I've been trying to create a list of reasons why Armada is my favorite miniatures game so that I can try to involve others in the hobby:

1. The price is much easier on your wallet. After spending hundreds of dollars towards a 40k army, I would realize that I have to buy a new rulebook, army rulebook, and probably a modified army after each update. Every Armada ship has and should continue to be useful to me, and the rules are free!

2. I can FINALLY play a game where everyone has painted ships that look great/. No one else paints miniatures where I am for some reason. And guess what, if you are a painter, you can just paint the ships anyway, however you like.

3. Armada battles look very large scale. What I mean is games like Warmachine may be fun, but the game is too much for a skirmish (which may be perfect for some people) while I enjoy massive battles on a large scale. The reason I got into games like Warhammer was to play armies that have tons of troops, which was expensive as mentioned above. Armada can still have a limited amount of miniatures but it still seems like a massive battle for me, especially with squadrons darting around. After all, each ship destroyed potentially carries thousands of troops.

4. I don't have to spend my life memorizing literally hundreds of pages of rules. I couldn't keep up! You can teach an intro game to a new player and explain all the rules instead of just the very basic ones. This makes games much faster.

5. It's Star Wars! I know not everyone wants their games to be from Star Wars, but I do. I know this one is entirely my opinion.

I'll admit one reason that I liked 40k was to use my own nameless commanders in campaigns and name them for heroic deeds. Armada and Warmachine for the most part force you to use named heroes, which is understandable, especially in the Star Wars universe, but I have always wanted an option to create my own special characters as I play.

Does anyone else have things to add to this list? Or maybe things that could be better? I'm mostly looking for overall comparisons, not individual rules debates. Remember, don't bash on other miniature games just because you don't like them. Let's keep this friendly. After all, I have some very fond memories of other games, even though I don't play them anymore. I think we all do, or we wouldn't be in this hobby.

I am not sure I agree with 3 yet. Armada at 300 points still seems kind of small scale. We also don't have a lot of choices in ships yet. But I think that will change with time. I do agree that the squadrons do make the game look cool and larger in scale.

I think you could add a point about the capital ships in Armada tend to move like capital ships do in the movies. The maneuver tool works really well and makes the ships seem to have real mass and react as expected for their size. That is one thing that jumped out and got me interested.

Thanks,
Duncan

I do agree that the squadrons do make the game look cool and larger in scale.

With Wave 2, ISD's, MC-80's, 400 points and 100+ points of squadrons I think the board will look pretty cool and nicely large scale.

I've been finding plenty of variety with the selection of available ships

just having the ship on the table doesn't mean much when the two variants, wealth of upgrade slots, and unique titles completely change its role in the game.

that's something I missed from Warmachine, and something I never really got in 40k. While the 5th ed upgrades offered customization, especially on the few models where the choices were actually significant enough to matter (all hail the awesome dreadnaught), there was basically only ever one correct choice (and, given the number of 3+ space marine crap + terminators, that choice was plasma).

on the issue of named characters, I just ignore them entirely and pretend they're nameless. Considering most aren't OT, I don't find it difficult

but one untouched aspect that makes armada so great: no saving throws. Even the mechanically excellent X-wing suffers from green dice, those spiky **** that can turn what should have been a tactically sound move into a disaster completely outside of your control. The move to defense tokens make this not only much less likely to occur (only need to flub offense), but they make attacking very involving for both players since the defender now suddenly has responses to give and resources to manage. It plays far more importance on the players' input, far less on random chance while still maintaining enough RNG (offense) to leave an element of suspense and surprise.

but one untouched aspect that makes armada so great: no saving throws. Even the mechanically excellent X-wing suffers from green dice, those spiky **** that can turn what should have been a tactically sound move into a disaster completely outside of your control. The move to defense tokens make this not only much less likely to occur (only need to flub offense), but they make attacking very involving for both players since the defender now suddenly has responses to give and resources to manage. It plays far more importance on the players' input, far less on random chance while still maintaining enough RNG (offense) to leave an element of suspense and surprise.

Yes, I completely agree. The more dice you use (especially for saving throws), the more random chance is introduced. Armada die rolls are only used when firing, which makes defense, moving, and every other aspect of the game more like chess rather than Candy Land. 40k even uses dice to determine moving (difficult terrain and charging). How can I do anything without it being left to chance?

