interesting read to say the least

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/2/a-galaxy-at-war/

Hey,I wanted that post

you can have the next one. lol.

Hopefully the next one says "armada availible now".

So before we launch into detailed discussion of the new objectives, some of which are extremely interesting, these are the best words I've heard today: "The time to deploy your fleet is fast approaching!"

As for the objective cards themselves, I don't know how I feel about them yet... Some seem to favor a certain factions favorite strategies, but at the same time you could totally flip the tables on your opponent. Here's an important overall question, do you already know what your opponent is playing with when you choose an objective? You will both know the fleet values of each others build in order to determine turn order, but do you know what ships are in each fleet?

Because the objectives are so varied, I'd like to start a new thread for each card to discuss strategy, then we can discuss overall feelings about the objectives or types of objectives here. I don't know about you, but I'd like a head start figuring out how to deal with each type of card a little early. Hopefully VERY little early...

Finally, we can write up complete lists with all of the objectives included!

Without further ado, my first complete list (maybe the first complete list by a non-playtester?!?):

Ladies' Night

AF MkII B (@72) + Enhanced Armament (@10) + Mon Mothma (@30)

CR90B (@39) + Leia (@3)

CR90A (@44)

CR90A (@44)

4 A-Wings (@44)

1 X-Wing (@13)

Total: 299 points

Objectives:

Advanced Gunnery (double broadsides from my Mark II would be awesome)

Hyperspace Assault (a CR90A and an X-Wing appear out-of-nowhere as a surprise attack)*

Superior Positions (this color is probably this fleet's strong suit; I like the idea of giving my flankers some teeth)

*I originally had Fleet Ambush slotted in here, but I realized that this fleet doesn't want to get too close.

The strategy is that Mon Mothma's Mark II leads the offensive against the primary target or objective, while Leia's Corvette acts as a wingman, helping the big flying cow have the right command. Meanwhile, the other two CR90s kite around the battle field as flankers/distractions (as a pair or from opposite flanks, as the scenario requires). Mon Mothma enhances all of the evade tokens (a grand total of 7 of them) to keep your ships alive. The fighters exist purely to screen your capital ships by tying up enemy fighters as long as possible.

Can we rename this thread the consolidated objective discussion or something along those lines? There really is no reason for 12 friggin' threads on the main page. It's just spam.

I have to agree, individual threads on each objective take up way to much of the front page.

Can we rename this thread the consolidated objective discussion or something along those lines? There really is no reason for 12 friggin' threads on the main page. It's just spam.

One man's spam... Certainly not the point of giving each objective it's own thread, and responded to that thought here . If that is the general consensus though by all means, have them removed or let them die. Just hoping to give those of us who want to discuss each card in depth a place to do so. You'll only see them as often as they are popular enough to stay where they are As a happy medium, perhaps one thread for each type (Assault, Defense, Navigation) rather than each card? Thoughts before we do so? You know my preference based on the fact that there are 12 new threads.

So what's left for articles at this point, releasing the rules pdf and announcing the game is available?

So what's left for articles at this point, releasing the rules pdf and announcing the game is available?

Pretty much, and I am pretty excited by the fact that the Fighter article and the Objectives article were a mere week apart, rather than the month that is more usual. We may actually get the game at the end of the month, although don't put too much hope in that idea.

Can we rename this thread the consolidated objective discussion or something along those lines? There really is no reason for 12 friggin' threads on the main page. It's just spam.

One man's spam... Certainly not the point of giving each objective it's own thread, and responded to that thought here . If that is the general consensus though by all means, have them removed or let them die. Just hoping to give those of us who want to discuss each card in depth a place to do so. You'll only see them as often as they are popular enough to stay where they are As a happy medium, perhaps one thread for each type (Assault, Defense, Navigation) rather than each card? Thoughts before we do so? You know my preference based on the fact that there are 12 new threads.

Three threads, one for each type of objective seems like a reasonable compromise.

Three threads, one for each type of objective seems like a reasonable compromise.

I think we could handle that. Any other thoughts/opinions on having either 3 threads or 12? If the general opinion is 3 rather than the current 12 then not only my apologies for too much enthusiasm, but is there a way to have the old threads consolidated or do we just ask for them to be closed and start three new ones?

Hopefully the next one says "armada availible now".

And hopefully that update is no more than a couple of weeks away.

And hopefully that update is no more than a couple of days away.

Amen to that! Oh wait, did I replace a word in that quote? My bad...

We got that article that was up for a few hours that said it would be out on the 31st, but it was taken down shortly after that.

As for the objective cards themselves, I don't know how I feel about them yet... Some seem to favor a certain factions favorite strategies, but at the same time you could totally flip the tables on your opponent. Here's an important overall question, do you already know what your opponent is playing with when you choose an objective?

I have no more information than anyone else, but I imagine at the time you exchange your lists, you will also likely exchange which objectives you have selected as though they were part of your build/list. I would expect tournament play to involve submitting your scenario choices along with your legal list, if that makes what I'm saying a bit clearer. That way you don't have the ability to tailor your list to someone else's objectives, which would kind of defeat their purpose a bit. Again though, grain of salt, as I know as much as the rest of you.

The way they've got it, which is brilliant if I do say so, there's effectively 4 benefits, and you only get to have two at any given time.

