I hope Armada succeeds and I think it will, but it's just not for me.

I have spent a small fortune on X-wing and don't regret a single purchase.

But I can't justify buying into Armada at the current AUS pricing. The models just don't have the same level of detail that got me into X-wing and the paint jobs are subpar in comparison. I could just repaint, I'm not too bad at painting, but that would defeat the purpose of buying prepainted.

Amongst my small circle of gamers, it has not taken off.

It may not yet reach the dizzying heights of X-Wing (which as attracted so many gamers for it's affordable and simplistic, fast-paced gameplay) but I'd say it's doing fairly well already. I've played X-Wing since the Core, and it wasn't nearly as active as Armada is currently until the second wave came out (and B-Wings were a thing!) here in the UK.

I'm confident it will do well. I much prefer the way Armada plays...'course, that's a personal preference!

My opinion, I like it better than X-Wing... If I could go back I would probably have skipped X-Wing and spent all my money on this game instead. This is the scale of battles that I wanted to play from the Star Wars movies. Now that this is here and seeing all the models on the table top I feel like a little kid again seeing Star Wars for the first time.

I will say this, The game is a bit pricey and that may drive away some people. But If you have spent money on Armada then you already know it was worth it.

I hope it just stays the two factions, I'm thankful that it is a breath of fresh air from X-Wing. Don't get me wrong I'm not hating on X-Wing. It is still a good game, it just doesn't hold my interest as it once did when it first came out...again these are just my opinions,

I'm not invoking trolling or flaming or hurt. Just opinions of a Star Wars fanboy who feels this game really captures the essence of Star Wars fleet combat...or at least doing it the best for now in the world of table top gaming.

I want to share something else that I have been noticing in my area.... It may be nothing... It may be a shift... I don't know still early to tell but I have been noticing a lot of X-Wing players in my area suddenly start putting their X-Wing game miniatures up for sell.

Look at how many new forum members have joined after release, and especially after wave 1. Armada is doing great!

The only reason Armada hasn't developed a overall "meta" yet is because everything is still happening at the local level. So you have just a bunch of microchasms full of players figuring things out seperately. You won't see a meta develop until you start seeing local groups branch out (Gencon) and more events being reported overall.

I disagree with this. I think FFG have done an exceptional job of building a rules set and balancing things so that there is a great deal of tactical depth and player skill is actually a large component of doing well rather than, say, WH40K where outcomes can be largely determined by initial list selection.

The only reason Armada hasn't developed a overall "meta" yet is because everything is still happening at the local level. So you have just a bunch of microchasms full of players figuring things out seperately. You won't see a meta develop until you start seeing local groups branch out (Gencon) and more events being reported overall.

I disagree with this. I think FFG have done an exceptional job of building a rules set and balancing things so that there is a great deal of tactical depth and player skill is actually a large component of doing well rather than, say, WH40K where outcomes can be largely determined by initial list selection.

Having an overall "meta" and still being a game with relative balance and tactical value are not mutually exclusive concepts.

All games, even well balanced ones, will have builds, strategies, and models that out preform others. What makes games well balanced is the degree in which those options out preform others and that there is a decent pool of options occupying that "tier".

That this game is more balanced then 40k is a given, FFG tests thier games GW does not. But that doesn't mean this game is going to be perfectly balanced. Nor does it have to be to be consider a balances game.

Honestly I think that there's a a bit of a false equivalency here.

Armada doesn't have to become as popular as X-Wing or 40k or Warmachine to be considered a success. I have no doubt that Armada will be considered a success by FFG and we'll see lots of waves in the future.

I don't think it will become as popular as X-Wing let alone more, but again that's not really required. I think that X-Wing having a lower sticker shock, and a fast paced tournament friendly game will keep it very popular. The new movies will no doubt help move both games as well.

I think it comes down to Quality over Quantity.

Armada is a lot better quality game than the others so its success will not be based on quantity.

I'm not playing X-Wing anymore but will be playing a lot of Armada. That's success in my eyes.

