I'm ready to test some CIS ships, but what arcs should I use for the Providence?

And what should I resize the Venator base to for large?

Hope you have a good trip!

For the Providence I used the MC80 base/Arcs.

Ok, large base is 2.875 x 5.03125.

Sounds good on the MC80 arcs.

I'll do the Large bases (MC80, Providence, Venator) next. Still undecided on the arc layout on the Liberty Type. I originally intended to keep the same arcs as its Home One counterpart, but since playtest feedback indicates it might need a little boost, I'm tempted to go with a wider front, as with the Munificent .

The Providence will have the same arcs as the MC80.

Cool! I just resized the medium Venator base, so hopefully I can get you some more feedback on these starting this week.

The following is a card proposal lacking a ship, the reverse of what we normally do. Suggestions and critiques are welcome

So yesterday a thought occurred to me. Armada isn't the greatest miniature game for naval comparison, but a few roles have stuck out. When you look at trends in 20th century naval combat, the base Armada ships can be thrown into a few categories. The Imperial -class Star Destroyer is a fast battleship, where the MC80 is a dreadnought. The Victory and the Assault Frigate are heavy cruisers. The MC30, Gladiator, and Neb-B are light cruisers, and the Raider and the CR90 fill the role of frigate/destroyer. (Categorizing all the customs will take too long. You guys get the idea.) There is one category that is still lacking: battlecruisers. Large, fast capital ships, capable of savaging enemy cruiser forces, but lighter and cheaper than battleships.To that end, I introduce Invincible, and her sister Tiger, and their opposite numbers Renown and Courageous.

Invincible class - Imperial Navy

Hull: 6

Shields: 3/3/2

Speed: 1/1-1/1-1-0/1-1-1-0

Armament: RRRK/RRRRKK/RR

A/S: BB

Defense: Evade, Evade, Brace, Contain

Command: 3

Squadron: 2

Engineering: 3

Upgrades: Officer, Ordnance, Offensive Retrofit, Weapons Team, Support Team

Title: Invincible - When attacking, you may flip a die with a hit result to a face with a crit hit result - 4 pts

Tiger class - Imperial Navy

Hull: 6

Shields: 3/3/2

Speed: 1/1-1/1-1-0/1-1-1-0

Armament: RRBK/RRRBBK/RB

A/S: BK

Defense: Evade, Redirect, Brace, Contain

Command: 3

Squadron: 1

Engineering: 3

Upgrades: Officer, Defensive Retrofit, Offensive Retrofit, Weapons Team, Support Team

Title: Tiger - If this ship has two or more damage cards, it may increase its attack pool once per round by a die of your choice - 8 pts

Renown class - Rebel Alliance

Hull: 7

Shields: 3/4/2

Speed: 2/1-1/1-1-0

Armament: RRBBK/RRBB/RRBK

A/S: BK

Defense: Evade, Evade, Redirect, Brace

Command: 3

Squadron: 2

Engineering: 3

Upgrades: Officer, Defensive Retrofit, Turbolasers, Weapons Team, Support Team, Cargo

Title: Renown - At the beginning of Round 1, you may decrease your Command value or increase your Squadron or Engineering value by 1 on any friendly starship. - 5 pts

Courageous class - Rebel Alliance

Hull: 7

Shields: 3/4/2

Speed: 1/1-1/1-1-0

Armament: RRBB/RRB/RBB

A/S: BB

Defense: Evade, Redirect, Brace, Contain

Command: 3

Squadron: 3

Engineering: 4

Upgrades: Officer, Defensive Retrofit, Turbolasers, Weapons Team, Support Team, Cargo

Title: Courageous - *Nav Command Widget* - This ship may use Nav Command Dials to adjust both speed and yaw. - 6 pts

Each of these ships provides its faction with a faster Large ship with significant punch, at cost equivalent to or below that of its existing Large ship. Estimates will follow tomorrow upon completion of a script to calculate them for me. They also add preferred firing angles not prevalent in their faction, expanding the tactical breadth these ships provide. Comments, concerns and critiques are welcome. The largest remaining concern is firing arcs, whether they should be beneficial or detrimental. The plan is for Invincible and Tiger to share an arc set, and Renown and Courageous to share another. Playtest to follow next week, as well as ideas about GCW era derivatives of the CIS ships to date.

I'll do the Large bases (MC80, Providence, Venator) next. Still undecided on the arc layout on the Liberty Type. I originally intended to keep the same arcs as its Home One counterpart, but since playtest feedback indicates it might need a little boost, I'm tempted to go with a wider front, as with the Munificent .

The Providence will have the same arcs as the MC80.

Got to use the Liberty a few times with a Star Destroyer type of arc and it did ok. I then tried another idea. I used an Assault Frigate MKII arc turned backwards. This gave the feel of a decent front arc while maintaining a broad side profile as well. I found this to be a suitable compramise.

