I'm probably just scarred from WH40K where if you don't tie one hand behind your back and play with a blancmange on your head, people practically accuse you of trying to spoil their fun. I haven't seen 7th edition, but I think there's even something in there about both players having to agree to the models each other use. Can you imagine in Armada a paragraph stating that if the other player doesn't like you fielding ISD-IIs, that you shouldn't include them in your list!

I think it's natural for 40K to be that way. Because it's a wider hobby involving more expense and time and art commitment, people invest so much more of themselves into it. You have to have a greater level of emotional investment to play that game than you really need for Armada. Once that doesn't bear fruit - especially for narrative players - it can be a tremendous disappointment, which really brings out the worst in people. I never played 40K to that extent, but got close enough to feel some burn on the narrativist side.

But why is the 100 format the favorite of almost everyone? Because it is the most balanced.

I disagree. I think it is the most popular because it is defined as the official standard by FFG. I think, had FFG never told us what the 'standard' game should be, there would be no consensus on the issue and we'd be seeing tournaments all over the place with a wide range of point sizes. I think most of them would hover in the 75 to 125 points value, but there would be nothing like the homogeneity we see at the moment.

And I don't think the game is any more balanced at 100 points than it is at any other points value. We all know what is good in X Wing, and what is bad. Changing the points value simply shifts the parameters a little. It doesn't unbalance the game.

There may be some shift in points effectiveness as you go up in scale, especially when you get into epic. However, I don't think that shift is significant enough to really bother thinking about too much.

If someone is breaking their head about the points effectiveness at different scales, they're probably not getting into the spirit of things to begin with.

I think it's useful to get to know your game partners and learn what sort of jollies they get from the game. Don't hold out high hopes for great games with people who have very different itches to scratch.

I think you're right that the 100-point-6-asteroid-death match is the lowest common denominator, but LCDs do serve a purpose in a community in which people do have different expectations. See them as a venue in which to meet people and probe them for ways in which they think the game would be more fun. Hopefully, you'll meet people with similar interests as you have. Until such time, lower your expectations and love the games for what they are, even if they could be better with the right gaming partners.

I think it's useful to get to know your game partners and learn what sort of jollies they get from the game. Don't hold out high hopes for great games with people who have very different itches to scratch.

Ugh, so true!

I think you're right that the 100-point-6-asteroid-death match is the lowest common denominator, but LCDs do serve a purpose in a community in which people do have different expectations. See them as a venue in which to meet people and probe them for ways in which they think the game would be more fun. Hopefully, you'll meet people with similar interests as you have. Until such time, lower your expectations and love the games for what they are, even if they could be better with the right gaming partners.

You're right, and I feel I should point out that this is only a minor problem for me since my local group is open to narrative campaigns and we most frequently play at 150 points (which I personally think is a much better limit than 100 points since it cuts down on the domination of arc-dodging aces, but that's a whole other discussion). I just think it's sad that so many games manage to get away with not having a lowest common denominator, and they seem to be richer and more varied for it. I certainly feel like it does more harm than good for X Wing and Armada, and it's always slightly frustrating when reading on the forums because all the discussion revolves around that lowest common denominator. No one wants to discuss how effective VSDs are at 500 or 600 points, everyone is just so focused on the 400 point tournament games.

No one wants to discuss how effective VSDs are at 500 or 600 points, everyone is just so focused on the 400 point tournament games.

Admiral Nelson would probably love talking with you, since he, y'know, does those sorts of topics...

But why is the 100 format the favorite of almost everyone? Because it is the most balanced.[/size]

I disagree. I think it is the most popular because it is defined as the official standard by FFG. I think, had FFG never told us what the 'standard' game should be, there would be no consensus on the issue and we'd be seeing tournaments all over the place with a wide range of point sizes. I think most of them would hover in the 75 to 125 points value, but there would be nothing like the homogeneity we see at the moment.

And I don't think the game is any more balanced at 100 points than it is at any other points value. We all know what is good in X Wing, and what is bad. Changing the points value simply shifts the parameters a little. It doesn't unbalance the game.

May I suggest to you the official FFG escalation tournament format then? You'll play a 60, 90, 120 and 150 game in the same day.

May I suggest to you the official FFG escalation tournament format then? You'll play a 60, 90, 120 and 150 game in the same day.

I really do appreciate the suggestion, and I think the Escalation format is really cool, but it also emphasises my point that you recommend to me another official way to play the game. People are always so keen to stick to the official guidelines!

I'm lucky that my local group is very open minded and just a huge bunch of Star Wars nerds so we play heaps of different missions and mostly tend to play X Wing at 150 points and Armada at 500. The only reason I bother having this discussion with people online is because I get depressed when the forum conversations are overwhelmingly about how to make the best 100 or 400 point lists, and how to work within the official guidelines. I'd love more discussion about home-brewed fleets and commanders, home-brewed scenarios, battles of different sizes, campaigns, leagues etc.