My X-Wing is up for sale because it "failed me for the last time".

I immediately sold off X-Wing because of the community at the FLGS. We couldn't get the hardcore only mentality changed, and a lot of people simply stopped playing because of it. The new game breathed a lot of new life into it and we have a thriving group of gamers for Armada at this point.

I also recall that X-Wing was somewhat of a slow starter. The first two times we ran it at our local, and well attended, game con right after release in the autumn of 2012 and then spring 2013, it only drew a handful of players - mostly hard-core Star Wars geeks who wanted to see if it was any good. It wasn't until after Wave 3 came out in late 2013 that it started to take off, at least from my recollection.

I would guess that Armada is already enjoying better gamer support than X-Wing did at this stage of it's game life.

Demo, demo, demo. Bring it into your store several days a week. Bring it to your fame group and ask if anyone wants a go.

The only reason Armada hasn't developed a overall "meta" yet is because everything is still happening at the local level. So you have just a bunch of microchasms full of players figuring things out seperately. You won't see a meta develop until you start seeing local groups branch out (Gencon) and more events being reported overall.

I disagree with this. I think FFG have done an exceptional job of building a rules set and balancing things so that there is a great deal of tactical depth and player skill is actually a large component of doing well rather than, say, WH40K where outcomes can be largely determined by initial list selection.

Having an overall "meta" and still being a game with relative balance and tactical value are not mutually exclusive concepts.

All games, even well balanced ones, will have builds, strategies, and models that out preform others. What makes games well balanced is the degree in which those options out preform others and that there is a decent pool of options occupying that "tier".

That this game is more balanced then 40k is a given, FFG tests thier games GW does not. But that doesn't mean this game is going to be perfectly balanced. Nor does it have to be to be consider a balances game.

You exaggerate my point till it is no longer mine. I never claimed perfection. But balance and rich, tactical depth are to a significant extent an opposition to having an "overall meta". You have a meta in WH40K because list building is so much more of a factor in success than player skill. You have a meta in X-Wing (from what I hear) because there are one or two combinations that are dramatically more powerful than the rest. But no-one has found such a thing in Armada yet.

Your original statement was that the only reason there wasn't an overall meta was because everything is still at the "local" level. I dispute that. If we have been unable to find something or even a shortlist of things that comprise "best lists", then who is to say that the reason is what you say. You say rich, tactical depth and balance are not mutually exclusive with a meta, well no, I did not say anything so absolute. But they are most certainly strong counters and Armada has them in spades. You can have the same list for two people and it will be a boon for one and a massive hindrance to the other. There is a very strong interplay in this game between your list and your ability to play. A VSD can be great against an inexperienced player even in the hands of an equally inexperienced player. The same player with their VSD against a more experienced player will find themselves never coming remotely close to using it to full effect. But a really skilled player can use it very well to actively herd even a skilled opponent how they wish. Yet it is still all the same ship.

A game where it takes skill to get utility from your pieces is inherently less prone to meta the more that this is true. And it is very true of Armada.

Just wondering what the community thinks. Is Armada going to make it to the saturation level that xwing has? I havent seen as many players but its still new I know.

Are the mechanics on par with xwing? Better? No real comparison?

I hope not, X-wing was basically FFG's call of duty mass market BS. Resulting in the community getting worse and worse.

The subtler Armada is the better it will be for all of us.

Less is more.

Just wondering what the community thinks. Is Armada going to make it to the saturation level that xwing has? I havent seen as many players but its still new I know.

Are the mechanics on par with xwing? Better? No real comparison?

Short:yes.

Long: I've sold my 40k stuff that I never played because setup, painting and modelling took too damned long (even though I love doing them, I have a job, kids and a wife, there's no time). Armada has let me play more sessions of a tactical tabletop war game in 2 weeks than I have played of 40k in 5 years.

It scratches the itch. It's cheap. It's fast. It's popular. Boom.

knasserII, that brought a tear to my eye. You are completely correct. A meta in this game is hard to find. I have don't dozens of tactical simulations and have yet to find that guarenteed to win list. Things like placement of obstacles, how the opponent thinks, how they value each piece, the list goes on for a while. There is just no "sure" win list.

