Disclaimer: I am firmly of the belief that competitively minded players should learn and follow the official rules exactly.

Some people agree, some don't: Armada rules are complicated. Every single game I've played so far (around 30 ish, since the release of the game, around 1 year or so) has required a long time out to look up MORE THAN ONE RULE.

My main gripe is that I think they are unnecessarily complicated. Adding consistency would benefit the ease of play of this game.

--

I would follow these concepts:

1. Consistency of application

2. Removal of most delays between spending and resolution

3. Attacker first, defender last

4. What groks for the most sense? Most easily understood and visually easy.

Ship parts changes:

No part of the plastic base is involved in attack measurement.

- everything measured cardboard to cardboard, from hullzone to hullzone.

- plastic shield teeth, shield dial do not count as part of the hull zone

- plastic does not obstruct LOS. (completely ignored in attack.)

- the entirety of the ship counts as the ship. Any part that overlaps something or is out of bounds is counted as such. Currently, if your shield dial is off the board, you remain on the board.

Squadrons:

1 card per squadron

damage tokens to place on card for damage. Too much moving of stuff.

In general, squadrons are completely complicated, with distance 1 not being a simple yes or no for engaged.

Heavy, Intel and Swarm should be less tricky, and simply deal with engaged status.

Intel: Enemy squadrons distance 1 of you do not prevent allied squadrons from moving or shooting ships due to engagement.

Escort: When declaring a non-counter squadron attack, enemy squadrons must target a squadron with Escort if one is in range.

Heavy: When enemy squadrons activate, they may move as if they weren't engaged WITH YOU.

Grit: Remains the same, but the Heavy interaction is now clear. If you are engaged with 2 squadrons, 1 with Heavy, 1 without, only the non-Heavy counts towards stopping you from moving.

Printing only escort-esque changing abilities on the squadron base: Thus: Heavy, Grit, Intel.

Measuring attack:

- if you cross either defender or attacker hull zone, you do not have LOS.

- if closest point of range crosses any lines, you do not have LOS.

Command dials:

- An exact time where each command can be used.

- Repair first, at reveal.

- Squadron next, at reveal after repair.

- Conc fire within the modify step of both attacks.

- Navigate at Determine Course.

- if at the end of the opportunity you haven't used the dial, you may store as a token: The plus side to this change is removing the time of decision before the use-time.

Goes with the concept: removing delays. You simply "reveal" the command dial at the start. Then at these stages in the activation, you decide your use of them, immediately.

Changes to attack steps:

- If I was to go all the way back, I'd remove the "add dice" possibility, and use "increase battery" definition for all additions of dice... but, that makes the game complicated with what we have now.

This would go in the gather attack pool step: Ackbar adds there, conc fire adds there.

I would not separate damage total from dice. Simply change and or use dice as physical representations of all results.

Attacker modifies all, then defender modifies all.

Defender uses all defense tokens in order: evade, brace, redirect/scatter, CONTAIN

Attacker chooses crit out of remaining crits. Resolve all crits here AFTER DAMAGE AND DEFENSE TOKENS.

This removes all of the exceptions of the "standard" crit.

You may choose 1 crit result each attack. If no special crits are chosen, it defaults to "<any color crit icon>:if the defender receives a damage card from this attack, the first is dealt face up."

No delays.

These give an exact timing for their effects:

Admonition would specify "after spending evades, in the Spend Defense Tokens step".

Intel Agent would say: "...at the end of that attack, if that token is spent, discard it."

Overload Pulse should come with reminder text, that the crit effect is the last step of dealing damage.

This also resolves rules-lawyering counter play that is unnecessary for threatening Overload Pulse and canceling instead of Dodonna's Pride.

Current steps:

a. Standard crit effect resolves here: First damage card is face up.

In every game you've played you've had to research more than one rule? Over 30+ games?

I'm not sure if you are exaggerating a lot or not, but I don't think that is typical. I occasionally have to look up a rule for a peculiar interaction, other than that my research usually just involves reading the text of an ability for exacting clarity.

The rules are a little complicated, but they work very well. Would they work as well to be more simplified? I personally wouldn't risk it.

There's plenty I disagree with above, almost everything with squadrons is unnecessary IMHO.

I think attacking could be tidied up, whilst keeping the same flavour.

For the biggest simplest change would be to make all range and LOS based off of the yellow dots. Maybe add more dots to bigger ship bases but otherwise this makes it very simple, to play and write.

For the biggest simplest change would be to make all range and LOS based off of the yellow dots. Maybe add more dots to bigger ship bases but otherwise this makes it very simple, to play and write.

I like cardboard to cardboard, and measuring distance in arc, but I would get rid of the caveat that you can't attack if the line connecting the two arcs crosses a defending arc. I mean if you already have range, LoS, and arc then it's probably going to look goofy if you arbitrarily can't target that hull zone. Oh well.

Obviously you would keep arcs and range. You just use the yellow dots for consistency.

