So what's been the consensus for deployment zone rule? Is it better to have the entire 3' edge or the reduced zone? I feel like if it's the entire zone then big star destroyers can completely eliminate worrying about one side of the battlefield by deploying near the corner.

15 hours ago, Kylocat said:

So what's been the consensus for deployment zone rule? Is it better to have the entire 3' edge or the reduced zone? I feel like if it's the entire zone then big star destroyers can completely eliminate worrying about one side of the battlefield by deploying near the corner.

I've played it with you cant deploy in close-medium.

Hi Everybody!

I wrote this as a way of keeping track of a point balance method to playing small games. The 200 point game style is really neat for getting a feel for the new aspects of the game with some friends over a kitchen table. I’m really liking the speed and simplicity. Please enjoy the information I’ve gathered!
This is some testing I did with the balance of the objectives in a 200 point game. These have been tested about 3 times, which gives a decent feel for what they are like.

The main premise is that the larger half of the tokens placed or points gained are kept.
If the change to the objective follows this simple rule, then it is written as “Halved, (keep larger half of tokens or points)”.
If there is literally no change, then “No change”.

Red
Precision Strike - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Advanced Gunnery - Halved, you gain half the points of the destroyed ship instead.
Opening Salvo - No change since you can only gain points based on the number of ships in the point value.
Most Wanted - Halved, you gain half the points of the destroyed ship instead.

Station Assault - Each station has only 5 hull and the points gained is halved to 20.
Blockade Run - Deploy like normal, place obstacles like normal. The scoring zone for second player is still the 1st player’s deployment zone. Scoring is not halved (due to number of ships limiting reward).
- Comments: This objective is the most difficult to translate, and in the case of disputes can be ruled out of choice by tournament organizers.
Close-Range Intel Scan - Place only 1 dust field, no change in scoring, this is limited by half size.
Targeting Beacons - Halved, place only 2 objective tokens.

Yellow
Fleet Ambush - No change
Hyperspace Assault - Halved, only 2 tokens.
Contested Outpost - Halved, each victory token is only worth 10 points.
Fire Lanes - Only the point gain halved, 3 objective tokens, 8 points per victory token.

Jamming Barrier - Halved, replace only one debris field with one dust field.
Planetary Ion Cannon - Halved, only 2 tokens.
Fighter Ambush - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Capture the VIP - Halved, you gain 25 points instead.

Blue
Minefields - Halved, but with 4 obstacles and only 3 tokens.
- Comments: This seemed okay with 3 obstacles and 1 station + 3 tokens.
Intel Sweep - Halved, you gain 38 points instead.
Dangerous Territory - Halved, there are only 1 station + 3 obstacles.
Superior Positions - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.

Salvage Run - Halved, add only 1 dust field, and 2 objective tokens. Still gain 20 points per victory token.
Solar Corona - No change, neutral sides are still the corona-able zones.
Navigational Hazards - 1 station 3 obstacles, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Sensor Net - Halved, place only 2 tokens, but still gain 15 points per victory token.

Here’s the reference for the task force armada format!

Hey @Maturin how’d that tournament go?

A lot of people seem to teally want 225 points to give some commander points buffer.

On 8/21/2017 at 5:19 PM, FrightfulCommand said:

Hi Everybody!

I wrote this as a way of keeping track of a point balance method to playing small games. The 200 point game style is really neat for getting a feel for the new aspects of the game with some friends over a kitchen table. I’m really liking the speed and simplicity. Please enjoy the information I’ve gathered!
This is some testing I did with the balance of the objectives in a 200 point game. These have been tested about 3 times, which gives a decent feel for what they are like.

The main premise is that the larger half of the tokens placed or points gained are kept.
If the change to the objective follows this simple rule, then it is written as “Halved, (keep larger half of tokens or points)”.
If there is literally no change, then “No change”.

Red
Precision Strike - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Advanced Gunnery - Halved, you gain half the points of the destroyed ship instead.
Opening Salvo - No change since you can only gain points based on the number of ships in the point value.
Most Wanted - Halved, you gain half the points of the destroyed ship instead.