• A choice of 3 objectives which best suite your list/play style
• First turn

or

• The better scenario advantage provided on the objective card
• The choice of which scenario you wish to play AFTER exchanging lists, to hopefully maximize your own advantage out of the 3 provided.

It's really an interesting set of choices and both seem very interesting. I don't know that I feel one is necessarily better than the others.

Just doing a breakdown of each Objectives strengths vs Weaknesses, will post shortly

Assault Objectives

Advanced Gunnery

Concept: Choose 1 ship to get better attacks, but double points for destroying it.

Favours: Fleets with at least one large powerful ship

Difficult for: Fleets without any particular powerful or tough ship

Most Wanted:

Concept: Choose 1 ship and your opponents can add a die when attacking it.

Favours: Fleets with one tough ship and many other ships

Difficult for: Fleets with no strong ships or very few ships

Precision Strikes:

Concept: Gain victory points for critical hits - can flip damage cards face up.

Favours: Fleets with Bombers and ships that can easily roll criticals, plus ships with lots of shields.

Difficult for: Fleets with no Bombers and ships that take hull damage easily.

Opening Salvo

Concept: A bonus to each ships initial attack, and bonus 1/2 points points for damaged ships at the end.

Favours: Fleets with multiple ships that can do damage to multiple targets.

Difficult for: Fleets with few ships that can only damage few targets.

Note: I think this will be a particularly interesting one, as the more ships you have the more bonus attack dice you will get, but the more at risk of giving your opponents points through partially destroyed ships you are.

Defense Objectives

Fire Lanes

Concept: Victory points at the end of each round for having the most battery dice able to shoot at a victory token.

Favours: Ships with lots of Red dice to contribute to controlling further away tokens. Fleets with multiple ships to contest several different tokens.

Difficult for: Fleets with few ships and ships with short range armament. Possibly fleets with a high proportion of Squadron cost - as it only says to count "ships" battery armamanets.

Contested Outpost

Concept: Players gain a victory point each round if the Command values of ships within range 1 of the station are greater than their opponents.

Favours: Fleets with high command value ships that can "park" ontop of the station.

Difficult for: Fleets with lots of low command value ships or possibly a large number of points invested in squadrons. (as they do not contribute to the command value count).

Fleet Ambush

Concept: The first player (with initiative) must effectively deploy half his forces in the center of the map, the rest in his normal deployment zone.

Favours: Fleets with larger numbers of ships (to give more choices as to how to split) and faster ships to regroup quicker.

Difficult for: Fleets with smaller numbers of slow ships as it breaks the players forces.

Note - this is essentially a "kill all" mission like X-Wing, it just forces player 1 to break their force into half allowing player 2 to focus fire for a couple of turns on whatever gets put in the middle.

Hyperspace Assault

Concept: The second player reserves a small or medium ship and upto 3 squadrons that he can bring in at the start of any round near an objective point on the board.

Favours: Fleets with a larger number of ships to split some reinforcements off without taking too much away from the main force. Ships that come in and do significant flanking damage.

Difficult for: Fleets that have few, high power ships as it means breaking upto half your force away. Fleets that are vulnerable to flanking or rear attacks by the reinforcments.

Navigation Objectives

Intel Sweep

Concept: Players nominate 1 ship to collect as many objective tokens as possible.

Favours: Fleets with a fast but strong ship and other fast ships that can act as interference/defensive screen.

Difficult for: Fleets with slow ships or ships that are easily destroyed.

Minefields

Concept: Second player places mines on the board, ships that hit take damage.

Favours: Ships with a strong firing arc that you want your opponent to fly into.

Difficult for: Agile ships that would rather outmanuver their opponent.

Superior Positions.

Concept: First player deploys all forces first. Bonus points for rear hull zone damage.

Favours : Second players deployment overall, particular fast agile ships that can outflank opponents.

Difficult for: Slow large ships with vulnerable rear hull zones.

Dangerous Territory

Concept: Ships overlapping selected obstacles get points - second players ships ignore obstacles.

Favours: Many fast manuverable ships to "hit" point scoring obstacles and avoid non-scoring ones.

Difficult for: Few slow and unmanuverable ships.

The way they've got it, which is brilliant if I do say so, there's effectively 4 benefits, and you only get to have two at any given time.

• A choice of 3 objectives which best suite your list/play style
• First turn

or

• The better scenario advantage provided on the objective card
• The choice of which scenario you wish to play AFTER exchanging lists, to hopefully maximize your own advantage out of the 3 provided.

It's really an interesting set of choices and both seem very interesting. I don't know that I feel one is necessarily better than the others.

I believe you've got it backwards, you can either have:

- First player

- The choice of which of your opponent's objectives to play.

or

- The better scenario advantage

- One of three scenarios you have already chosen to tailor to your fleet.

It's still an interesting choice: go first and get to pick the scenario (from the options your opponent presents you with), or go second and get both the improved benefit and the knowledge that you're playing with one of your objectives (albeit the one that your opponent chooses as best for her)

Hyperspace Assault opens the door for Interdiction mechanics. Awesome.

So before we launch into detailed discussion of the new objectives, some of which are extremely interesting, these are the best words I've heard today: "The time to deploy your fleet is fast approaching!"

Man, I pounced on that sentence like a leopard. I don't think I could have ran to the upcoming page any faster than I did... but alas, still on the boat.

So what's left for articles at this point, releasing the rules pdf and announcing the game is available?

There will probably be some kind of 'fleet building' article with some example lists