This game like allot of Wargames requires a level of seeing the next few steps ahead and also reading the battlefield. Armada asks you to plan ahead, in some cases up to 3 turns based on very little intel. So it asks you to plan and then adjust as best as you can as the dynamic changes. I really like it, as it adds the element of Fog of war and also the reality that you cannot control at an instance all that is happening. The thing i enjoy about FFG rules design is that at its core it presents to you simple rules that are hard to master due to the range of complex situations created during the game and that it forces you to make decisions.

Some games, and i do have bias, really do after list building make the game and the rolling of dice almost pointless as the outcome can be almost determined as a consequence of poor rules design that creates the rock paper scissor effect, and that then heaps layers and layers of complex rules and special supplements that only further cloud the game.

Armada is a great system for naval combat where due to mass and inertia your choices don't reflect immediately but are delayed. I would love to see a version of Armada for Age of Sail eg battle of Trafalgar, etc, might even do it myself just for fun.

My advice to the OP is this,

• reflect on what you want your fleet to do,
• how will you use your ships and what it's synergy will be,
• also play as often as possible and watch and read everything, youtube, vassal, forums and i would watch the Worlds Games that where captured on twitch, even WWPDstevens games,
• watch how players they deploy, reflect on the orders they set and the lists that are chosen.

Beyond that like everything it's a learning curve and that you have the self awareness to know you are not across the game right now, means at least you know that you need to ask more questions and seek guidance, that is actually a good trait to have!

I think some of you folks are really too sensitive. I'm not calling the dude stupid, nor a simpleton. If you actually read what I said, I have used neither of these words.

Saying someone is not a deep thinker does not automatically imply that he's stupid. I know plenty of people who just can't be bothered playing something that requires a little more effort because they say rhey just want to mess around after a long day at work. Saying games are too complex does not mean he's stupid. It simply means that the games themselves might be too complex. Like how Warhammer 8th had 150 pages in rules, or why Armada has more than twice the rules of xwing, if we are to use direct examples from the OP.

This new Internet craze where people get immediately flogged because they said something "insensitive" is really getting stale. People get triggered way too quickly these days and there's too many white Knights running around when there's no danger.

Boy, I go to bed and the whole thread implodes.

@Hero. No worries. While you may have come across as a tad brusque in your first post, I get where your coming from and why. As to your question about my previous wargaming experience. Over the past 25 years or so I have played: 40K, Epic, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, and old game called Fantasy Warriors, Star Fleet Battles, very little bit of Malefaux, X-Wing of course, Skirmish Imperial Assault, Car Wars, Firestorm Armada, All Quiet on the Martian Front, AT-43, War of the Ring (a much better game than most gave it credit for) ... probably others, but that is what comes to mind off the top of my head, plus a variety of board games including (as I stated earlier) Twilight Imperium, Axis and Allies (the 1940 2 game combo version is my favorite).

None of those games were at all difficult to.... (what's the word I want? I don't want to overuse "Grok") internalize, maybe. But Armada just didn't come together.

Anyway, there is some more I want to say, but I have a doctor's appoint I have to get to so it will have to wait until later tonight.

Boy, I go to bed and the whole thread implodes.

@Hero. No worries. While you may have come across as a tad brusque in your first post, I get where your coming from and why. As to your question about my previous wargaming experience. Over the past 25 years or so I have played: 40K, Epic, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, and old game called Fantasy Warriors, Star Fleet Battles, very little bit of Malefaux, X-Wing of course, Skirmish Imperial Assault, Car Wars, Firestorm Armada, All Quiet on the Martian Front, AT-43, War of the Ring (a much better game than most gave it credit for) ... probably others, but that is what comes to mind off the top of my head, plus a variety of board games including (as I stated earlier) Twilight Imperium, Axis and Allies (the 1940 2 game combo version is my favorite).

None of those games were at all difficult to.... (what's the word I want? I don't want to overuse "Grok") internalize, maybe. But Armada just didn't come together.

Anyway, there is some more I want to say, but I have a doctor's appoint I have to get to so it will have to wait until later tonight.

Cool, so a lot of those games are drastically more complex in terms of rules, so I don't think it's the rules and phases of the game that's loose from your grasp.