The biggest kink in the targeting rules is closest point measuring. I think changing just that would remove the odd targeting scenarios.

The biggest kink in the targeting rules is closest point measuring. I think changing just that would remove the odd targeting scenarios.

As for any other changes. . .

Squadron with tokens on their cards. . . So the one day I run 10 TIE Fighters I need 10 cards and 30 tokens as well as need to number not only the squadron but their cards as well. . .

I am trying to figure out how swarm is tricky. . .

Are you engaged? Is another friendly squadron engaged? Is the squadron obstructed?

If the answer to the first 2 is yes you have swarm, if the third is yes, then the answer is no.

Simple.

Commands already have an exact time they can be used. . . Squadrons and Engineering are right after the dial is revealed, Concentrate Fire is during the Modify step, and Navigation is during the Determine course step.

Distance 1 is a simple yes or no for engagement.

Is an enemy squadron within distance 1? If yes you are engaged. Is he obstructed? If yes you are not engaged. What's the issue?

Plastic Base: If I run over a squadron and they can place it on the shield dial, I should be allowed to count it.

Now the plastic base vs cardboard is SUPER EASY to figure out.

Are you using the close-long side? Of so that is cardboard to cardboard (or tip of the squadrons beveled base)

Are you using the distance side (1-5)? If so it is from the base.

Simple.

If you are having some issues with the attack step, go roll some basic attacks. Go through the process till you feel confident about it.

However one does have to cross reference three pages in the RRG to discover that it is cardboard to cardboard just for range.

However one does have to cross reference three pages in the RRG to discover that it is cardboard to cardboard just for range.

Really the tricky part of squadrons is visual grok. Intel heavy and grit operating as partial ignore in different ways of engagement rules.

Actually having a longer ruler and going from dot to dot would be awesome.

However one does have to cross reference three pages in the RRG to discover that it is cardboard to cardboard just for range.

That is true. 3 pages and an email from FFG. . .

Lyraeus. I think attack measurement is sufficiently complicated. Also exceeded by measurements for ship obstructing and off the board.

Shield dials count for bumping but don't count for being off board and only the plastic teeth block los.

A BIG WORD OF DISCLAIMER: I don't really know how to make squadrons easier to understand. I honestly think they're not implemented in an easy to understand manner. But that becomes game design. Not rule simplification.

Also note that squadrons attack with the distance ruler. And the rule has two sides. And rhymer makes you attack with all dice out to medium range on the other side of the ruler. (Really should have been distance 3).

I am not sure why you feel squadrons don't work. . . All they are is a yes/no logic problem.

Grit just cares if there are more than 1 squadron and Intel just makes things heavy. It just takes practice. Then again I am spoiled because I have a distance 1 acrylic ruler.

I am not sure why you feel squadrons don't work. . . All they are is a yes/no logic problem.

Grit just cares if there are more than 1 squadron and Intel just makes things heavy. It just takes practice. Then again I am spoiled because I have a distance 1 acrylic ruler.

Multi step logic problem with multiple check points:

First, can I move and shoot? Can I shoot and move? Can I shoot or move? What changes my movement ability?

Which keywords are dependent on engagement, and which on distance1? Which on distance2?

If I kill this fighter, can I now move? <- creates a secondary check point.

How many fighters does it take to stop me from moving?

See, your explanation of grit is nice. But Intel., then I have to look up Heavy, which doesnt deal with engagement.

I have to remind opponents, or be reminded myself that this can't move, that has to shoot that, im engaged with this squadron, but not that squadron, i have exceptions for this engagement, that move, i can now move via an upgrade, i can now move cuz i killed off a squadron, but only if rogue cuz i didnt get squadron commanded. Jans ability works at distance 2, intel is at distance 1.

You can also attack a squadron that's distance 1 without being engaged. Swarm wouldn't activate here. There's a lot of specifics.

Let me ask you Ly, how many times have you had to remind opponents that don't play as often as you or Mikael about something squadron related?

Also one more thing, you tend to give me your opinion that is seemingly always against what I'm saying. When I try and explain it to you, I try and quantify my subjective opinion with some examples. In the end they are subjective opinions, but it would be good to look at things we can point out. Otherwise it seems like you simply want to disagree with me and other people for purposes of spite.

These are just my opinions on squadrons. I frankly can't think up an easy way to make squadrons easier.

However one does have to cross reference three pages in the RRG to discover that it is cardboard to cardboard just for range.

Also, is this cardboard to cardboard for arc? What about LOS obstruction? That's plastic, BUT NOT shield dials??

I have to remind opponents, or be reminded myself that this can't move, that has to shoot that, im engaged with this squadron, but not that squadron, i have exceptions for this engagement, that move, i can now move via an upgrade, i can now move cuz i killed off a squadron, but only if rogue cuz i didnt get squadron commanded. Jans ability works at distance 2, intel is at distance 1.

I mean, do enough close combats in that game and engagements are dirt easy.

