I have a lot of armada ships , I never play in big tournaments............why to many rules........point limits etc. I like to research a particular battle then go from there. Sometimes both sides are not balanced, which can make for an interesting battle. A scenario can be any mission you want or can think of, not just placing objective markers on a board in random locations. Or two players playing the same side. That is why I play on a huge table with a real set of objectives and a story behind it, not just the boring I will bring my 400 pts and you bring you 400 pts and we will bash each other around for a couple of hours that is just way to much of a yawn fest.

I might have been with you, if I didn't have X-Wing experience. To me, it seems that FFG really tried with X-Wing to introduce alternative styles of play. They put scenarios in a number of the large and huge ships and even created an online mission database where people could share their missions. But it just didn't take, at least not in my locale. (YMMV) People just wanted the 100-point-6-asteroid-death-match for the competitive aspect of the game. Anything else was just an act of swimming upstream.

I think the missions included in certain X Wing ships are really just a token effort. A panacea to allow players who got the core set and the Falcon to play games with just the ships they have, instead of needing full 100 point squads. And their mission control web tool is pretty cool.

But compare that to the support for the tournament scene, the items available for early purchase at Worlds, the Sullust tournaments, the multiple tournament prize packs every year. FFG send a loud and clear message that tournament play is the standard way for the game to be played, which makes it really hard to get players to abandon that format to try something more creative.

Here I think we have a part of the problem. People really like to have a level playing field - a fair chance to win. With the standard match-up, they tend to have faith in the balance of the system that the playing field is level. (Of course, there are a minority of people who will convince themselves that the deck was stacked against them after they have lost a game, but let's not talk about them.)

In a narrative mission, many people won't have much faith in the balance, and will be hesitant to play because the odds might be against them. Part of that is also that if they fear that the opponent (who might also be the scenario designer) will have greater insight into the balances of the scenario, and therefore also have the upper hand. The standard game is more intellectually comfortable, because it's known.

For some of us, the opportunity to play in something with more narrative depth outweighs the chance that there's an imbalance, but for others that narrative just raises the stakes and makes an loss that much more crushing.

You're absolutely right, which is why I think an official 'story mode' style of play is so important. People feel like an official product has taken balance into consideration and that the games will be fair for everyone involved, which is not always the case for home-brewed rules and scenarios.

I find it is easier to promote a story driven game with a group of close players vs just trying to get the pick-up crowd to get involved. It has taken me quite some time to get some of the guys into some scenario type battles, but I also find you have to know your player base and figure out who is comfortable with it.

[...]

I think the missions included in certain X Wing ships are really just a token effort. A panacea to allow players who got the core set and the Falcon to play games with just the ships they have, instead of needing full 100 point squads. And their mission control web tool is pretty cool.

But compare that to the support for the tournament scene, the items available for early purchase at Worlds, the Sullust tournaments, the multiple tournament prize packs every year. FFG send a loud and clear message that tournament play is the standard way for the game to be played, which makes it really hard to get players to abandon that format to try something more creative.

You may be right, that the paradigm of competitive gaming is baked into the FFG corporate culture more than story-gaming is. I do think that campaign mode in Imperial Assault is fun, though, and they also make the RPGs, so I wouldn't be too ready to say that FFG doesn't really know how to do it. I've played the SW RPG (Age of Rebellion) once, and I wasn't sure that it was an improvement on West End Games' D6 RPG, but I'm probably a biased judge in that regard.

But it may also be that people who want to play competitive games will buy more stuff than people who want to play story-based games, and FFG recognizes where more of their bread will be buttered.

[...]

You're absolutely right, which is why I think an official 'story mode' style of play is so important. People feel like an official product has taken balance into consideration and that the games will be fair for everyone involved, which is not always the case for home-brewed rules and scenarios.

At the same time, that might deflate the dramatic arc of the story. I don't know, I think you need to have players buy in to the story before you can start to screw with the balances.

Which brings us to...

I find it is easier to promote a story driven game with a group of close players vs just trying to get the pick-up crowd to get involved. It has taken me quite some time to get some of the guys into some scenario type battles, but I also find you have to know your player base and figure out who is comfortable with it.

I think you're absolutely right about that. I'm starting to get to the point where I think I could invite select people to play something more story-based and campaigny. Unfortunately, I don't know if I can really spare the time to make it happen.

What have your experiences been like, if you don't mind regaling us with that information? Just so that we can live vicariously.

It has taken me the better part of 6 months to get majority of my group to allow custom ships and cards to be used for fun games. I had to make sure that everyone had access to the customs so nobody was left out. Once they all started having fun with that, they are willing to flex more and more. Scenarios like planetary assaults and that sort of theing have started to be developed by the group without me having to be the one to do it. Once the snowball started going down hill, things got interesting.

