On a side note todays game saw heavy use of some custom Tie Flights by my opponent. 4 Flights of Avengers, 2 Flights of Defender and 6 Tie Fighter flights. This is a project we have taken on aside from the rest as I have a few Tie lovers in the group. We used the following profiles for the first playtests:

Tie Avenger (13 pts)

Speed 4

Hull 4

Anti-squad: 4 Blue

Anti-ship: 1 Black

Escort

Counter 1

Tie Defender (15 pts)

Speed 5

Hull 5

Anti-squad: 3 Blue, 1 Black

Anti-ship: 1 Blue, 1 Black

Grit

The Tie Avenger performed as expected, taking damage while being a threat to engage. We felt that counter 2 would make this fighter too powerful with the combination of being forced to shoot it with escort. They did however manage to go shot for shot with 4 X-wing squadrons eliminating eachother in turn.

Tie Defenders using Grit managed to make great use of their speed and dart all over the Battlefield. Hard to lock down a fighter that is faster then you. Lacking bomber their 2 dice anti-ship attack is not as devastating but it did allow them to be a threat represented by their missiles and ion cannons. A Corellian Corvette strayed to far on its own and found itself hounded by the Defenders to near death. By the time they decided to join the fighter combat the game had already hit turn 6 before thy resolved any further action. We felt Grit was an excellent choice to help represent this fighters high speed without actually having to invent a new mechanic. Its ability to slip away from lone enemies locking it down was really catching the feel.

I want this Defender. I want it.... Myrmecology, can I? PLEASE?

That the Avenger traded shot for shot with X-wings is good, although more tests to confirm that balance is always good. For the Defender, I'm mildly concerned that that fighter is too good, and should instead be Speed 4 and Grit, retaining the vast majority of its breakaway ability, but I will hold judgment until they have been unleashed upon Rebel forces in live-fire experiments.

I agree, the Defender is too good, with no downside. However, if you are set on that set of stats, give them heavy. Same advantages, but now it has a weakness to exploit.

Well, thats what Defenders were like in the PC game

I wouldnt mind having an extremelly awesome fighter if the price for matches. Which according to Wookieepedia was the problem with the TIE Defenders.

Or have a property that limits the numbers you can put in the game. Maybe "Prototype" and you can only fly one squadron of that kind of fighter.

That defender would be awesome! But please make it 20 points. A full flight of 4 of them should cost you both arms and both legs, and make you wish you took a VSD instead.

Based on the fighter descriptions, stats and past experience in the PC games, the Defender really was the be all end all of Imperial fighter designs. It carries B-wing grade firepower, is faster then an A-wing and as durable as an X-wing. For all intents and purposes it is a super-fighter. Exactly what a massive budget with no limits could expect. So is it too good? Thats the idea.

It has been a debate for quite some time over several posts in this forum and others on how to represent this fighter and cost is very important to help mitigate this. 15 pts was a budget assigned for the battle as we wanted to try them out at last second. A hard value was not established. An appropriate point value based on its current set-up and fighter points breakdown is 17 pts when done with the fighter build mechanics. Making a healthy head above the next most expensive fighter squadron (B-wing) by 3 pts.

Funny you should mention the idea Mel, our group discussed just that sort of "prototype" idea post game. I think we called it 'Limited' Which also brought us to an Imperial Admiral idea, Grand Admiral Zaarin, again for the Tie-fighter lovers. His special ability being both the designer and the man in charge of distribution of the Avenger and Defender is to ignore the 'prototype' limit on the advanced ties. My group all agreed that no more then 50% of your squad pts spent on 'prototype/Limited' designs. This sort of rule would also help reflect its cost without having to assign it a value over what it is actually worth.

I meant to add my group playing only 1 tournament in the whole time we have played Armada has been in it for the fun of seeing our favorite ships blow eachother up. We really have an open crowd to new ideas, so it has been quite the experience to field and play with such a broad selection of craft and new mechanics.

Hey, everyone! This is my first time posting, but I've been following this thread for a while now (and Mel's before it was taken down), and wanted to say what an awesome job you guys are doing. Having cards and models to be able to make a Clone Wars fleet is so cool. Because of that I bought enough to make a full Armada of Republic and Separatist forces. I'm so excited to finally have them battle!