But I do appreciate the constructive suggestion. Most people would just say "Well, suck it up buttercup, it is what it is"

... I feel I should point out that this is only a minor problem for me since my local group is open to narrative campaigns and we most frequently play at 150 points...

I am curious, how did your local group form? Are you a group of friends that were a social group before you started playing Armada/X-Wing/whatever, or did you bond over the game?

Beyond what I was writing about before, I think it's useful to point out that many people talk about the strengths/weaknesses of the game, as we have done here. However, it's not really all about the games themselves - it's about the players.

FFG has given us a great LCD platform that solves the biggest hurdle - getting people together. As long as people buy stuff, that's all they need, and a keeping the game competitive helps them sell miniatures. We should not fault them for meeting their main objective.

Beyond that, I think any efforts they make to enhance the game over and above LCD, it's a matter of diminishing returns for them. Narrative gamers come in so many different playstyle preferences that they can't possibly cater to all of it. And, I think they made a decent effort with Epic and their online mission platform, but I don't think it really paid off for them as much as they (or you and I would have) hoped for.

May I suggest to you the official FFG escalation tournament format then? You'll play a 60, 90, 120 and 150 game in the same day.

I really do appreciate the suggestion, and I think the Escalation format is really cool, but it also emphasises my point that you recommend to me another official way to play the game. People are always so keen to stick to the official guidelines!

I'm lucky that my local group is very open minded and just a huge bunch of Star Wars nerds so we play heaps of different missions and mostly tend to play X Wing at 150 points and Armada at 500. The only reason I bother having this discussion with people online is because I get depressed when the forum conversations are overwhelmingly about how to make the best 100 or 400 point lists, and how to work within the official guidelines. I'd love more discussion about home-brewed fleets and commanders, home-brewed scenarios, battles of different sizes, campaigns, leagues etc.

But I do appreciate the constructive suggestion. Most people would just say "Well, suck it up buttercup, it is what it is"

Well, I was just pointing out that there is other ''official'' way of playing the game than the 100 pts standard deathmatch.

As for people always sticking to the official guidelines, I think that you would be surprise how much a lot community tend to try different mode when playing casually, or try different formula for tournaments. Around here, we like to play battle royale games where everyone pick a ship up to 34 pts (to prevent Soontir with PtL, Autothrusters, Stealth Device or Miranda with TLT from dominating the game) and just laugh while forming alliance or backstabing our temporary partners. Or 3 players game. Or 600 points 6 players game. I know of a community that did a tournament in a serie of Hunger Game matches. I'm personally not keen on missions game, but a couple of players around here like them and play them. Or the Coop fanmade module Heroes of the Aturi Cluster. Or come up with their own Death Star trench scenario. Like Michael and me already said, FFG suggest in their season kits to try different mode, or to use it to start a league.

But you have to understand that from the start, from Wave 1, FFG created this game with a 100 pts limit in mind. They even priced the X-Wing 21 pts so that you could not take more than 4 in a squad. Since they created the game with this point value in mind, it's only natural that their more official tournaments (Store, Regional, National, Worlds) follow that guideline. Since that's the mode played at the ''highest'' level, most of the discussion online will be about this particular format. And competitive players are the most vocal. Why would a casual player ask advice about his squad? He doesn't care if it is efficient or not, he just want to have fun with it. Heck, why would he lose his time on a forum? And you see once in a while a player asking advise about which ship he should take for a 1 ship battle royale, and everybody give him tips.

FFG even created a program where players can add their own mission accessible from the X-Wing home page, and there seems to be missions added every day. You can even leave a comment if you feel like it.

Sure, 100 pts deathmatch is the ''official'' tournament mode, but FFG is far from enforcing it, except for their Championships. It's up to the community to decide how they organize their other seasonal tournaments, or casual nights. And I'm sure that most community doesn't stop at playing only 100 pts games.

I am curious, how did your local group form? Are you a group of friends that were a social group before you started playing Armada/X-Wing/whatever, or did you bond over the game?

We've been a gaming group for about 18 years now I think. We all bonded as a result of gaming. I was already playing WHFB when I met the group, and soon after another WHFB player joined. The two of us are now the only remaining members of that original group. He is my main gaming buddy, and we've played countless different games together from Confrontation to Flames of War to Canvas Eagles to BFG to SAGA to AT-43 to Warmachine, etc. We have a pretty stable group of 6-8 with another half dozen people who come in semi-regularly as well, but only about 4 people actually play Armada at the moment.

I think because we all started gaming with 'proper' wargames rather than board games or card games, we bring a slightly different mind set to the game than people who have never played a wargame before. Almost without exception, wargames do not have a 'default' game mode like Armada and X Wing do, so we're much more open to the idea of playing the game in different ways.

I am curious, how did your local group form? Are you a group of friends that were a social group before you started playing Armada/X-Wing/whatever, or did you bond over the game?

