Not sure if anyone else has seen this yet... But here are the links.

http://www.orderofgamers.com/games/star-wars-armada/

http://www.orderofgamers.com/downloads/StarWarsArmada_v1.pdf

[i have not had a chance to check details yet, but seem to be pre-Wave 2]

So someone rewrote the rules?

Uh. Ok.

So someone rewrote the rules?

Uh. Ok.

While I haven't read them in full yet, what I've read so far looks like they've made a couple double sided reference sheets

I brought the along to the Sullust tournament I went to on Sunday just to have something handy in case any problems arose (without needing to dig out the full books). Was handy. It's very easy to print out on sturdy card stock and then laminate.

Nothing in there objectively wrong that I saw, but very simplified. No discussion about the order in which certain things (commands / defense tokens) happen.

Usable, but not ideal.

Someone dumbed the rules down a fair bit too much.

So, lets go by the numbers for some of this since I dont have a ton of time to put into critiquing. . .

What do I do with the other commands for my ships?

When can I spend a Navigate command?

Can I activate a command dial then later choose a token?

Can I use my accuracy icons before modify effects?

When do I use the engineering and squadron command?

When is damage totaled for Brace?

So if the attack has a critical Icon the defending ship gets a face up damage card for that?

"For each critical rolled, if the attacker and defender are both ships, the defender suffers 1 damage and the first damage card dealt is dealt faceup."

It looks pretty and has most things alright but I think there are some things missing. ..

When your reference sheet is pushing 7 pages, you might as well use the full rules.

Its a really bad set of rules because it misses out several distinct points that many players get wrong, reinforcing poor playing, or just has poor, vague wording.

For example, in the section on attacking it talks in the resolve damage step about applying a critical effect, and then goes on to stay that if there is a critical damage result and the target is a ship, that the first damage card is resolved face up. Nowhere does it make a distinction that the player can only resolve a single critical effect and that the default effect is the face up damage card, and that if a different effect is used that the default doesnt apply. You have to go and look under "critical effects" for the actual correct rules.

Also, line of sight for squadrons is now (I believe) traced from the centre peg, not from closest point of the base. And for the space station its not "squadrons overlapping may recover a hull point", its squadrons that end their movement on the station may - which makes a huge difference if the squadrons chose to shoot someone whilst they are on the station instead of moving in the squadron phase.

Its a really bad set of rules because it misses out several distinct points that many players get wrong, reinforcing poor playing, or just has poor, vague wording.

For example, in the section on attacking it talks in the resolve damage step about applying a critical effect, and then goes on to stay that if there is a critical damage result and the target is a ship, that the first damage card is resolved face up. Nowhere does it make a distinction that the player can only resolve a single critical effect and that the default effect is the face up damage card, and that if a different effect is used that the default doesnt apply. You have to go and look under "critical effects" for the actual correct rules.

Also, line of sight for squadrons is now (I believe) traced from the centre peg, not from closest point of the base. And for the space station its not "squadrons overlapping may recover a hull point", its squadrons that end their movement on the station may - which makes a huge difference if the squadrons chose to shoot someone whilst they are on the station instead of moving in the squadron phase.

If you have a question about criticals and you DON'T look at the section titled Critical Hits, wouldn't you find that a bit odd?

The squadron bases are perfect circles. Any line from the center peg will also be from the closest point on that circle to the target.

All obstacles trigger when landed on with a maneuver. Why would squadrons just get to sit there healing?

If you have a question about criticals and you DON'T look at the section titled Critical Hits, wouldn't you find that a bit odd?

The squadron bases are perfect circles. Any line from the center peg will also be from the closest point on that circle to the target.

All obstacles trigger when landed on with a maneuver. Why would squadrons just get to sit there healing?

Yes, but I have seen too many players blinded by the X-Wing mentality of "its a crit so its a face up damage card", to expect them to read a seperate section.

The squadrons can't jus sit and heal - but that reading of "overlapping" would imply they can, because a squadron could not move and still be overlapping. Which is why I said its poorly written.

If you have a question about criticals and you DON'T look at the section titled Critical Hits, wouldn't you find that a bit odd?

The squadron bases are perfect circles. Any line from the center peg will also be from the closest point on that circle to the target.

All obstacles trigger when landed on with a maneuver. Why would squadrons just get to sit there healing?

Yes, but I have seen too many players blinded by the X-Wing mentality of "its a crit so its a face up damage card", to expect them to read a seperate section.

The squadrons can't jus sit and heal - but that reading of "overlapping" would imply they can, because a squadron could not move and still be overlapping. Which is why I said its poorly written.