In Core set Era, 3 VSD's was a tough nut to crack (one I still scratch my head over)

In Wave 1 era, I see 3 GSD's as difficult but not impossible (2 AF2s and 10 Y-Wings could do it)

I have don't dozens of tactical simulations and have yet to find that guarenteed to win list. ....There is just no "sure" win list.

With a brand new game such as armada, the meta can be in a state of constant flux, but it's still there. That is largely the point of regular expansions to hobby games, to prevent players from "solving" the game and creating a stagnant meta. The influx of new rules and abilities means the meta regularly changes, but it will always be there in one form or another.

The closest thing you get to a meta so far is what ships are used more often than others. For instance in pre core era, VSD II's were the most common

I think so. My friend and I in Birmingham both just picked it up this month and he is looking to get his brother involved. Also, a local store had several boxes of Armada stuff and they sold out so looks like it's going strong.

But the price point is a factor to buy a $15 blister every now and then is easier than $40 especially when explaining to the wife why you need it. But i will deal with that when she checks the credit card statement.

The wife broke down to my i need to buy Armada plee, but then went in to the store with me. Oh dear i think, she was willing to get me the core set, some quick thinking on my part suggested you can get the rules online i just need some ships... so she cleaned the place of their last remaining stock one rebel fighter, Neb B, Assault Frigate and VSD, leaving a solitary VSD next to their last core set. I think the game has made it, at least it made into my house. Now all i need is someone to come to my house. Although this is meant to be for farthers day so i have to wait a few days.

I take a hard disagree with the, "there must be a meta" group. I think there are two reasons for this.

The first and most obvious reason is objectives. Objectives change the way any give list approaches each match. A player might run the exact same list in three straight matches and different objectives may cause them to use it three different ways with three distinct levels of success. It challenging to create a list based meta with so much uncertainty and flux. Players may have individual lists that they are more or less comfortable with but that will be a product of play style much more than a hard-to-beat list meta.

The second is the ships themselves and the mechanics which pertain to them are so stripped down that to date (which hasn't been long) Armada has avoided a ship or mechanic which so obviously out classes everything else that it would generate a significant meta. For me they have accomplished this by providing bare bones ships with tons of different options to upgrade that ship. The player creates the ship functionality rather than the game designers doing it for you (X Wing is kind of the opposite). Obviously some ships are better suited to certain roles but Armada gives far more freedom to adapt and individualize ships. This applies not only in relation to X Wing but also other war games.

This doesn't mean that there won't be groupthink but I feel that will be a product more of people trying to imitate great players they know rather than copy a proven list. I think this quasi-metaless state can endure indefinitely as long as FFG sticks to what they have already done so well. As a gamer I can't think of anything I'd love more than a game without a broad meta.

charlesanakin, I also am totally excited at the mere idea of a game with no over-arching meta. But we'll see. I do believe, in time, as no game is perfect, eventually tendencies and even "straight OP" will occur, but I'm just grateful to be a part of the ride before it gets there.

The first and most obvious reason is objectives.

The meta will sooner or latter settle on what objectives to take for List X. so no that won't stop a meta from forming, any more then it does any other game that has objectives. Which are hardly unique to Armada.

Armada has avoided a ship or mechanic which so obviously out classes everything else that it would generate a significant meta.

This has nothing to do with a meta, you don't need to have OP'ed ships or units to have a meta. I'm not sure the people who say there won't be a meta for Armada actually understand what the term really means.

The only way there won't be a meta, is if they close down this and every other message board that discusses Armada, close down every facebook page for Armada, and any other web page devoted to it. Then never hold anything bigger then a LGS sized tournament.

there will always be a meta. No game, nor anything ever created by human hands, is perfect (and **** chess, ****'s boring)

the health of a game's balance is determined by how expansive said meta is

I'm unsure why people expect or need games to be unicorns in that regard.