It has taken me the better part of 6 months to get majority of my group to allow custom ships and cards to be used for fun games. I had to make sure that everyone had access to the customs so nobody was left out. Once they all started having fun with that, they are willing to flex more and more. Scenarios like planetary assaults and that sort of theing have started to be developed by the group without me having to be the one to do it. Once the snowball started going down hill, things got interesting.

Aha, so in other words, you enfranchised the others, or they took the initiative to follow your lead.

Did you homebrew your customs, or did you use a source like DiabloAzul? Did you also have people vet your customs, ie. think about the point balances and what-not?

The problem I see with narrative play us that the great majority of players don't have the time for it. I only ever see most local players at tourneys, because they don't have any other time to play.....

It has taken me the better part of 6 months to get majority of my group to allow custom ships and cards to be used for fun games. I had to make sure that everyone had access to the customs so nobody was left out. Once they all started having fun with that, they are willing to flex more and more. Scenarios like planetary assaults and that sort of theing have started to be developed by the group without me having to be the one to do it. Once the snowball started going down hill, things got interesting.

Aha, so in other words, you enfranchised the others, or they took the initiative to follow your lead.

Did you homebrew your customs, or did you use a source like DiabloAzul? Did you also have people vet your customs, ie. think about the point balances and what-not?

In fact Wes and his group have been instrumental to the development of many of the cards in Shipyards. Some of the ships were originally used and tested by his group and then adopted by Shipyards with his kind permission. Others followed the opposite route. In practice, most if not all of the ships, squadrons and upgrade cards in the upcoming "Set I" have been vetted by Wes' crowd, often with tweaks along the way. He really has done a stellar job in promoting the use and developing of customs.

The next stage in opening up the "custom scene" will be including the Set I content as an optional extension of the Vassal module, which Green Knight and Ransburger have kindly offered to do. And Nevetz offered to add them to the Warlords fleet builder, again as an optional feature (I'm still behind with the prep work for that). Hopefully that will encourage players to come up with more varied play styles and scenarios, as well as give them additional tools to make those interesting, for example shuttles, transports and interdictors.

It has taken me the better part of 6 months to get majority of my group to allow custom ships and cards to be used for fun games. I had to make sure that everyone had access to the customs so nobody was left out. Once they all started having fun with that, they are willing to flex more and more. Scenarios like planetary assaults and that sort of theing have started to be developed by the group without me having to be the one to do it. Once the snowball started going down hill, things got interesting.

Aha, so in other words, you enfranchised the others, or they took the initiative to follow your lead.

Did you homebrew your customs, or did you use a source like DiabloAzul? Did you also have people vet your customs, ie. think about the point balances and what-not?

I have been working with Diablo as much as I can, and point values have been discussed during initial trials of customs as well as revisions. Its tricky but rewarding to find a ship/squadrons true place. Some of my group was really excited as soon as they had ships and cards to play with, while others had to see them in action for some time before finally saying 'hey you mind if I try that?'. After that it was generally up to me what was introduced to the group to try. They are playtesting custom stuff quite a bit now, and have even taken some of their own projects on such as Tie Defenders/Avengers/Phantoms.

Time..........there is always time for a longer game. I am 50 years old with two 8 year olds and I make time, the problem is players nowadays do not want to spend the time to plan a good scenario, tourneys are okay if you are into the overcrowded room with massive amounts of noise , pushing and pushy players.

Not for someone like me, a big table some good friends, snacks a couple of cold beers and I am in the zone. I use a laptop to e-mail or surf for a hour or two a day and that is it. Most kids now are tied to their IPAD's etc, and spend more time doing that than enjoying the real world of FTF playing. And want things right now and want a game to last only 2 or 3 hours. Some of the best games I played involved at least 8 hours, and left you mentally drained but satisfied, just the challenge presented was enough for me. Playing quick games in the" I will bring 400 points and you bring yours" ,format, no matter if both are the same or not just does not make sense to me, that is why I quit playing games like Warhammer 40k, Flames of War etc. Too many of those are just boring as hell. Same thing different day. A campaign game with a real story behind it is interesting and never plays out the same twice.

I'm a bit more story-driven myself, enjoying the current campaign our local group has going as well as regular arena games. To each their own.

Aturi looks great but the biggest problem I've seen in developing story-driven Armada is that you're eliminating ~1/3-1/2 of the players by choosing a single faction. If you want both factions to play you've got the trouble of keeping things balanced while avoiding snowballing which isn't fun for anyone.

Norse makes a good point with restricted ship lists - putting together a fleet is half the fun. Our current campaign has themed fleets which have worked out ok. We'll see how that works going forward.

Another thing that annoys me is the idea that games must be balanced.................hell the best fun I had was a game where my buddy outnumbered me 2 to 1

and I beat him hands down. Just found the strategy that worked and found my groove and 4 hours later I had big time bragging rights and a large pizza to boot.