....

Totally Random Thought for a Special Rule, with of course, no points or all backing it up...

TIE Phantom
This Squadron Cannot Be Heavy

Since they're all Cloak-y and all, it'd be hard to get Intel on them.

Plus its a Kick in the Squadron Meta somewhat, depending on what other abilities you give it.

....

Totally Random Thought for a Special Rule, with of course, no points or all backing it up...

TIE Phantom

This Squadron Cannot Be Heavy

Since they're all Cloak-y and all, it'd be hard to get Intel on them.

Plus its a Kick in the Squadron Meta somewhat, depending on what other abilities you give it.

Believe it or not Drasnighta, our group has considered this, although in the form of the Tie Defender. I am going to put together a list of what we are testing in the Tie world with its updated stats and profiles. I will post it here. I do think your idea has a good direction. I may borrow it.

Giled, I do see where you are going with this. I am sure we could find a ship that fits the mold for each of those variations. I was thinking the Liberator Cruiser could see itself in the Battlecruiser role. As for the Empire I think there is a lack of ship types in general so there may be some research involved.

Here is some of my group's playtest page. I figured I would take the time to explain each custom special rule, and also discuss further modification. Many Tie Defenders pilots died to bring you this information.

Strike: Squadrons with the Strike keyword ignore the Escort special rule.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword are treated as obstructed while they are unactivated.

Limited (X): Your fleet may only contain a maximum number of these squadrons dictated by the Limited keyword.

SLAM: At the start of the ship phase, squadrons with the SLAM keyword may make a standard move without activating.

Looking at that Courageous title, am I playing the game wrong because the command descriptions indicate that's how commands already work. Did you mean command tokens?

Looking at that Courageous title, am I playing the game wrong because the command descriptions indicate that's how commands already work. Did you mean command tokens?

I am gonna go with he meant tokens lol.

Looking at that Courageous title, am I playing the game wrong because the command descriptions indicate that's how commands already work. Did you mean command tokens?

I am gonna go with he meant tokens lol.

Actually no. Courageous is actually allowing both a speed change and a yaw increase on a single command use (i.e. only a dial). All of the battlecruisers are intended to upend the standing meta, both FFG's and the much quieter one among the customs. Invincible and Tiger can lance across the play area and savage opponents with broadsides, a non-existent tactic for Imperial commanders, while Renown and Courageous give the Rebels a ship that can pace Assault Frigates and provide the tip of a spear for a gunline, with strong fore arcs and respectable broadsides. If anyone can find ships to mate with the stats, I will greatly appreciate it. I haven't been able to find much. They will be playtested soon with Myrmecology and I. I will report our findings. All four ships are meant to be more fragile than their faction's ship of the line, and rely very heavily on their tokens and their speed to stay out of danger. They are high-skill, hopefully high-reward ships. My current concern is a slight under HP for Invincible and Tiger (Motti kicks them up to 9, but base 6 is exceptionally weak for a Large and may be unplayable), and removing an upgrade slot across the board, although the slot removed can be different for each of the pairs or even unique to each ship. Does anyone have any thoughts?

I like the custom TIE units. Do we have any cost estimates on these squadrons? I planned to run XG-1s as the screen for the battlecruisers, but I could be convinced to use these instead. Limited 4 isn't a huge limit, especially if the fighter is costed in the vicinity of the ARC-170. Except basic TIEs I never run more than four of anything, so that limit may not prove to have much teeth. Also, for SLAM, how far may the move be? Full speed? Half rounded up/down? Will it be delineated per squadron like Counter (i.e. SLAM 1/2/etc.)?

Actually no. Courageous is actually allowing both a speed change and a yaw increase on a single command use (i.e. only a dial).

What they're saying is this:

Page 3, RRG, "Commands"

• Navigate: Resolve during the “Determine Course” step of movement.

◊ Dial: Increase or decrease the ship’s speed by one, and/or increase the yaw value of one joint by one for this maneuver.

The Navigate command inherently allows you to adjust the Ships speed and the Yaw at the same time, as long as it is a Dial . So as written right now, the Courageous title is redundant to basic rules... So the wording will have to be rewritten to actually provide a benefit...

Don't fell bad Giled, we were doing that wrong until last month too.

Well then... Good catch guys. Welp, guess I'm back to square one on Courageous. Hopefully I'll have an idea by the time these ships are costed (fingers crossed for final debugging tonight).

Well then... Good catch guys. Welp, guess I'm back to square one on Courageous. Hopefully I'll have an idea by the time these ships are costed (fingers crossed for final debugging tonight).

Courageous: When you spend a (Navigate) command dial, you may choose to either change your speed by 2 or increase two yaw values by 1 point each.