Typically, the problem has to do with your list if it's not your play. From what you said, you said you played well but still lost, talked about it afterwards and both you AND your opponent don't really know why. Seems really strange to me why two experienced tabletop players wouldn't be able to analyze the game you played.

Then I read through some more and he's fielding XI7s/Intels and congo-lining with Ackbar Home One and MKIIs. How many MKIIs? If he's running really ship heavy with Home One and 2 MKIIs, then he's extremely susceptible to getting his throat kicked in from squadrons and bombers. If you showed up to the table with a Fireball (Rhymer + Firesprays) he would pretty much auto-lose. I know, I found this out the hard way.

Was his list something that looks like this? It's a brutal, brutal list in anti-ship combat, but suffers from having a supreme lack of squadrons and susceptible to being being blocked in. That's where Raiders come in. They're fast, fluid, quickly-adjustable to battlefield conditions, and can stop a congo line in its tracks by just parking in front of it. Ozzel really makes this work and you can even make it work with Gladiators.

Before I go off and assume more, can you show me your list and his? You also said your ISD died really quick right? Did you run it straight into his gunline?

Oh, and just because Intel Officer threatens to discard your brace, doesn't mean you shouldn't brace. I'm not sure if that's what you implied from your post on Page 3. Also, do you run ECMs? Gotta run ECMs in Wave 2 man. First upgrade 9/10 for sure.

I'm having some similar problems with Armada. I think I've narrowed it down to two issues, but there are still things that puzzle me.

First, the thing that throws all my thinking off is the "reversed" order of ship activation - shooting first then moving. Combine that with the free-form activation (rather than X-Wing's pilot skill order), and even when I manage to maneuver one turn to get a shot the next turn, my opponent activates my intended target first and lays the hurt on my ship then flies away. I think this leads to my second problem which is not planning far enough ahead, both in terms of what dials to set and where to go or how to maneuver this turn to be where I need to be in 2 turns.

Reading a lot of these helpful responses, it seems I need to think 3 turns ahead, or at least 2. Thinking one turn ahead just doesn't cut it.

The final thing that always messes me up is my shooting doesn't seem to do much damage, but the fire I take just immolates my ships. I don't know if it's poor target selection and range management or lack of concentrated fire, or failure to account for defense tokens or what. It's quite a complex series of interactions. I always feel I need twice as many dice as I have to do any appreciable damage, while at the same time never having the right combination of defense tokens to survive attacks.

I'm totally terrified of facing an ISD or MC80 with it's buckets of dice since I can't even survive a VSD or Gladiator.

Boy, I go to bed and the whole thread implodes.

@Hero. No worries. While you may have come across as a tad brusque in your first post, I get where your coming from and why. As to your question about my previous wargaming experience. Over the past 25 years or so I have played: 40K, Epic, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, and old game called Fantasy Warriors, Star Fleet Battles, very little bit of Malefaux, X-Wing of course, Skirmish Imperial Assault, Car Wars, Firestorm Armada, All Quiet on the Martian Front, AT-43, War of the Ring (a much better game than most gave it credit for) ... probably others, but that is what comes to mind off the top of my head, plus a variety of board games including (as I stated earlier) Twilight Imperium, Axis and Allies (the 1940 2 game combo version is my favorite).

None of those games were at all difficult to.... (what's the word I want? I don't want to overuse "Grok") internalize, maybe. But Armada just didn't come together.

Anyway, there is some more I want to say, but I have a doctor's appoint I have to get to so it will have to wait until later tonight.

Cool, so a lot of those games are drastically more complex in terms of rules, so I don't think it's the rules and phases of the game that's loose from your grasp.

Typically, the problem has to do with your list if it's not your play. From what you said, you said you played well but still lost, talked about it afterwards and both you AND your opponent don't really know why. Seems really strange to me why two experienced tabletop players wouldn't be able to analyze the game you played.

Then I read through some more and he's fielding XI7s/Intels and congo-lining with Ackbar Home One and MKIIs. How many MKIIs? If he's running really ship heavy with Home One and 2 MKIIs, then he's extremely susceptible to getting his throat kicked in from squadrons and bombers. If you showed up to the table with a Fireball (Rhymer + Firesprays) he would pretty much auto-lose. I know, I found this out the hard way.