A game is meant to be bent a little otherwise what is fun of trying different things or ways of playing a scenario. Leaders in military history "wargamed" to test their strategies for an upcoming battle......so developed many different plans to adjust for their opponent and yes many "played" out their various strategies when they knew they were outnumbered; So a good test of a strategist is when they have a force that is not what they wanted, but had to work with. You might think it is unfair when you are outnumbered but it is great when you win

Another thing that annoys me is the idea that games must be balanced.................hell the best fun I had was a game where my buddy outnumbered me 2 to 1

and I beat him hands down. Just found the strategy that worked and found my groove and 4 hours later I had big time bragging rights and a large pizza to boot.

A game is meant to be bent a little otherwise what is fun of trying different things or ways of playing a scenario. Leaders in military history "wargamed" to test their strategies for an upcoming battle......so developed many different plans to adjust for their opponent and yes many "played" out their various strategies when they knew they were outnumbered; So a good test of a strategist is when they have a force that is not what they wanted, but had to work with. You might think it is unfair when you are outnumbered but it is great when you win

Yes! Yes!

To be fair, no one wants to play the bond villain henchmen where they just spend two hours taking their figures off the board because the deck is stacked against them.

Lopsided scenarios are good, but the win conditions need to be balanced so that things are still relatively fair and the outcome of the game is in the balance. Special exemptions obviously exist for campaign games and special scenarios since sometimes you just get caught with your pants down and need to make the best of it, but generally both sides should have an even shot at 'winning' even if winning just means 'hold this table section for four turns' or 'kill this particular ship' and doesn't mean winning in the traditional sense.

And I think this is why a lot of people are shy of homebrew scenarios. They aren't convinced that the person building the scenario has balanced it, and would rather play the more stale and sterile version of the game, that they KNOW is balanced, than risk wasting two hours on a whitewash game.

I play Sails of Glory, a miniatures based Napoleonic strategy game, the players have developed a large amount of good scenarios that are challenging

to play, The company has also posted them on their website for others to enjoy, so why not FFG. Hell there are a lot of creative types out there that could design a

bunch of scenarios that yes can be used in tournaments gosh....golly........gee Anything from rescuing an ambushed patrol to massed ship combat. Set up a tournament with 10 scenarios , the players can choose the scenarios or they can be set up in a round robin event based on difficulty. And if players are short ships well I am sure other players could lend them to them for a the scenario I like the objective cards, they give good ideas just not the way that they are used.

A well thought out scenario can be made , especially with a number of critical objectives that could peek a lot of interest.

[...] the players have developed a large amount of good scenarios that are challenging

to play, The company has also posted them on their website for others to enjoy, so why not FFG. Hell there are a lot of creative types out there that could design a bunch of scenarios that yes can be used in tournaments gosh....golly........gee [...]

They have such a thing for X-wing. I don't think it saw all that much use.

So, why not? It's probably not worth their effort to do so.

The idea of making your own scenarios increases your enjoyment in a game, and will keep your friends playing for longer than the old headbashing dry ftf stuff. Look at the Starwars movies and books how may times were the rebels outnumbered........lots of times and still won. Yes it is movies but when you have to win sometimes your strategy may not be too pretty but if it works ,go for it. As the old saying goes "**** the torpedos, full speed ahead"

The idea of making your own scenarios increases your enjoyment in a game, and will keep your friends playing for longer than the old headbashing dry ftf stuff. Look at the Starwars movies and books how may times were the rebels outnumbered........lots of times and still won. Yes it is movies but when you have to win sometimes your strategy may not be too pretty but if it works ,go for it. As the old saying goes "**** the torpedos, full speed ahead"

The trouble is The Force isn't modeled in Armada's ruleset. If we did things by the movies, the Rebels would barely hold on until turn 6, where they'd win overwhelmingly because The Force.

I have played some scenarios where one force outnumbers the other but the objectives are different (escort a convoy, etc). Those were pretty fun and had everyone thinking outside the box.

I have played some scenarios where one force outnumbers the other but the objectives are different (escort a convoy, etc). Those were pretty fun and had everyone thinking outside the box.

That's what I'm taking about!

Exactly forget the 400pts etc. An idea I use is to study Napoleonic ship battles and get an idea for a scenario from the

there is a lot of concepts for fleets there, and naval tactics.

I have played some scenarios where one force outnumbers the other but the objectives are different (escort a convoy, etc). Those were pretty fun and had everyone thinking outside the box.

That's what I'm taking about!

Round 2 is tomorrow, I'll try and take some pictures.

Exactly forget the 400pts etc. An idea I use is to study Napoleonic ship battles and get an idea for a scenario from the

there is a lot of concepts for fleets there, and naval tactics.

Ackbar's got nothing on Nelson.