Yep, you basically nailed exactly what I thought. Armada might not be my favourite miniature game, but it is my favourite currently supported wargame, and that's sort of important. That said, it's also very well balanced, it's a ton of fun, record keeping is incredibly easy, and it plays very smoothly (Card draws, maneuvering tools, speed dials, all work incredibly well. Admittedly, some of the rules are quirky and filled with minutiae on an initial read: for example, Lyraeus only clued me in on the speed increase and yaw on a navigate command like 3 days ago and I've been playing basically since launch ). I'll just go ahead with a bit of commentary then add a few things.

1: Not sure how much that applies to me after my Wave 2 pre-orders But the point is you don't need much to actually play a full game. And oh how I do adore that! I also like the idea of an FAQ that means something.

2: Ain't that the truth? Sure, the Neb-B's weren't painted terrific as a pre-paint, but it's still better than the Legio Polystyrenicus I've had to deal with in the past.

3: Spot on. The suggested scale of the battles feels like something from Star Wars and it's enjoyable. Sure, the amount of models on the table is fairly small right now, but it still feels right and the illusory quality of massive ships staffed by thousands or tens of thousands of personnel is terrific. I'm absolutely in the 'massed battles' mindset, it's simply what I enjoy. If I want small skirmish scale gaming, I've got pen and paper RPG's for that. That said, the whole 'squadronless builds' is currently my bugbear: they're effective, but with a few exceptions, they stopped feeling like Star Wars. I need at least 4-6 Squadrons down on the table, and I'll continue to use at least that many as it feels right to me.

4: The number of rules is fairly small, but the complexity in them is staggering. And in this case, it's not a compliment. Like my earlier anecdote, a lot of the function for this game is really vested in precise timing between half a dozen substeps per phase that are less intuitive than I've been used to in the past. The timing between defense tokens and criticals, and the wording/timing in attack dice vs. Dice pools vs. Modification vs. Critical results, and then their exceptions, is actually harder for me to wrap my head around because of the style of language that has been assigned to it. It's all very clinical, which is extremely useful for procedural gamers, and it feels extremely sterile and complete for competitive and tournament-style players. It's just something I've yet to get used to. That said, no codex... I hear the heavenly song of an astropathic choir for this alone!

5: It's Star Wars Star Wars is big, I don't have to make my Imperial fleet part of Death Squadron, or my rebels part of the group that massed near Sollust. And I don't! I've got Ceknell for it.

Pseudo-6: Yep, the faceless commander that grows during a campaign was the foremost thing I enjoyed about GW's works. The inclusion of so many named characters after 3E 40K and in 6E Fantasy is what warded me away. What it did, it did well (much like Armada's title system. Get past the 'named' component and the variation is terrific). but it was never appealing to me because I wanted to create my own narrative. Armada forces it for admirals: and while you can say it was just an influence in their schooling, I do wish there was some extra material for this. I don't want to have my special character be 'more badass' than someone like Tarkin, I just want the option of having something that changes more distinctly over time. Progression of fleets is something I'd love. To that end, I transmuted a lot of the BFG book into my local campaign.

Speaking of BFG, another irritation I have is with Armada's terrain. It's minimalistic, and it's always identical. “Zehr must be vun, und only vun Space Station!” I never played enough Firestorm Armada to get a sense of the rules, but BFG always had a wonderful interaction with its features and the game itself: gravity wells affecting course changes, turning into the sun, or away from it, electrical storms, nebulas, etc etc. They were all really well done and felt distinctly useful. Armada's still young, and X-wing got additional terrain, so we might still get some extra stuff too!

I've been trying to create a list of reasons why I love Armada

That is simplicity itself Jbar.

To start off the discussion I begin the list with "Every" and in conclusion "thing."

My reason is simple:

It's just plain 'ole lots of fun!!

I look forward to my next game as soon as I finish the one I'm on due to the reason above.

You can easily increase the games size. Just limit ships to one or tow upgrades at most and stick to that. Multiple upgrades, while cool, slows things down a lot. Or limit it to one upgrade for your fleet for every 100 points. At 1000 points you can field a pretty big fleet and mix and match those 10 upgrades as you see fit.

Aye Mike, that's what I was thinking too. A fully upgradable flagship and the rest stuck with 1-2 would be pretty nice, and with multiple players it just becomes one Fleet Flag and +1 upgrade 'commodore' flagships. It works without having to toy with the rules too much.