Was his list something that looks like this? It's a brutal, brutal list in anti-ship combat, but suffers from having a supreme lack of squadrons and susceptible to being being blocked in. That's where Raiders come in. They're fast, fluid, quickly-adjustable to battlefield conditions, and can stop a congo line in its tracks by just parking in front of it. Ozzel really makes this work and you can even make it work with Gladiators.

Before I go off and assume more, can you show me your list and his? You also said your ISD died really quick right? Did you run it straight into his gunline?

He posted his list earlier.

Also, hes said that hes not after a specific breakdown of why a particular battle went the way it did but the general idea of what makes the game great.

That's why I suggested he come up with a strategy to beat a pre-known enemy list and attempt to execute it. Its pointless to play the game pushing ships around a board rolling dice with no INTENT and direction, I can see how that would quickly get perplexing and boring.

I'm having some similar problems with Armada. I think I've narrowed it down to two issues, but there are still things that puzzle me.

First, the thing that throws all my thinking off is the "reversed" order of ship activation - shooting first then moving. Combine that with the free-form activation (rather than X-Wing's pilot skill order), and even when I manage to maneuver one turn to get a shot the next turn, my opponent activates my intended target first and lays the hurt on my ship then flies away. I think this leads to my second problem which is not planning far enough ahead, both in terms of what dials to set and where to go or how to maneuver this turn to be where I need to be in 2 turns.

Reading a lot of these helpful responses, it seems I need to think 3 turns ahead, or at least 2. Thinking one turn ahead just doesn't cut it.

The final thing that always messes me up is my shooting doesn't seem to do much damage, but the fire I take just immolates my ships. I don't know if it's poor target selection and range management or lack of concentrated fire, or failure to account for defense tokens or what. It's quite a complex series of interactions. I always feel I need twice as many dice as I have to do any appreciable damage, while at the same time never having the right combination of defense tokens to survive attacks.

I'm totally terrified of facing an ISD or MC80 with it's buckets of dice since I can't even survive a VSD or Gladiator.

Yeah it takes some time to internalize all the moving parts and how they click together. You DO have to think not only 2 or 3 turns ahead, but also strategize before you even start deploying your ships. Just getting to roll dice at an enemy is not enough, you have to consider their defensive options before they do.

Can you get them to spend a defense token before you fire your main battery? Can you guess where he might move this one ship so you can have a front arc waiting for him? Often when an opponent places their ships you can discern an intent and from there have a vague idea based on the speed set at deployment roughly what the battlefield movement will be like, which allows you to plan those 3 turns in advance (and then naturally, plan meets reality and goes to hell).

Man, I really want to play now...

My general advise as a mental exercise is just try and envision the battle unfold the turn before it happens. Start small. Envision where all the ships will be in a turn ahead. Think about all the activation orders and possible outcomes that can happen once the dice start flying.

Exercising a general strategy is great and all, but often times than not it's probably going to get stunted by a canny opponent. The challenge there will be how quickly you can adapt and adjust your strategy before everything goes to poo.

To address the heavy loss, I think a lot of Imperial players will have a hard time "grokking" Wave 2 at first, and I don't think you're alone in that. In all of Wave 1, the key to success as an Imperial was just making sure you could get your guns on the enemy, and they would crumple under the firepower more often than not. The rebels were the ones forced to maneuver carefully in order to minimize incoming fire, or at least force it to be spread over multiple ships. This was well supported by the generally faster and more maneuverable ships in the Rebel lineup. Going into the factions at Wave 1, the playstyles they catered to were very obvious.

Now with Wave 2, the advent of Ackbar means that Imperials are having to learn to maneuver defensively. Merely keeping the bow of your ship pointed at the enemy is no longer the key to success, as you will actually come out worse in a straight slugging match. However, this is directly against the previous Imperial mentality and playstyle. To make the problem even more dramatic, the cornerstone of many Imperial fleets is the slowest and least maneuverable ship in the game. This means setup is even more important than ever for Imperials, because once the VSD is on the table top, its very predictable.

This might tie into your feeling that the game is "random", by which you clarified that you felt your decisions/actions had little to do with the outcome of a game. I had a friend who said much the same, when we moved past the intro game and really started getting into the details. For him, the maneuver tool was a chain around his ankle, that forced his ships into certain lanes/positions. He was used to games (including games like WH40K, and X-wing), where far more agency was put into the current, active turn. In other words, when it was his turn...he was used to being able to react to the battle in the moment with far more dramatic results (good and bad).