The only thing left is to get cards for it! Which brings me to my question: will your card deck include Separatist cards? If so, I'm guessing it will probably be a while before the deck hits the market because the Separatists are still in development?

Thanks again!

Hi Cap'n! Welcome, and thanks for your kind words

The set that's in the works right now, and scheduled for release in December will only have Civil War ships. Clone Wars will be the second set, which I assume will be ready in 2-3 more months. That set will certainly have, at the very least, the Munificent, Recusant and Providence - but probably also the Geonosian Pinnace and some other small craft. Not to mention both unique and generic squadrons, of course.

In the meantime, you can find the in-development versions of the cards at this very unofficial Photobucket page . It's rather chaotic, and there's no indication of which versions are current and which are obsolete, but you can just download and print whatever you like without waiting for the "final" cards to go up on the Shipyards site or to be released as a print set. In fact, I'm very much interested in getting feedback from actual games with these cards!

On the subject of card sizing, I printed out several of the cards for test purposes, the only one that is not coming out dead on is the small base. The length is perfect, but the width is off by about a mm and a half too wide. If I trim them to fit the FFG cards the edges of the shield and side battery border will be almost gone.

Am I the only one getting this result, is it just a flaw in my printing?

I don't have a printer at home, and I wasn't in my office today, so I haven't yet measured any actual hard copies, but I double-checked the image file dimensions. They're all exactly 41mm, as they should be according to the rulebook ( "Small ships use the 41mm x 71 mm base, medium ships use the 61mm x 102mm base, and large ships use the 76mm x 192mm base." ). However, I just measured a CR90 and a Nebulon-B base, and they're both 39mm wide (!). Oddly, the plastic bit is about 43mm, so I'm not sure where the 41mm figure comes from.

It seems to be the same with the Medium bases: they're 59mm wide instead of 61, with the plastic frame at 63mm. This one is less critical because the shield and dice frames are about 2mm from the edge, so trimming 1mm on each side isn't an issue, whereas on the small base images they're almost flush.

Either way it looks like I'll have to rework all the bases. But it's a pretty straightforward affair, so I don't expect it to cause delays.

EDIT: Wrote a little script to do the work for me. So those are all ready now Next up, squadron dials. Who knows, might have the set ready for printing by the weekend at this rate

Just actually put a limited rule thought to paper.

Limited (X): Your fleet can have up to (X) limited squadrons of this type including ace variants.

I was actually thinking of putting Avengers and Defenders at limited 4 as they come that way when you get them. But it is debateable.

This weekend we will also be running 4 squadrons of Tie Phantoms as a group effort. Knowing it has some good anti-fighter firepower we wanted it to represent that without being yet another 4 blue dice thrower. We opted for 2 plus a black to offer the more consistent damage. We have included our experiment to represent its cloak as well. Currently we gave cloak a rough value of 3 pts. We know it offers a great damage break. We want to record how much damage they avoid over the course of several games as a result. Smart activation order of the cloaked fighters may help save them, but it also may give your enemy more time to hunt them down with concentrated effort.

Tie Phantom (12 pts)

Speed 4

Hull 4

Anti-squad: 2 Blue, 1 Black

Anti-ship: 1 Blue

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak key word are obstructed while unactivated.

On the subject of card sizing, I printed out several of the cards for test purposes, the only one that is not coming out dead on is the small base. The length is perfect, but the width is off by about a mm and a half too wide. If I trim them to fit the FFG cards the edges of the shield and side battery border will be almost gone.

Am I the only one getting this result, is it just a flaw in my printing?

I don't have a printer at home, and I wasn't in my office today, so I haven't yet measured any actual hard copies, but I double-checked the image file dimensions. They're all exactly 41mm, as they should be according to the rulebook ( "Small ships use the 41mm x 71 mm base, medium ships use the 61mm x 102mm base, and large ships use the 76mm x 192mm base." ). However, I just measured a CR90 and a Nebulon-B base, and they're both 39mm wide (!). Oddly, the plastic bit is about 43mm, so I'm not sure where the 41mm figure comes from.

