I would actually like to see a similar VP system in xwing.

I created some missions for my local league that used VPs and it worked very well. It made a nice change to the standard "destroy everything" games.

Personally I think it would be more entertaining for each player to have their own objective rather than sharing one. Makes for a lot more strategical choice to make.

Personally I think it would be more entertaining for each player to have their own objective rather than sharing one. Makes for a lot more strategical choice to make.

I disagree entirely: each player having their own means that you could always build a fleet with your objective(s) in mind, and regardless of what your opponent was doing, ignoring their objective and pursuing your own would always be a strategy. This way, not only to fleets have to be built to be well rounded, players have to be flexible in how they use them to achieve varied objective conditions.

Agree with Thraawn. Plus the fact that special rules of some objectives might conflict or be too OP (e.g. if both objectives add attack dice, most ships could potentially be one shotted which is not what should be happening to cap ships)

Don't see how that is an issue as all a player has to do is select the opposed motion that he feels he has the best chance to prevent. Besides its no worse than having a fleet designed for your missions only to find you are playing an opponents mission. Could even completely randomise missions for a bit of fun, either way both having the same mission is a bit meh!

I would suggest playing the game a few times before coming to such conclusions. I'm surprised, with all of the Capital ship commands, command tokens, squadrons, upgrades, commanders and 300 points of fleet, which mean that this game should already have a lot more going on in a single game than its predecessor X-Wing, I'm surprised that you feel the additional introduction of a shared objective that alters the game's rules and scoring mechanisms to allow for victories and alternate strategies beyond simple annihilation, with a selection and fleet building process that demands focus and versatility...I'm surprised that you feel that the issue here is that only having one such objective is "a bit meh".

I mean, I hope for your sake that you're wrong and that it turns out the objectives are all interesting enough on their own that only one is needed to add another layer of strategy and interest to the game. Personally, I'm looking forward to revelling in the strategic a board complexity of Armada, but I don't really feel from my first impressions that the thing the game needs is even more going on.

Can I hear an amen?!

I would suggest playing the game a few times before coming to such conclusions. I'm surprised , with all of the Capital ship commands, command tokens, squadrons, upgrades, commanders and 300 points of fleet, which mean that this game should already have a lot more going on in a single game than its predecessor X-Wing, I'm surprised that you feel the additional introduction of a shared objective that alters the game's rules and scoring mechanisms to allow for victories and alternate strategies beyond simple annihilation, with a selection and fleet building process that demands focus and versatility... I'm surprised that you feel that the issue here is that only having one such objective is "a bit meh".

I mean, I hope for your sake that you're wrong and that it turns out the objectives are all interesting enough on their own that only one is needed to add another layer of strategy and interest to the game. Personally, I'm looking forward to revelling in the strategic a board complexity of Armada, but I don't really feel from my first impressions that the thing the game needs is even more going on.

I'm getting the feeling your a little suprised.....

Can I hear an amen?!

Amen

I'm getting the feeling your a little suprised.....

It's called repetition, my friend: repetition. And it is used for emphasis. Emphasis and clarity.

Did anyone else notice that ' Navigational Hazards ' is gone? It was in the ' Assemble the Fleet ' preview, but is now missing.

Thankfully, I have the image file as proof that it existed, and I'm leaving it as a page on the Wiki. However, I'll be removing it from the Core Set.

Now we may speculate: did they toss it in the trash, or will it be part of an expansion?

I noticed this as well as I was looking through pages early this morning. I also tried looking to see if any of the wave 1 expansions mentioned adding new objectives. I wasn't able to find any proof, but I highly doubt FFG would leave us with only the core set objectives for long.

I had assumed they had changed it to Hazardous Terrain; they've done enough tinkering with ship stats since previews began. There may be nothing wrong with it, but it did seem to involve a lot of fiddling each round: moving all six asteroids every round looks like a lot more upkeep than most of the other objectives. And I recall people expressing concern about how the objective would interact with Jaina's Light, although maybe that wasn't a real concern for FFG. I'd certainly like more Objectives down the line, but I wouldn't really mind if Navigational Hazards wasn't one of them.

You saw one poster saying the game was broken because one Rebel ship could have an advantage online certain objective.