Station Assault - Each station has only 5 hull and the points gained is halved to 20.
Blockade Run - Deploy like normal, place obstacles like normal. The scoring zone for second player is still the 1st player’s deployment zone. Scoring is not halved (due to number of ships limiting reward).
- Comments: This objective is the most difficult to translate, and in the case of disputes can be ruled out of choice by tournament organizers.
Close-Range Intel Scan - Place only 1 dust field, no change in scoring, this is limited by half size.
Targeting Beacons - Halved, place only 2 objective tokens.

Yellow
Fleet Ambush - No change
Hyperspace Assault - Halved, only 2 tokens.
Contested Outpost - Halved, each victory token is only worth 10 points.
Fire Lanes - Only the point gain halved, 3 objective tokens, 8 points per victory token.

Jamming Barrier - Halved, replace only one debris field with one dust field.
Planetary Ion Cannon - Halved, only 2 tokens.
Fighter Ambush - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Capture the VIP - Halved, you gain 25 points instead.

Blue
Minefields - Halved, but with 4 obstacles and only 3 tokens.
- Comments: This seemed okay with 3 obstacles and 1 station + 3 tokens.
Intel Sweep - Halved, you gain 38 points instead.
Dangerous Territory - Halved, there are only 1 station + 3 obstacles.
Superior Positions - Halved, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.

Salvage Run - Halved, add only 1 dust field, and 2 objective tokens. Still gain 20 points per victory token.
Solar Corona - No change, neutral sides are still the corona-able zones.
Navigational Hazards - 1 station 3 obstacles, you gain 8 points per victory token instead.
Sensor Net - Halved, place only 2 tokens, but still gain 15 points per victory token.

This looks really good for objective balancing...

17 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Here’s the reference for the task force armada format!

Hey @Maturin how’d that tournament go?

A lot of people seem to teally want 225 points to give some commander points buffer.

We only had three show so had to reschedule. But the three of us played 3 games and each ended up 1-1. The fleets were varied and the format solid. I'll try to find a date for a rescheduled tourney to get more people in, maybe in Jan.

Not sure if this counts as necro...

Armada doesn't have a usual play-day during the week and I was thinking about suggesting this format for our meets instead of full games (Which we'd get one per evening). Is this format better with or without commanders?

On 11/18/2017 at 7:15 AM, Maturin said:

We only had three show so had to reschedule. But the three of us played 3 games and each ended up 1-1. The fleets were varied and the format solid. I'll try to find a date for a rescheduled tourney to get more people in, maybe in Jan.

Hey Maturin, did you wanna give us any batreps or feedback?

5 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Not sure if this counts as necro...

Armada doesn't have a usual play-day during the week and I was thinking about suggesting this format for our meets instead of full games (Which we'd get one per evening). Is this format better with or without commanders?

This is a guide post. Its meant to be necro-ed.

It takes 45 minutes to play through 6 rounds usually. This is a huge boon.

Imo, I designed this with commanders: Without commanders, eventually the game gets very stale and its all about simple ships and efficiency. There's no character to the lists. People generally complain that 200 points + commander is too constricting, but generally, they say the same thing about every point limit (I mean, how many people keep asking for 500 instead of 400.) Also, if you make commanders optional, generally the more efficient fleets with more ships (read more activations ow) will best out the lists with commanders. And again, make the whole list building phase extremely stale and boring. Also this way, the game is consistent: no extra rules. Just reduce by half.

Out of curiosity, was halving the point cost of the commander considered or tested? Considering their effects are all operating on half as many ships that stands to reason to me.

Just now, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

Out of curiosity, was halving the point cost of the commander considered or tested? Considering their effects are all operating on half as many ships that stands to reason to me.

No other costs were halved, so this would be an exception as opposed to a norm. I haven't tested, though maybe others have.

I would not be against it, (except that its a special rule).

Currently, it makes your commander choice a lot more impactful and a weighty decision to base your fleet's identity off of. But that's neither a bad or good thing. The good thing required is identity imo, instead of brute simple efficiency (in which case there are ships that are clear winners, and the game is completely solved).

Other options have been to play 225 points, but that makes the math extremely screwy for objectives.

10 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Hey Maturin, did you wanna give us any batreps or feedback?

Gosh, it's been so long that the details have grown fuzzy - sorry! There were two vets and one newbie, but as I mentioned every held their own. I think I was flying Rebel bombers, the other vet had MC30/HH's , and the newbie had a Vic and a couple of raiders, with light fighter cover. Possibly. Or I could be conflating that with the Perdants tourney, which was very similar!