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

Because of shoot, then move and the maneuver restrictions, a lot of Armada's agency is spread out to previous turns, requiring a sort of "big picture" analysis that doesn't always click for everyone. I'm not saying that its the same for you, as it was for my friend. But after talking it over with him, it might be something similar to what you're experiencing.

Because of shoot, then move and the maneuver restrictions, a lot of Armada's agency is spread out to previous turns, requiring a sort of "big picture" analysis that doesn't always click for everyone. I'm not saying that its the same for you, as it was for my friend. But after talking it over with him, it might be something similar to what you're experiencing.

If nothing else, I think you just elucidated something I was having trouble adapting to. I play a lot of MtG so I'm used to dealing with the stack, not the click.

To address the heavy loss, I think a lot of Imperial players will have a hard time "grokking" Wave 2 at first, and I don't think you're alone in that. In all of Wave 1, the key to success as an Imperial was just making sure you could get your guns on the enemy, and they would crumple under the firepower more often than not. The rebels were the ones forced to maneuver carefully in order to minimize incoming fire, or at least force it to be spread over multiple ships. This was well supported by the generally faster and more maneuverable ships in the Rebel lineup. Going into the factions at Wave 1, the playstyles they catered to were very obvious.

Now with Wave 2, the advent of Ackbar means that Imperials are having to learn to maneuver defensively. Merely keeping the bow of your ship pointed at the enemy is no longer the key to success, as you will actually come out worse in a straight slugging match. However, this is directly against the previous Imperial mentality and playstyle. To make the problem even more dramatic, the cornerstone of many Imperial fleets is the slowest and least maneuverable ship in the game. This means setup is even more important than ever for Imperials, because once the VSD is on the table top, its very predictable.

This might tie into your feeling that the game is "random", by which you clarified that you felt your decisions/actions had little to do with the outcome of a game. I had a friend who said much the same, when we moved past the intro game and really started getting into the details. For him, the maneuver tool was a chain around his ankle, that forced his ships into certain lanes/positions. He was used to games (including games like WH40K, and X-wing), where far more agency was put into the current, active turn. In other words, when it was his turn...he was used to being able to react to the battle in the moment with far more dramatic results (good and bad).

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

Because of shoot, then move and the maneuver restrictions, a lot of Armada's agency is spread out to previous turns, requiring a sort of "big picture" analysis that doesn't always click for everyone. I'm not saying that its the same for you, as it was for my friend. But after talking it over with him, it might be something similar to what you're experiencing.

*slow but gradually faster and louder claps*

legit need pics or something because the description is too vague to get an accurate read on anything

Pics (and description) of what? I am happy to provide whatever info I can, but I'm not asking "why did I loose this particular match", rather I'm asking "what is it about this game in general am I not getting"

For some more details on my match Sunday. I had an ISD2 and 2 Vic2's, all with Gunnery teams, Vader as admiral, assorted upgrades that allowed me to use excess accuracy results as damage, the "regenerate a shield each turn" on the ISD, no squadrons. He had a MC80 with Ackbar and 2 Mk II frigates all kitted out to prevent me from using my defense tokens, also no squadrons. Missions was "Dangerous Territory (?)", (overlap an obstacle first for 15 VPs) and I was 1st player.

But again, I'm not asking about the specific match last Sunday, but the game in general. I LIKE big, complex games that require forethought and planning. Among my favorite games of all time are Twilight Imperium, Star Fleet Battles, Axis and Allies (and chess). This game though doesn't feel like chess. Armada feels like Chutes and Ladders while X-Wing feels like chess. It feels like no decisions I am making during the game are actually influencing the outcome. And it is frustrating to me because I WANT to like it sooo much.

I get exactly the opposite impression from both games. X-Wing has, to me, always felt like it's more about luck and random chance, where Armada is about planning, management, and execution.

Such are the vagaries of taste.

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Secondly, you have nailed it dead on! The game is what a tactical situation should feel like. There is an ebb and flow to the game and as you play the things you do contribute to that.

This game more than many others I have played require practice and an open mind on what you can and can not do. The future is far more important then the present.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Secondly, you have nailed it dead on! The game is what a tactical situation should feel like. There is an ebb and flow to the game and as you play the things you do contribute to that.

