much of the Star Wars mythos centers on the place fighters occupy in fleet combat. If Armada fails to capture that, fails to have the more iconic element represented on the table, then Armada will lose alot of Star Wars fans.

So if the game functions well and captures the IP, except in corner cases where lists are over skewed towards squadrons, and attempts to correct that by altering squadrons results in thier not occupying the role you need them to occupy; then a limit on squadron points is completely warrented.

The is really no reason to assume it's the lazy way out.

300 points in tie fighters are 111 blue battery and still 37 blue anti capital ship dice and 111 hull points.

So squads are far more effective then capital ships if it comes to hitpoints per cost and attack dice per cost.

So without the 1/3 rule the onyl reason to field capital ships would be that you loose if you have none left. Thats a bit odd in a game that is about capital ships.

Thus i think every viable list will have close to max point value in squads. It also leads to the squad battle battle beeing the one that will decide the map imo. On the other hand i think that represents real warfare well.

Perhaps, in actual testing, that did not prove an adequate reason?

Then they should have balanced fighters better in the first place. I dislike hard limits in game design, especially in a game like this where building your fleet is half the fun. Could you imagine x-wing where there were limits on how many points you could spend on certain components?

X-wing does have hard limits to the number of ships you can add of a specific type, once you enter the 300 point epic game. Which is where Armada starts. The rules aren't there just for balance, they are there to maintain fun. Could you imagine walking I to a tournament where your opponent field 36 tie fighter squadrons. The game would end after one round of activations.

Exactly, I'm sure through play testing they realized that the game would be ruined without limits put on not just how many squadrons you can field but also the fact that you can only field three Victory class star destroyers etc...

edited: it could have been done btter

Or they could just bring 30 scissors. Hard caps arnt a great thing, but they can set a bar to balance it on. As well as limit extreme outlier lists, which could win simply by virtue of having 30 scissors to your 2 rocks. By saying at most you van have 12 or 9 better ones, you limit the escalation required to keep up on the other side.

Plus I'm rather tired of rock paper scissors based games, I'd much rather have all soft counters that 3 hard ones.

ah sorry truegeek. i removed the above post for beeing a bit to negative about it. didnt wanna rain on someones parade here .

ah sorry truegeek. i removed the above post for beeing a bit to negative about it. didnt wanna rain on someones parade here .

I wasn't trying to bash the idea in. No offense, it's just that normally there's a breaking point in games where if someone maxes out only one thing, the counters no longer work. Hard caps are a rather inelegant way to stop that, but given the scale and point size of the game its almost a necessity to maintain balance.

In x wing, the point total was lower and they could work around the idea of an 8 ship max, same as here the idea is 12 tie max. It keeps the swarm from being too swarm. (If you want to see what I mean, play an epic game with your opponent taking max ties, and max interceptors. Its scary, wrecks epic ships, and takes forever to play. While awesome looking, its not practical or fun in a competitive sense)

Limits to how points are spent are nothing new to miniatures games. 40k has its force org chart, Warmachine and Infinity both cap unit availability.. The fighter cap doesn't bother me at all.

It is definitely there for balance.

Realistically, there were two to three ways to balance fighters:

1 - set a point percentage limit. This stops extreme builds (eg one CR90b kiting around the map while xwings do the work).

2 - use some other mechanic, such as say you can only bring as many as your squadron limit. This creates a strong negative to bringing "weaker" fighters, as there are limited slots.

3 - us a hyperspace mechanic, as in you can bring up to squadron value, but fighters with hyperspace do not coir against this limit. But then yu need to increase price for that ability... So the imps could only brig 6ish fighters, so the rebels overweight on fighters for space superiority. So now yu need to adjust price of rebel fighters, or add a variable point system (pay 5ectra points if beyond squad limit) either way, add lots of unnecessary complication.

In friendly games, I have no problem going over the pour limit by the lowest cost fighter -1. (Eg, yu can bring 7 bwings (99pts) plus 1 ywing (10 pts) and whatever the imp equivalent is)

You can field as many fighters as you like in your living room.

300 points in tie fighters are 111 blue battery and still 37 blue anti capital ship dice and 111 hull points.

So squads are far more effective then capital ships if it comes to hitpoints per cost and attack dice per cost.

So without the 1/3 rule the onyl reason to field capital ships would be that you loose if you have none left. Thats a bit odd in a game that is about capital ships.

Thus i think every viable list will have close to max point value in squads. It also leads to the squad battle battle beeing the one that will decide the map imo. On the other hand i think that represents real warfare well.

All of that is balanced hard by the fact that cap ships fire at all fighters in arc, rather than a single squadron, and IIRC they will be firing before the fighters as well. Dense fighter formations are going to be meat on the table for cap ships. Too many fighters and it will make your opponent's ships extremely efficient offensively. I suspect that as we get fighters on the table, the 100 point limit won't feel terribly restrictive due to this rule. A cap ship firing twice and hitting 3/4 squadrons with each shot can run you out of fighters in an awful hurry.