And disregarding the 'toy with it' line, I've been mulling over squadroning capital ships with the 1 upgrade feature. Allowi a capital squadron consisting of 1 “lead-ship” in the group and 1-3 other vessels. Give the lead ship 2 upgrades, the rest have 1, and others in the Squadron within range (say, range 5) get the chance to change their top command to the lead-ship's top dial at the cost of expending 1 command token. It's basically just a situational liaison upgrade which helps negate some of the lost potential while creating secondary 'target' ships for a bit more flexibility.

The balance. I love the fact that this game does not have "that list" or "the army of the month" I love that this game feels like it should.

The balance. I love the fact that this game does not have "that list" or "the army of the month" I love that this game feels like it should.

well, not yet

****'s young

then again, X-wing had the tie swarm by now (and for 3 waves after )

Armada did come out the box far more balanced, though, owing mostly to the fact that the CR-90 and Nebs aren't just mathematically inferior to the VSD, and that Squadron dynamics make it impossible for something as simple as stat inefficiency to hold a ship back.

If the Neb, for example, sucked at straight up combat, then it can still devote its energy to supporting other ships, squadrons, or even just working towards an objective. These extra dimensions to the game will ensure that concepts like Mathwing will be even more difficult to apply straight, because even if a ship can't exchange dice very well it can still contribute significantly in ways a ship in X-wing simply cannot.

But we got a game where the Neb can do all that while being powerful enough to be hard to ignore.

also, our X-wings don't suck

God **** this game is good.

The balance. I love the fact that this game does not have "that list" or "the army of the month" I love that this game feels like it should.

well, not yet

****'s young

then again, X-wing had the tie swarm by now (and for 3 waves after )

Armada did come out the box far more balanced, though, owing mostly to the fact that the CR-90 and Nebs aren't just mathematically inferior to the VSD, and that Squadron dynamics make it impossible for something as simple as stat inefficiency to hold a ship back.

If the Neb, for example, sucked at straight up combat, then it can still devote its energy to supporting other ships, squadrons, or even just working towards an objective. These extra dimensions to the game will ensure that concepts like Mathwing will be even more difficult to apply straight, because even if a ship can't exchange dice very well it can still contribute significantly in ways a ship in X-wing simply cannot.

But we got a game where the Neb can do all that while being powerful enough to be hard to ignore.

also, our X-wings don't suck

God **** this game is good.

That's the point though, as more things come along things will get used less often. That is the nature of the beast but because of the fact that things have a wide variety of uses and are more than a sum of their stats this game is balanced and loads of fun

you're right, so far

I hope you remain right

But yeah, completely agree with your assessment. The various facets of the game (movement, combat, squadrons v ship interactions, squadrons v squadron interactions, squadron w/ ship interactions, objectives...) are basically a treasure trove of design space that'll lead to many useful things.

Which is another great contrast to 40k (5th ed), where the Imperial guard could outfit their Sentinels (think AT-ST) with las-cannons and have them tromping around taking potshots at enemy vehicles. Problem is that Gw had then just released the Valkyrie, essentially a B-52 crossbred with an F-15 and going for $60, which was not only more durable than even squadrons of Sentinels (and could fly) but packed more las-cannons for cheaper

Fun times

the only problem with games of such complexity, though, is that certain combinations and power pieces can theoretically get out of hand. Warmachine is a great example of multi-faceted game centered around objectives (though there the objectives are how you win regardless of how many models you kill, unless you kill the enemy warcaster/lock), and while there's a great variety of armies and army compositions to play around with there have definitely been some poor bastards that fell through the cracks. You'll rarely here people singing the praises of Trenchers, for example, while the Stormwall will sometimes get you Fat Hans level of reactions.

this could happen in Armada, and seemed like it was when initial reactions to the AFmkii had quickly written the Neb off as a goner. Of course, that hasn't happened yet and it doesn't need to ever happen. It's just a possibility.

The maneuvering tool is an original approach to moving space ships. Sadly, that is also the first thing to fall apart.

I am a big fan of the defence tokens. Elegant, involving the defending player, and, most important, a mechanism working against the "big is beautiul" of naval warfare, which is the Achilles heel of the otherwise excellent "Full Thrust", to make a meaningful comparison.

Comparing it to Warmachine is silly. Why not compare it to MtG, while you are at it.

Comparing it to the dreck from Nottingham is insulting. FFG knows basic math and can do a points system and their rules are not written by the marketing department.

comparing it to warmachine isn't silly

there's nothing wrong with comparing two multi-faceted, objective-based miniature games that happen to incredibly well balanced

MTG is a trading card game, which would make for a pointless comparison

Come now, there's no need to be like that, Rumar. Both are wargames, they're both comparable entities.