It seems to be the same with the Medium bases: they're 59mm wide instead of 61, with the plastic frame at 63mm. This one is less critical because the shield and dice frames are about 2mm from the edge, so trimming 1mm on each side isn't an issue, whereas on the small base images they're almost flush.

Either way it looks like I'll have to rework all the bases. But it's a pretty straightforward affair, so I don't expect it to cause delays.

EDIT: Wrote a little script to do the work for me. So those are all ready now Next up, squadron dials. Who knows, might have the set ready for printing by the weekend at this rate

This has been covered in the FAQ.

Small: 43x71

Med: 63x102

Large: 77.5x129

That's the plastic bases (sans the shield protrusions)

The side rails are about 2 mm each, regardless of base size, so the ship tokens (cardboard) is 4 mm less than what's listed (39/59/73.5).

The ship tokens are also a tiny bit shorter than the plastic frames. About 0,25mm front and back for small and 0,5mm front and back for medium (not sure about large). This could be unintentional and part of the cutting process. Not sure. But the tokens are consistently shorter, and there is a difference between small and medium.

Is that from the new FAQ or the old one? Because I remember the Large base was changed in an update.

Thanks GK, that does ring a bell. Anyway I already did all the corrections to the set ships according to my measurements, which are indeed 39x71 and 59x102. The 0.25mm isn't an issue, in fact it's better to have a slight margin of error for cutting.

Squadron dials and card backs are all ready, too. Just some tweaking and last-minute adjustments left. Expect news soon

I am ready to reap the benefits of your labour.

Thanks GK, that does ring a bell. Anyway I already did all the corrections to the set ships according to my measurements, which are indeed 39x71 and 59x102. The 0.25mm isn't an issue, in fact it's better to have a slight margin of error for cutting.

Squadron dials and card backs are all ready, too. Just some tweaking and last-minute adjustments left. Expect news soon

If I might warrant a guess: the ship tokens are intended to be as long as the bases, but there is a margin when cutting. Don't want the tokens to protrude outside the bases!

Looking forward to trying some of this custom stuff on vassal.

My test copy of the set is at the printers! 43 different cards (for a total 118 in total including duplicates and ship bases). I upgraded to 310g linen cardstock at the last minute as it's both more durable and a better match for FFG's cards. This increased the total cost by a couple of dollars, to $21.01.

It should take a couple of weeks for the cards to arrive. Then, if everything checks out, I will share the image files or a direct print link. In the meantime, I have some work to do for Vassal (thanks for your patience GK!) and Warlords (thanks for your patience Nevetz!). Also I really should update the website. But then we can go back to making MOAR SHIPS!!!!1!!111!!!

Excited. Price is really good. I assume the direct print link mimics your order? Or simply provide one of everything?

Yes, it will be an exact copy of my order: 2 of each ship card and base, 1 of each squadron card (w/ 6 bases each), 1 of each unique upgrade, etc. You'll probably still be able to edit it to change cardstock type, add extra copies of cards or remove stuff you don't want. The user interface is rather clunky, though, which is why I'm doing all the prep work for you rather than just sharing a Dropbox folder with the image files.

I don't know how much shipping to the US will cost, it's about $9 to Europe. But there's free worldwide shipping for orders over $30 (discount code SHIP30). When we make the Clone Wars set, I'll try to include enough stuff to reach $30 so that free shipping applies even for a single copy

As not a European, I'm sure I'll discover the exact amount in short order.

A idea related to the original Limited keyword: Why not instead create both a Prototype and a Limited keyword, and limit it to two or three or so instances of the keyword per fleet. Now ships (or titles for them anyway), starfighters, and even upgrades can carry this limiting factor, without cross contamination between purely Prototype technologies (Eg TIE Phantom or any eventual cloaking devices, like Jamming Arrays) and ones with Limited production, like the Avenger, or other powerful upgrades or units that are in need of caps, but shouldn't eat into the Prototype limit. This is a slightly more complex solution, but I think better fits the flavor of what the keyword is trying to do.

PS Yes I know the Jamming Arrays aren't true cloaks, but they would be finicky at best. There is never much mention of EW in the EU, so I feel justified rating them as Prototype.

Those of you waiting on Seperatist fighters and shuttles in the flesh can now rejoice.