This game more than many others I have played require practice and an open mind on what you can and can not do. The future is far more important then the present.

Totally agree. The last nerd-riffic game I played (read: got completely sucked into) was a TCG, where fast play and a good draw meant you could ensure overwhelming victory in the first ten minutes. Took about 5-7 games for me to lose that mentality and once I did, Armada made a LOT more sense. The points mechanic means battles are usually a lot closer and you have to work to win (geez, whatta concept!).

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Secondly, you have nailed it dead on! The game is what a tactical situation should feel like. There is an ebb and flow to the game and as you play the things you do contribute to that.

This game more than many others I have played require practice and an open mind on what you can and can not do. The future is far more important then the present.

Oh, sorry. I haven't changed the avatar in years, and I don't post often. I think the last time was half a year or more ago.

Personally, I agree with you. I like that having a strategy and building a list, a battlefield and setting up your ships are ways to help you implement that strategy.

I like even more that as you look across the table, you can see (or at least make guesses) about your opponent's strategy.

And what I like best of all is how the game plays out as you try to execute your strategy while frustrating or denying your enemy his.

I am not saying I don't like games that can be flipped in a single turn. Its a great buzz, and many of them require their own set of skills. But there's a part of my brain that finds it immensely satisfying to build up a win, from fleet creation all the way to the last dice roll. And Armada really caters to that, in my opinion. Its one of those games where you can set your grip and just keep squeezing until your enemy dies. And unlike Tarkin, if you do it right, there's no slippage...

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

So you've decided to become Cubanboy?

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Definitely thought it was you posting at first because of that. Did a double-take because it doesn't sound like your writing at all...

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

So you've decided to become Cubanboy?

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Secondly, you have nailed it dead on! The game is what a tactical situation should feel like. There is an ebb and flow to the game and as you play the things you do contribute to that.

This game more than many others I have played require practice and an open mind on what you can and can not do. The future is far more important then the present.

Oh, sorry. I haven't changed the avatar in years, and I don't post often. I think the last time was half a year or more ago.

Personally, I agree with you. I like that having a strategy and building a list, a battlefield and setting up your ships are ways to help you implement that strategy.

I like even more that as you look across the table, you can see (or at least make guesses) about your opponent's strategy.

And what I like best of all is how the game plays out as you try to execute your strategy while frustrating or denying your enemy his.

I am not saying I don't like games that can be flipped in a single turn. Its a great buzz, and many of them require their own set of skills. But there's a part of my brain that finds it immensely satisfying to build up a win, from fleet creation all the way to the last dice roll. And Armada really caters to that, in my opinion. Its one of those games where you can set your grip and just keep squeezing until your enemy dies. And unlike Tarkin, if you do it right, there's no slippage...

You're just the most eloquent of all eh.

Your last paragraph hit it once again for me. This game takes every little detain and makes everyone important. You can not have one without the other.

Unlike games like 40k or Warmachine where you need to just play X and Y to win (some cases this is not always true but unit and codex of the month is strong there). This game makes things go insane to a degree.

Take me winning a 400 point wave 1 tournament with 5 Nebulon-B's! That is something that people don't think can happen and yet it did.

I play quite a bit with my local group, but lately I have been playing my Rebel and Imperial lists against eachother on my own to dry run my formations. This is a great way to really examine the games finer points without being forced to make a decision in short order against a proper opponent. Also shows off your mistakes with time to consider them.

To address the heavy loss, I think a lot of Imperial players will have a hard time "grokking" Wave 2 at first, and I don't think you're alone in that. In all of Wave 1, the key to success as an Imperial was just making sure you could get your guns on the enemy, and they would crumple under the firepower more often than not. The rebels were the ones forced to maneuver carefully in order to minimize incoming fire, or at least force it to be spread over multiple ships. This was well supported by the generally faster and more maneuverable ships in the Rebel lineup. Going into the factions at Wave 1, the playstyles they catered to were very obvious.

Now with Wave 2, the advent of Ackbar means that Imperials are having to learn to maneuver defensively. Merely keeping the bow of your ship pointed at the enemy is no longer the key to success, as you will actually come out worse in a straight slugging match. However, this is directly against the previous Imperial mentality and playstyle. To make the problem even more dramatic, the cornerstone of many Imperial fleets is the slowest and least maneuverable ship in the game. This means setup is even more important than ever for Imperials, because once the VSD is on the table top, its very predictable.

