I really love Armada because - as a game - it ticks all the boxes for me:

I think that, if you (the general Armada player) chooses not to limit himself to competitive games, then sky's (space's?) really the limit, isn't it?

just make sure your opponent knows beforehand and agrees

personally, though, I feel this game is incredibly complex as is and feel zero need to add anything to it unless I was striving to create a narrative experience.

They have done a great job of making a tournament game, and the objective system plays really well into that.

The good thing about this is, when you aren't going to a tournament or skirmishing in prep for one, you can expand the game for a narrative style however you want, talk to your play group build a campaign and run from there or think tank new scenarios and play each others mission sub types as one offs. With missions that you create that you really like you could even create little pdf's with map elements and fleet lists for others to try out. I know once the player group in my area grows we are gonna try this, and I will probably post up our scenario packs online for others to try.

While I don't completely agree with the idea that Armada is lacking I do agree that having a more narrative campaign would add more fun to the game.

I do feel if everyone got into the highly competitive tournament mindset it will hurt the overall community and we need more Themed games where Margin of Victory is not the main goal. We need to relax and just have fun games also.

But I am not sure if this is something FFG should lead in or the community?

could always be both

FFG may well see the profit in releasing a companion book to armada for casual play scenarios, and players don't have to sit around twiddling their thumbs when they could be generating said content

I have zero experience in campaign management, though, so I'll leave it to the pros...

Just curious, but is there anything stopping you from doing exactly what it is that you want from the game?

Be it campaign or more turns?

We plan to play all the X-Wing and TIE-Fighter Missions, altough a bit altered (more Fighters/Ships). I will post the scenarios once we are done.

I feel that FFG could have made the game even more interesting if captials could have special rules like squadrons or the hyperspace capabilites would be more integrated.

The OP does have a point.

Don't get me wrong ... I love Armada and it IS designed to be a tournament game. But by the same token, it would be nice if, one day, they'd release some sort of asymmetrical campaign pack. For example, having Imperials field more points, but giving the Rebels some special story objective that, if they succeed, allows them to win the whole thing.

The only problem with this, though, is that unless you just want the campaign to involve one VSD, one Corvette, and one Neb B Frigate, then you'd have to purchase this pack AND several others. Many potential players would hate it, even if it's understandable. There's simply not enough ships in the Core to make for an adequate campaign.

So in the end, if FFG would do this, it would likely be a free download, and since they can't make money off it, they'd wait until they have some spare time.

I agree that 6 rounds is BS. In all the games I have played for fun we only played death matches with unlimited rounds. We tried 6 rounds and in that time there was nothing resembling a game. It forces you to either kill one squadron and run away or charge in and get killed. No time to maneuver strategically. I played in a tournament and lost the first 2 games because they just took 175 or so point fleet (this was an 180 core only tournament), to get initiative and all the squadrons. Ran up, used squadron command, killed all my squadrons, and ran to the edge of the board and hid. Super boring. But people who just want shiny prizes will do that. I came to have fun, instead I got to shoot once and meander around for 5 rounds. lame turn limit. This will probably turn into an at home game only sadly. I really wanted to have fun at tournaments too. All the fun cinematic games we played were about 8-12 turns. We had a great time and that is what I wanted from this game. I am very disappointed that the tournaments will be so lame. I know they had to do it for time, but the first rounds are quick anyway so I think 8 turns would be a whole lot better. think the objectives are fun though, they really spiced up our games, as opposed to, bad guy sees good guy, good guy sees bad guy, they fight.

Just curious, but is there anything stopping you from doing exactly what it is that you want from the game?

Be it campaign or more turns?

Nothing is stopping me of course. And perhaps I will do this.

The issue is that - playing once a week with one double set and limited to three opponents - it would be very difficult to game-test and balance a campaign. FFG has the ability to do this. Or a big gaming group.

... think the objectives are fun though, they really spiced up our games, as opposed to, bad guy sees good guy, good guy sees bad guy, they fight.

Better would be:

Good guy wants to raid a space dock, bad guy jumps in to defend, starting with game turn x (6, or whatever) both sides secretly decide if they want to withdraw (hyperjump) or not, play another turn, end

Just curious, but is there anything stopping you from doing exactly what it is that you want from the game?

Be it campaign or more turns?

Nothing is stopping me of course. And perhaps I will do this.

The issue is that - playing once a week with one double set and limited to three opponents - it would be very difficult to game-test and balance a campaign. FFG has the ability to do this. Or a big community.

Understood.

FFG may develop something like this (campaign) but it's unlikely. I think their campaign offerings will be with imperial assault while xwing/armada are the set up and fight games. Less about story, more about combat....