Beat me by 17 minutes. Obviously I spent too much time drooling on my tablet.

On a side note todays game saw heavy use of some custom Tie Flights by my opponent. 4 Flights of Avengers, 2 Flights of Defender and 6 Tie Fighter flights. This is a project we have taken on aside from the rest as I have a few Tie lovers in the group. We used the following profiles for the first playtests:

Tie Avenger (13 pts)

Speed 4

Hull 4

Anti-squad: 4 Blue

Anti-ship: 1 Black

Escort

Counter 1

Tie Defender (15 pts)

Speed 5

Hull 5

Anti-squad: 3 Blue, 1 Black

Anti-ship: 1 Blue, 1 Black

Grit

The Tie Avenger performed as expected, taking damage while being a threat to engage. We felt that counter 2 would make this fighter too powerful with the combination of being forced to shoot it with escort. They did however manage to go shot for shot with 4 X-wing squadrons eliminating eachother in turn.

Tie Defenders using Grit managed to make great use of their speed and dart all over the Battlefield. Hard to lock down a fighter that is faster then you. Lacking bomber their 2 dice anti-ship attack is not as devastating but it did allow them to be a threat represented by their missiles and ion cannons. A Corellian Corvette strayed to far on its own and found itself hounded by the Defenders to near death. By the time they decided to join the fighter combat the game had already hit turn 6 before thy resolved any further action. We felt Grit was an excellent choice to help represent this fighters high speed without actually having to invent a new mechanic. Its ability to slip away from lone enemies locking it down was really catching the feel.

Very nice rules.

Better than others that had been found, but still the same concerns as higlihted by mean are there, as the TIE-Avenger has more speed and shields than the Avenger.

Tie Avenger Speed 4

Hull 4 (More than Ties or Tie Interceptors but same as A-Wing but less than X-Wing)

Squadron Dice = 4 Blue

Anti-Ship Dice = 1 Black

Escort

Counter 2

Tie Defender

Speed 5 (Third Collector adds speed to the fighter) Speed 4 at most, it had a top speed of 144 MGLT compared to 150 of the Avenger

Hull 5 (Better shields boost the Hull by 1) It had 100 SBD shield and 14 Ru Hull (Avenger: 100/20) and was not more agile than an Avenger too: 110 DPF compared to 150 DPF)

Squadron Dice = 4 Blue I think 3 Blue and a black and a red would be fine. It had 4 Lasers (4 blue) and missles and 2 Ioncannons.

Anti-Ship Dice = 1 Black

Escort

Counter 2 or 3 Beeing less agile than an Avenger Counter 1 seems enough to me.

Just actually put a limited rule thought to paper.

Limited (X): Your fleet can have up to (X) limited squadrons of this type including ace variants.

I was actually thinking of putting Avengers and Defenders at limited 4 as they come that way when you get them. But it is debateable.

This weekend we will also be running 4 squadrons of Tie Phantoms as a group effort. Knowing it has some good anti-fighter firepower we wanted it to represent that without being yet another 4 blue dice thrower. We opted for 2 plus a black to offer the more consistent damage. We have included our experiment to represent its cloak as well. Currently we gave cloak a rough value of 3 pts. We know it offers a great damage break. We want to record how much damage they avoid over the course of several games as a result. Smart activation order of the cloaked fighters may help save them, but it also may give your enemy more time to hunt them down with concentrated effort.

Tie Phantom (12 pts)

Speed 4

Hull 4

Anti-squad: 2 Blue, 1 Black

Anti-ship: 1 Blue

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak key word are obstructed while unactivated.

Great profile. If you want to evade a new special rule. You could just give it a scatter token. It should be Anti-Squad 2 Blue than at most and much more expensive. However that would fit, as we never saw many of them.

The 9 inch Disney die cast ISD makes a nice 1/7000 alternative to the FFG one. Having said that, the FFG ISD then becomes a nice, smaller SD in 7000 scale. The two models have very different looks for supposedly being the same ship. Anyway, it creates the potential for two large imperial ships in game play.

Any thoughts on how that would look? Especially as far as options.

This may just be stating the obvious, but... ISD-I, ISD-II