Mmh, I disagree. With at least the ships that I've been running after sullust, I don't feel like I'm being forced to maneuver defensively. Even against the list forgotten had to fight, my strategy to counter it is just to build a better sledgehammer that triggers automatically while my commands are spent on engineering to mitigate damage, instead of my defense tokens.

Ackbar allows the Rebels to finally have a gun-line strategy they could only sort-of attain with massed assault frigates. Ackbar and the MC80 now enables slow-moving stand-and-fight lists that the Empire was running with for any list that didn't rely on mobile gladiators. The firepower they put out can be kind of scary, but their ship compliment has more or less comparable shields... but weaker hull amounts... and that gun line up is lacking the ever-important Gunnery teams. Moreover, VSDII and ISD II can equip both turbolasers and ions. Effectively a static Imperial gunline that has upgraded to wave 2 can now construct dangerous tools to destroy enemies in front of them. The Rebels may have the higher dice pools, but the Imperials still have the flexibility to add more effects to their attacks.

Especially with Screed. Having ion-trigger abilities and screed in your list means you're guaranteed to kick off the nasty ones to set up future attacks... like NK-7s removing defense tokens or Overload pulse setting up an Avenger shot. The Rebels do not have access to these strategies, they can only rely on raw dice coming out of Ackbar.

In short, while the Rebels can now hit as hard as Imperial static lines, the Empire can still do it better.

Granted, I will have to worry about maneuverable Foresights and fighters and other typical rebel tricks of placement. But a rebel player going there is probably moving away from the Ackbar heavy gun-line in one axis of strategy or another, which would change my response.

For him, a turn in Armada did not have that same potential for "make it or break it", as other games had. In other words, a turn was just the continuation of a gradual slide into horrible defeat, or the steady build up to a solid victory, with him feeling as though he contributed very little to either result.

First off. . . CURSE YOU!!! Had to change my avatar because of you. . . *grumble grumble*

Secondly, you have nailed it dead on! The game is what a tactical situation should feel like. There is an ebb and flow to the game and as you play the things you do contribute to that.

This game more than many others I have played require practice and an open mind on what you can and can not do. The future is far more important then the present.

Oh, sorry. I haven't changed the avatar in years, and I don't post often. I think the last time was half a year or more ago.

Personally, I agree with you. I like that having a strategy and building a list, a battlefield and setting up your ships are ways to help you implement that strategy.

I like even more that as you look across the table, you can see (or at least make guesses) about your opponent's strategy.

And what I like best of all is how the game plays out as you try to execute your strategy while frustrating or denying your enemy his.

I am not saying I don't like games that can be flipped in a single turn. Its a great buzz, and many of them require their own set of skills. But there's a part of my brain that finds it immensely satisfying to build up a win, from fleet creation all the way to the last dice roll. And Armada really caters to that, in my opinion. Its one of those games where you can set your grip and just keep squeezing until your enemy dies. And unlike Tarkin, if you do it right, there's no slippage...

These are some excellent posts and I for one hope you post more often around these parts.

Having all my wave 2 stuff arriving yesterday and now your posts has me chomping at the bit to play this Saturday. I love sizing up my opponents list after its set up, pre planning my lists, re pre planning my lists, scrapping the pre planned and re pre planned list on game day and building it another at the table, working out how to activate my ships so that my opponent will move into my firing range while I get to shoot with my still unactivated ships, how to lock down his bombers, how to get mine free, when to tap my Intel officer, and so on...

This game touches on so many of the aspects that I enjoy about gaming... Pre planning, day dreaming during the week, great looking models on the table, strategy, fun with friends, great highs, crushing lows, momentum building that can sometimes end in a great victory or a wtf?? Moment... Add in friends, new and old and it's just a great experience.

I find quite a few ffg games are just stellar experiences but this game and imperial assault are my favorites.

To address the heavy loss, I think a lot of Imperial players will have a hard time "grokking" Wave 2 at first, and I don't think you're alone in that. In all of Wave 1, the key to success as an Imperial was just making sure you could get your guns on the enemy, and they would crumple under the firepower more often than not. The rebels were the ones forced to maneuver carefully in order to minimize incoming fire, or at least force it to be spread over multiple ships. This was well supported by the generally faster and more maneuverable ships in the Rebel lineup. Going into the factions at Wave 1, the playstyles they catered to were very obvious.