You can also attack a squadron that's distance 1 without being engaged. Swarm wouldn't activate here. There's a lot of specifics.

Let me ask you Ly, how many times have you had to remind opponents that don't play as often as you or Mikael about something squadron related?

Also one more thing, you tend to give me your opinion that is seemingly always against what I'm saying. When I try and explain it to you, I try and quantify my subjective opinion with some examples. In the end they are subjective opinions, but it would be good to look at things we can point out. Otherwise it seems like you simply want to disagree with me and other people for purposes of spite.

I mean in 40k, just to shoot someone you have to roll to hit, roll again to wound (different weapons need different to wounds), then they get to roll for their armor save (if they get one), then they get to roll an invulnerable save (if they have one), and lastly they get to roll a Feel no Pain to see if they ignore the wound (if they have it).

So in the end Armada is simple to me.

These are just my opinions on squadrons. I frankly can't think up an easy way to make squadrons easier.

However one does have to cross reference three pages in the RRG to discover that it is cardboard to cardboard just for range.

Also, is this cardboard to cardboard for arc? What about LOS obstruction? That's plastic, BUT NOT shield dials??

Let's take it in order!

Multi step logic problem with multiple check points:

First, can I move and shoot? Can I shoot and move? Can I shoot or move?

Squadron command or squadron phase? Rogue or no? Check for engagement

What changes my movement ability?

Heavy, Engagement, and Grit

Which keywords are dependent on engagement, and which on distance1? Which on distance2?

If I kill this fighter, can I now move? <- creates a secondary check point.

How many fighters does it take to stop me from moving?

Same as top question.

See, your explanation of grit is nice. But Intel., then I have to look up Heavy, which doesnt deal with engagement.

Play with mass of both and you will get used to it

For the biggest simplest change would be to make all range and LOS based off of the yellow dots. Maybe add more dots to bigger ship bases but otherwise this makes it very simple, to play and write.

I like cardboard to cardboard, and measuring distance in arc, but I would get rid of the caveat that you can't attack if the line connecting the two arcs crosses a defending arc. I mean if you already have range, LoS, and arc then it's probably going to look goofy if you arbitrarily can't target that hull zone. Oh well.

This would permit me to attack the starbord hull, from the port flank. Sort of eliminates the idea of turning my strong shield towards the enemy.

While X-wing has less to it then Armada, which itself has less to it then 40k, I think a background in X-wing is going to better equip a player towards learning Armada then 40k.

There is the hurdle of overcoming initial assumptions but FFG has a rules style that does show through within almost all thier games. GW is not a company that puts effort into thier products as games, and it shows in how poorly the rules are structured for them. Given that 40k is many people's first miniatures game I honestly blame 40k for alot of the issues encountered playing other miniature games created by ex40k players that are left so ill-equipped to decipher other games ruleset because GW hasn't equipped them with good habits on that front. It was something that really showed in Warmachine as you had alot of immediate 40k refugees, but it also filters through to X-wing and Armada. 40k is a gamers worse nightmare when it comes to moving to other games made by real gaming companies.

There is an X-wing thread talking about X-wing being too complicated, and X-wing has less to it then Armada in many regards, so certainly there are going to be people that say Armada is too complicated. The reality is once you move past entry level board, card, or miniature games you are going to find players that just are not well suited to the complexities of the games. It doesn't necessarily mean the game is too complex or even complex.

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Dot to Dot does not work. The issue comes in that just having dot to dot would have tons of issues and would change the space that the game needs. You would need different rulers, ranges, movement. . . everything. If you can come up with a better system go make it!

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Dot to Dot does not work. The issue comes in that just having dot to dot would have tons of issues and would change the space that the game needs. You would need different rulers, ranges, movement. . . everything. If you can come up with a better system go make it!

I agree with dot to dot in theory.

It DOES need different rulers. But mainly only range would change.

The game would be different, no doubt. I think there are some corner cases where you.. wait. no... all that changes is effective range, all legal shots angle-wise I believe are still legal shots.

The effective distance of the ruler would probably have to go out a little farther, but I personally would have liked the ruler to go out farther anyway.

It would of required more materials and then there would be people complaining the amount of rulers, tokens, etc.

just a single longer ruler.

just a single longer ruler.

because of increased distance from the farther parts of the arc from the los point. Also getting into R1 with the same maneuver tool will be tricker. I have the funny feeling actually increasing the R1 section by about 1 inch would do the trick.

Or perhaps increasing R1, and decreasing med and far by a little, keeping to 1 foot.

One of the short comings of the metric system imo is the lack of unit between cm and meter.

The 10-cm (dm?) isn't used much.

And there's nothing around a foot where a foot is a very convenient length of measure for many things.

Although it should be noted that the ruler is supposed to be exactly a foot, which I like. I could never figure out why they didnt use some obvious metric for the xwing bases/range ruler/distance. -> I really like how those 3 in xwing are so related.

So. . . Take away some if the skill involved in movement involved in the game?