I think that anything involving a campaign type structure will be up to the players to do for themselves.

It stinks that FFG can't change the turn limit now that Garm is out...

Screw the six turns, already played a couple of 600 points. Best way to spend six hours!!!! I don't plan on stoping the creep either, 20 star destroyers in the table is my goal.What worth doing is worth over doing ... Moderation is for cowards

It stinks that FFG can't change the turn limit now that Garm is out...

Once 400 points is the norm,6 turns will be deadly.

Every miniature game I have played could benefit from what you are saying and every one I have played (Which is lots) all want more Narrative.

SO then one company decided lets ease up on the awesome rules we have, and create a narrative for the players.

BIGGEST MISTAKE THEY DID.

You can create your own narrative let them create the tight balanced rules.

Screw the six turns, already played a couple of 600 points. Best way to spend six hours!!!! I don't plan on stoping the creep either, 20 star destroyers in the table is my goal.What worth doing is worth over doing ... Moderation is for cowards

Yes, if not doing tourney stuff, then play the way that is most fun for you and your friends.

Also as an aside for increasing game enjoyment, never use the word meta.

Interestingly, I had none of those turn issues yet. My games end normally in turn 4 or 5, as one side has lost all their ships then. If you increase the turn count, you should also increase the table size and that would be...impractical for most folks.

The only problem with this, though, is that unless you just want the campaign to involve one VSD, one Corvette, and one Neb B Frigate, then you'd have to purchase this pack AND several others. Many potential players would hate it, even if it's understandable. There's simply not enough ships in the Core to make for an adequate campaign.

So in the end, if FFG would do this, it would likely be a free download, and since they can't make money off it, they'd wait until they have some spare time.

It would not be a problem to have only limited amount of ships. You just buy your fleets based on the plastic you have. One scenario in the campaign would only consist of ships you have.

Would FFG make money of this? Yes they would: by supplying components that one would not buy when just playing the tournaments, as transport vessels, star docks etc.

Every miniature game I have played could benefit from what you are saying and every one I have played (Which is lots) all want more Narrative.

SO then one company decided lets ease up on the awesome rules we have, and create a narrative for the players.

BIGGEST MISTAKE THEY DID.

You can create your own narrative let them create the tight balanced rules.

Who are you talking about?

6 Rounds makes total sense from a narrative perspective. The Imperials are definitely going to have reinforcements incoming. So the Rebels have 6 Rounds before they have to jump or be outgunned. From a gameplay one, well, play to the objective and it usually isn't a problem. Yes, you have to preserve your fighters, but that' same good thing for the depth of the game.

It stinks that FFG can't change the turn limit now that Garm is out...

knowing FFG, they couldn't change the turn limit the instant they released the core set

It stinks that FFG can't change the turn limit now that Garm is out...

Once 400 points is the norm,6 turns will be deadly.

it's already incredibly deadly. Unless you're running the whole game, **** is going to die

6 turns is a better depiction of the nature of battle than unlimited. Rarely do engagements last until the final enemy is destroyed. Most of the time, a battle ends once a fleet loses a few ships and can see defeat is imminent. A good commander then withdraws to preserve what fighting power is left. George Washington is a great example of this.

People in the miniatures game world are so used to "death or glory!" matches, which are exceptions. I love the turn limit, just like I enjoy putting a 60 m limit on my Xwing matches. More realism and I get more games.

6 turns is a better depiction of the nature of battle than unlimited. Rarely do engagements last until the final enemy is destroyed.

However, wouldn't it be better to have a limited but variable number of turns. Because now, since you *know* the game ends after 6 turns, you can do illogical things (such as using an exhausted token, or the named Gladiator moving in point blank range of an AF to fire a last time) as you know that the game will end anyway.

Better would be to institute a system where - starting with turn 6 - the game might end. Either by rolling a die, or by using chits.

6 turns is a better depiction of the nature of battle than unlimited. Rarely do engagements last until the final enemy is destroyed.

However, wouldn't it be better to have a limited but variable number of turns. Because now, since you *know* the game ends after 6 turns, you can do illogical things (such as using an exhausted token, or the named Gladiator moving in point blank range of an AF to fire a last time) as you know that the game will end anyway.

Better would be to institute a system where - starting with turn 6 - the game might end. Either by rolling a die, or by using chits.

**** no

the less random garbage in the game, the better

I'd hate it if the outcome of this highly strategic game that stresses forward thinking could be instead determined by the random result of a single literally game-determining die

I'd have to change my name to fickleturndice, or just dump the game entirely

It doesnt have to be random, it could be the decisions of one or two of the players (fleeing from board, Hyperjump...).