Now with Wave 2, the advent of Ackbar means that Imperials are having to learn to maneuver defensively. Merely keeping the bow of your ship pointed at the enemy is no longer the key to success, as you will actually come out worse in a straight slugging match. However, this is directly against the previous Imperial mentality and playstyle. To make the problem even more dramatic, the cornerstone of many Imperial fleets is the slowest and least maneuverable ship in the game. This means setup is even more important than ever for Imperials, because once the VSD is on the table top, its very predictable.

Mmh, I disagree. With at least the ships that I've been running after sullust, I don't feel like I'm being forced to maneuver defensively. Even against the list forgotten had to fight, my strategy to counter it is just to build a better sledgehammer that triggers automatically while my commands are spent on engineering to mitigate damage, instead of my defense tokens.

Ackbar allows the Rebels to finally have a gun-line strategy they could only sort-of attain with massed assault frigates. Ackbar and the MC80 now enables slow-moving stand-and-fight lists that the Empire was running with for any list that didn't rely on mobile gladiators. The firepower they put out can be kind of scary, but their ship compliment has more or less comparable shields... but weaker hull amounts... and that gun line up is lacking the ever-important Gunnery teams. Moreover, VSDII and ISD II can equip both turbolasers and ions. Effectively a static Imperial gunline that has upgraded to wave 2 can now construct dangerous tools to destroy enemies in front of them. The Rebels may have the higher dice pools, but the Imperials still have the flexibility to add more effects to their attacks.

Especially with Screed. Having ion-trigger abilities and screed in your list means you're guaranteed to kick off the nasty ones to set up future attacks... like NK-7s removing defense tokens or Overload pulse setting up an Avenger shot. The Rebels do not have access to these strategies, they can only rely on raw dice coming out of Ackbar.

In short, while the Rebels can now hit as hard as Imperial static lines, the Empire can still do it better.

Granted, I will have to worry about maneuverable Foresights and fighters and other typical rebel tricks of placement. But a rebel player going there is probably moving away from the Ackbar heavy gun-line in one axis of strategy or another, which would change my response.

I made general statements concerning Wave 1, and the transition into Wave 2. That it has not applied to you personally is clear from your post, but that does not invalidate my statement(s). For that matter I do not feel it applies to me very much, either. In my local group I'm the enabler and host, which means I get to play whichever faction my guest does not play. I also enjoy breaking down games like this, and figuring out what makes them tick. That gives me an advantage in my local group as I get to see both factions as both an opponent and as a player, and I realized fairly quickly that you're playing the fleets, not the factions.

However, I never said that Wave 2 "forces" Imperials to fly defensively, and I think trying to put that on me is a little bit hyperbolic. I did say that Imperials will need to learn to maneuver defensively, by which I mean wisely, to a greater extent than they did in Wave 1. In wave 1, if an Imperial maneuvered poorly, he might miss out on a turn of two dealing damage, but he rarely lost a ship. This could certainly be critical, especially if done repeatedly. If a Rebel maneuvered poorly, he quite commonly lost a ship, along with the options, the activations and the victory points that this entailed.

I agree with your analysis that Imperials still do "aggressive maneuvering" better. Not only is that thematic for the faction, it is built into the DNA of the ships and upgrades. But Wave 2 increases the killing power on the Rebel side of the table to a very respectable level, while also evening out the maneuver disparity between the factions. The result is that an Imperial admiral now has to look at the table in a new way. In Wave 1, he could get away with saying "Where do I need to go, in order to kill the enemy.". Now, he has to ask himself "Where do I go, in order to kill the enemy, and how do I get there without the enemy killing me.".

I'm sure many Imperials players were already doing this to some extent, especially against AF gunlines. But I think its still a significant shift in mindset when you look at the faction as a whole. Especially since the Imperials are less maneuverable than many of their Rebel counterparts, it can be a bit daunting. Because you don't have the same freedom of movement as a Rebel, you have to do a lot more predictive analysis as a part of your maneuvers.

I would also like to take the chance to say many thanks to all the nice comments and even PMs. They were completely unexpected, but very appreciated.