I can't believe I forgot the point values in my chart. I will update that shortly. For now, Defender 16, Avenger 14, Phantom 12, Droid 7, Missile Boat 17, K-wing 16

Although limited 4 may not seem like a handicap, trust me I have a whole group who has been known to use 8+ of just about anything.

I will update that. The SLAM should have read a normal move. So it would be possible to disrupt it through the normal engagement rules.

Meant to add that the limit is also not as important as how the fighter itself functions on the table. If we find things are too unbalanced we can adjust the limits. Tomorrow my group has scheduled an all Tie Defender playtest day. Each Imperial player will field the maximum number of 4 in their fleet and give an impression accross a wide range of lists. Their Rebel opponents will also contribute from a victim standpoint. This sort of large scale field test really allows for a good fair first account.

I like how its a victim and not an opponent standpoint

Alrighty, victim report.

Tie Defenders did not recieve a single negative feedback point among the users or opponents over the course of the day. The Imperial players were quick to point out that having such a great tool at their disposal is awesome, but losing 16 pt squadrons hurts! The Rebel players were happy to see a new form of enemy which created a new challenge in terms of tactical decisions. So far the Tie Defender has been voted as working without a significant problem. All players used at least 10 squadrons of various fighters in their lists on both sides, and all Imperial players fielded 4 Defender Squadrons. All games were 500 pts. My group runs a squadron heavy meta at the best of times even from Wave I days.

The Tie Avenger also saw some additional play time, and the only complaints were from the Imperial players using them. We are going to lose the black dice in the anti-squadron armament and go back to 4 blue. Its cost will remain at 14 pts. We have found that its escort/low hull value although combined with counter 2 are powerful, it also makes them quick targets to eliminate. SOmetimes I am not sure if Escort is a benefit or a curse to a fighter lol.

The last fighter to see action in our day was the Phantom. It was given the poorest reviews by both users and opponents as underwhelming at best. From what I gather this is the fighter my players would like to redesign from ground up the most. It just currently does not have a novel way to play. Poor rules loopholes in the Obstruction idea also played a part. They have provided a list of suggestions they would like to try next weekend...

Anyway, fun weekend. We always enjoy a chance to try out the customs.

Also, I encountered a half-baked idea on another thread that I thought we could apply here. We've bounced around planetary assault in the past, but I don't recall any proposal being seriously considered for various reasons, mostly lack of a game-changing variable. I may have found one: planetary defense installations. The two quick and easy ones are the ground-to-space weapons from Empire at War, where we've already drawn fair inspiration from, the Ion Cannon for the Rebellion and the Hypervelocity Gun for the Empire. Off hand, I would give it as a power to one side, the defending side, and then offset it both by making a die roll determine the effectiveness of the shot, and by either reducing the available points of the defender or increasing available points for the attacker.

Example implementation: Ion Cannon power may be activated at the start of a round. At the start of the round the Rebel player selects an defending ship and rolls a single blue die. For an Accuracy Result, the defense tokens of the defender are eliminated. For a Hit Result, (insert serious penalty, ex. loss of all shields). For a Critical Hit Result, the defender is reduced to Speed 0, and (additional penalty). For Hypervelocity Gun, the Imperial player selects a defending ship and rolls a black die. For a Blank Result, nothing happens. For a Hit Result, deal X damage cards to the defending ship. For a Critical Hit and Hit Result, deal Y>X damage cards directly to the target. First player forces may be augmented by Z points of material/Second player takes a penalty of Z points of material in his fleet. Thoughts folks?

So, I like the general thrust here. But consider the following:

Instead of the point-based penalty, which I find clunky, make it an objective. Planetary Defense: Second player places fleet first. Once per turn, any ship may spend a Concentrate Fire dial to invoke the planetary defenses. First player gets some bonus or another.

Alternatively, you could make it a Ship Card, taking up points, and getting a standard activation. (or not-so-standard, I guess) That feels a bit janky, though.

Here is some of my group's playtest page. I figured I would take the time to explain each custom special rule, and also discuss further modification. Many Tie Defenders pilots died to bring you this information.

Strike: Squadrons with the Strike keyword ignore the Escort special rule.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword are treated as obstructed while they are unactivated.

Limited (X): Your fleet may only contain a maximum number of these squadrons dictated by the Limited keyword.

SLAM: At the start of the ship phase, squadrons with the SLAM keyword may make a standard move without activating.

I like it very much, but I think SLAM is uncessessary and to good.

SLAM is untested and just a concept at the moment. Unfortunatly it is hard to judge how it will effect the game. After all it would be able to be stopped by simply being engaged. We are going to try it for the sake of it anyway. I think the end result will be SLAM is allowed to happen instead of making an attack.