Once upon a time, in the magical land of Eques-err... Nottingham, there existed a game company that had more than 2 games. It was a wonderful, archaic time, a relatively new time and its name was... Mantic.

Anyway, Granny Wendy might be ailing in some respects, but it wasn't always like that. I still have some nostalgia-vision even if we've drifted apart over the years. BFG was pretty good, 40K was good for its time, as was WFB. It's not really an insult to say 'here's a big game company that's well known, that also made a space-based game with big ships, orders, and recognizable turns' and compare it to Armada, a space-based game with big ships, orders, and recognizable turns.

Star Wars Armada:

• Easy to learn, life time to master
• Well balanced
• The manoeuvre tool, some will like some will dislike but I like that it doesn't render turning circles to a small, medium and large shape with 1" edges
• It has introduced ships with differing speeds, weapons, fire arcs and done it well
• LOS takes into account the targets topography some what
• Visually appealing
• Very easy to prepare a game

Star Wars Armada:

• Easy to learn, life time to master
• Well balanced
• The manoeuvre tool, some will like some will dislike but I like that it doesn't render turning circles to a small, medium and large shape with 1" edges
• It has introduced ships with differing speeds, weapons, fire arcs and done it well
• LOS takes into account the targets topography some what
• Visually appealing
• Very easy to prepare a game

All the best games are like that!

Depending on how wave 2 turns out I think it will stay that way until about wave 5.

I love the maneuver tool! While some people think of the straight and then a turn is like drifting I look more of it as the mechanics of how a turn works (Looking at you IFF ^_~ )

That is the beauty of the balance! They changed things, there does not seem to be a "template" other than the fact that Imperials are about burst damage and the Rebels are all about the long game. That is beauty in a build!

It does! When I get my Space-Rocks I will get to see this more so!

Visually outstanding!

It can take a bit but if you are organized you can get a game going in 5 minutes!

I LOVE this game!

Intuitive rules, great theme, great-looking components and just enough complexity to get newbies up and playing while providing enough challenge for even the most competitive of gamers.

Wish I could say the same about having tournament support. In our area, it's still all X-wing.

Yup, this game is pure gold, I like it more than I like X-wing.

Wish I could say the same about having tournament support. In our area, it's still all X-wing.

I think you'll see more tournament support for it over time, it's still a pretty new game. But I don't think it will ever get as popular as X-Wing for that, simply because X-Wing is quicker.

But on a positive note, according to one source, Armada is now the 3rd best selling table top miniature game out there. 40k is 1st, and X-Wing is 2nd. To have beaten Warmachine that quickly is pretty impressive.

To me the two best parts of Armada are the defense tokens, because they make the game feel more tactical I guess. Although all the mechanics are really good.

The other is that it feels like Star Wars cap ships fighting it out, in the same way that X-Wing really captured the feel of Star Wars fighters. (I'm intentionally ignoring things like MoV and Fat Hans when I say that)

I still prefer X-Wing but Armada is a very close 2nd.

comparing it to warmachine isn't silly

there's nothing wrong with comparing two multi-faceted, objective-based miniature games that happen to incredibly well balanced

MTG is a trading card game, which would make for a pointless comparison

Warmachine IS a trading card game posing as a tabletop. Tabletops are about using terrain. Warmachine is about combos - building your deck.

comparing it to warmachine isn't silly

there's nothing wrong with comparing two multi-faceted, objective-based miniature games that happen to incredibly well balanced

MTG is a trading card game, which would make for a pointless comparison

Warmachine IS a trading card game posing as a tabletop. Tabletops are about using terrain. Warmachine is about combos - building your deck.

Though this really shouldn't go without saying, Warmachine is all about using terrain unless you run into the Mage Hunter Strike force UA (then it's all about "**** you")

As for combos, every miniature game has combos; Armada is no different. Even Wave 1 has unleashed potent pairings such as ACM, Engine techs, demolisher w/Skreed on a VSD-1 with hangars and flight controllers.

Building lists is always a very significant step in every miniature game released

Warmachine IS a trading card game posing as a tabletop.

Based on that logic, so is Armada then. While I don't play a ton of Warmachine, the last time I played it... I had to move miniatures around the table, trying to get them into the right spot accounting for terrain and the location of the other units to make them effective.

I've never once gotten out a tape measure when playing MtG though.