Sure, if you read overlapping as a continual state, which it isn't in Armada. Overlapping is something that happens the moment you end your maneuver and that is it, as far as the rules are concerned. Nothing about being on an obstacle persists past the moment of landing on it. The only other effect obstacles have is on line of fire, which doesn't care if you are on it or not.

Sure, if you read overlapping as a continual state, which it isn't in Armada. Overlapping is something that happens the moment you end your maneuver and that is it, as far as the rules are concerned. Nothing about being on an obstacle persists past the moment of landing on it. The only other effect obstacles have is on line of fire, which doesn't care if you are on it or not.

I understand that, what I am saying is that its an example of why I dont think this is a good set of rules to be promoting as it may foster an incorrect understanding amongst inexperienced players who don't already understand the rules properly.

Sure, if you read overlapping as a continual state, which it isn't in Armada. Overlapping is something that happens the moment you end your maneuver and that is it, as far as the rules are concerned. Nothing about being on an obstacle persists past the moment of landing on it. The only other effect obstacles have is on line of fire, which doesn't care if you are on it or not.

I understand that, what I am saying is that its an example of why I dont think this is a good set of rules to be promoting as it may foster an incorrect understanding amongst inexperienced players who don't already understand the rules properly.

Do you mean the thing linked here or the rules reference provided by FFG? I'm not a fan of this thing. I think the Rules Reference provided in the box by FFG is fine, if sometimes cumbersome to navigate.

Sure, if you read overlapping as a continual state, which it isn't in Armada. Overlapping is something that happens the moment you end your maneuver and that is it, as far as the rules are concerned. Nothing about being on an obstacle persists past the moment of landing on it. The only other effect obstacles have is on line of fire, which doesn't care if you are on it or not.

I understand that, what I am saying is that its an example of why I dont think this is a good set of rules to be promoting as it may foster an incorrect understanding amongst inexperienced players who don't already understand the rules properly.

Do you mean the thing linked here or the rules reference provided by FFG? I'm not a fan of this thing. I think the Rules Reference provided in the box by FFG is fine, if sometimes cumbersome to navigate.

The rules posted here, thats what this whole thread is about? LOL

Sure, if you read overlapping as a continual state, which it isn't in Armada. Overlapping is something that happens the moment you end your maneuver and that is it, as far as the rules are concerned. Nothing about being on an obstacle persists past the moment of landing on it. The only other effect obstacles have is on line of fire, which doesn't care if you are on it or not.

I understand that, what I am saying is that its an example of why I dont think this is a good set of rules to be promoting as it may foster an incorrect understanding amongst inexperienced players who don't already understand the rules properly.

Do you mean the thing linked here or the rules reference provided by FFG? I'm not a fan of this thing. I think the Rules Reference provided in the box by FFG is fine, if sometimes cumbersome to navigate.

The rules posted here, thats what this whole thread is about? LOL

When you said "set of rules" I thought you meant what FFG had produced.

When you said "set of rules" I thought you meant what FFG had produced.

LOL heck no, just this rewritten version. Far better to stick with the RRG and latest FAQs.

One has to consider that a squadron who does not attack while on station can be considered moved during the squadron phase since a squadron does not have to physically move to be considered moved.

Ffg listen! Your rules are poorly worded and too complicated!!!

Even trying to figure them out is hard!

Ffg listen! Your rules are poorly worded and too complicated!!!

Even trying to figure them out is hard!

I would like to see more explicit criticism. It isn't helpful to them to say there are several rules that are wrong. Explain to them what is wrong and maybe even the wording change needed to improve the summary.

With Wave 2 we should see a small influx of new players that will have been waiting for the ISD and perhaps just a small growth from new interest too. So maybe making this better is a worthwhile goal, as it will help older players introduce the rules in a clear manner. An improved learn to play guide as it were. This we we avoid the age old chestnut of a rule being not remembered: "OH yes before you roll the dice I forgot to mention...." we have all done it, we have all had it done to us but it isn't nice either way.

There would be no need for such things, if FFG had done their job. The learn to play is useless for detailed problems, the encyclopedia is useless for beginners, because they don't know for which keyword to search. Someone should do a rewrite, organizing the content along the sequence of play. That's how it's done.

There would be no need for such things, if FFG had done their job. The learn to play is useless for detailed problems, the encyclopedia is useless for beginners, because they don't know for which keyword to search. Someone should do a rewrite, organizing the content along the sequence of play. That's how it's done.

Of you are going to put out a piece for people to use as a "quick" guide, don't leave out things