We kept the objectives to just the original missions for simplicity's sake - seemed to work all right but I wonder if some new missions could be included as well...

I'm going to try running this format, weekly, out of Game Kastle fremont in the SF bay area. I have at least one of our regulars who said he was interested after the tournament, so we'll give it a shot! It should be fun.

16 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I'm going to try running this format, weekly, out of Game Kastle fremont in the SF bay area. I have at least one of our regulars who said he was interested after the tournament, so we'll give it a shot! It should be fun.

Please post some lists and/or batrep if youre willing!

I played 3 games of 225/75 taskforce in an evening this past week. We started around 4:30 pm and were able to finish all three games by 8 pm (including setup and cleanup). We played with full-cost commanders. We used objectives for two of the games, multiplying victory points by 3/5, which seemed to work pretty well at 225 points.

It is a fun format that I would definitely play again, though I think I still prefer 400/134. Honestly, I want to try 450/150 some time.

If this 225 is sustainable one thing i wanted to try was 3v3 with these kinds of lists.

9 hours ago, Norsehound said:

If this 225 is sustainable one thing i wanted to try was 3v3 with these kinds of lists.

Twchincallly mine is 200 pt. But yes I’ve heRd if great results for 2v2 and 3v3

Is anyone interested in adapting this for CC?

My CC group started at 250pts which I think adds some flexibility to fleet building in the campaign or at least that was my thought. It was faster to play so far.

Our Armada group is looking at running some Task Force game days in the future. I was wondering if more consensus had been reached about the 200 vs 225 points? I was thinking of leaving the objective points calculations at the 200 level for simplicity's sake. Any other advice about list building, running the games, or other details would be highly appreciated. I intend to create a PDF of the rules with a tips section based on commentary here. Once finished I will also share it in the thread. Thanks for all the work done so far in creating this intriguing format!

5 hours ago, TheBigLev said:

Our Armada group is looking at running some Task Force game days in the future. I was wondering if more consensus had been reached about the 200 vs 225 points? I was thinking of leaving the objective points calculations at the 200 level for simplicity's sake. Any other advice about list building, running the games, or other details would be highly appreciated. I intend to create a PDF of the rules with a tips section based on commentary here. Once finished I will also share it in the thread. Thanks for all the work done so far in creating this intriguing format!

I much prefer 200 pts. =)

Also, due to objectives: cleaner rules and math. Also, increasing total points but using half based objectives slightly reduces the power of objectives, which are... generally already a bit underwhelming with the exception of the most abusable ones like Most Wanted or Strategically moved Fire Lanes, or Superior Positions max squads.

Hope to see your guide!

If you are going 225, try multiplying the objective points by 3/5 instead of 1/2 in order to avoid the reduction in their power as @Blail Blerg said. Alternatively, 240-point games are exactly 3/5 of the 400 standard. So if you want more exact math, you could go that route.

6 minutes ago, stonestokes said:

If you are going 225, try multiplying the objective points by 3/5 instead of 1/2 in order to avoid the reduction in their power as @Blail Blerg said. Alternatively, 240-point games are exactly 3/5 of the 400 standard. So if you want more exact math, you could go that route.

Let’s punch the elephant in the room right in the face: I didn’t find the increase to 225 to be meaningful. While people say it’s for higher commanders realistically the costly commanders will be costly all the way up to 500 pts. It’s all arbitrary. Why not 240 why not 250? Heck why not 300? Now we’re back to wave 1. (Though imo 300 wasn’t very fun).

Also you can’t actually easily rebalance by 3/5. It’s larger half rule works very cleanly among most objectives.

I think the 225 was mostly to make the squadron math easier (75 exactly).....but i agree with Blail, 200 is fine and great and awesome.

I never got around to posting the battle reports, I'll try to do that tonight, though I don't have the full compositions from my opponents.

I intent to keep running this format every Wednesday into the future, since I think it's more sustainable for people who don't have a lot of time and you still get the meat of armada. The flgs I ran it out of spoke of monthly tournaments... Perhaps in this format it could be interesting.

I think 225 is a fine format for now. The longer we play at this format the sooner "bugs" will come up to challenge if the format is viable.