We've been a gaming group for about 18 years now I think. We all bonded as a result of gaming. I was already playing WHFB when I met the group, and soon after another WHFB player joined. The two of us are now the only remaining members of that original group. He is my main gaming buddy, and we've played countless different games together from Confrontation to Flames of War to Canvas Eagles to BFG to SAGA to AT-43 to Warmachine, etc. We have a pretty stable group of 6-8 with another half dozen people who come in semi-regularly as well, but only about 4 people actually play Armada at the moment.

I think because we all started gaming with 'proper' wargames rather than board games or card games, we bring a slightly different mind set to the game than people who have never played a wargame before. Almost without exception, wargames do not have a 'default' game mode like Armada and X Wing do, so we're much more open to the idea of playing the game in different ways.

It sounds like you've got the kind of gaming group that most of us could only dream about.

My gaming society is probably larger, but vastly more ad hoc and underconnected. If we didn't have the 100-point-6-asteroid-Death-Match format and tournament support, we'd probably have half the numbers that we presently do. Tournaments are what brings our community together.

This sounds like the discussions around Warhammer Fantasy's destruction in favor of Age of Sigmar. The "competition prevents fun narrative games" argument that GW made.

wow, this thread has digressed.

But still, coming back to a topic you started to see it at 7 pages long

wow, this thread has digressed.

But still, coming back to a topic you started to see it at 7 pages long

The original purpose of the thread seems a bit negative anyway. "After Armada, X-Wing sucks."

I think we've had some good discussion since then.

X Wing is really starting to get bloated now. I was looking at one ship build the other day, I think it was an X Wing, and it struck me that to run that particular ship build you needed half a dozen cards on the table, all from different expansion packs. That one ship was something like $100. It might have been a Y wing actually. I think it was guidance chips, BTL-A4, TLT, targeting astro and some ordnance or other with extra munitions. That's the Y Wing, Scum and Villainy, T-70, K Wing, and something from wave 8 with guidance chips.

And that's not getting into the 'standard' builds for things like Interceptors or TIE Advanced that require the purchase of cross-faction and Epic ships.

X Wing is getting out of control.

You mean similar to how you need to buy a Nebulon B expansion pack for every Xi-7 you want to run? Fun times for Imperial-only players! Or similar to how for a TRC90 swarm you would have to buy as many MC30s as you have CR90s?

This is the sales model. You're either on board with it, or you're not, but don't claim that Armada is any different from X-wing in this respect.

While true if you want to do those lists but they are not required to be competitive in Armada.

However, not having TLT's in X-Wing seems like huge handicap

Nor is TLT required to be competitive. It's a good upgrade, but you are far from being handicaped by not taking it. In the last 3 tournaments I went, I didn't have a ship with TLT in my squad and finished first, fourth and first.

It's true that X-Wing have a lot of upgrade cards, and some balancing fix came into the game this way, but don't forget that the game is now entering its 8th Wave+Aces and Epic ship. Armada is only in its second wave. The comparaison is not really fair. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm pretty sure that it will be the same in Armada if it gets to 8 wave.

wow, this thread has digressed.

But still, coming back to a topic you started to see it at 7 pages long

The original purpose of the thread seems a bit negative anyway. "After Armada, X-Wing sucks."

I think we've had some good discussion since then.

My original intent was more praise towards FFG in how they have refined their game system mechanics. X-wing is still fun to play, and at the moment the only thing I can play Wilst I am away with work.

Think of X-Wing as ANH, its great on its own, is a fun, wacky ride.

Armada is ESB. Its just better, in every way. Its a deeper, richer experience.To quote Dano quoting, "it's got more power, more acceleration"

I had this whole big spiel ready to write, then I got called out by a friend. Well, I guess as a bit of a coincidence, we got to play a game of X-wing after a few months. Just a typical LCD match. It lasted about 40 minutes and I thought 'there is something tantalizingly fun just at the corners.' Seeing as we still had quite a bit of time to burn, I asked, “hey, mind if we try this again? Like, a hundred and fifty points, three by four table, and call it a 'break point' when one of us lose half our fighters in points? You know, to keep it to a good time.” He looked confused for a second, then just sort of smirked, saying 'rack em up'. And now I remember how I like X-wing.

X-wing is a fiddly game with some burs in its gameplay compared to Armada and I suspect that Armada's fluidity is a direct result of lessons learned in X-wing, but it has the potential to be astoundingly fun. It's not a game I'd play in tournaments because it seems just a little too formulaic in how top-notch players have acclimated themselves to the whole thing, but I'm pretty interested in trying all those nareseen scenarios.

I do think that both X-wing and Armada have a case of 'officialitis' where the tournament gold standard is the only default that many players consider, just like I know that some people object to using custom models because 'it's against the rules' even if those are tournament-only rules. People tend to flock to those who give them guidance.

Players are what makes the game for me, regardless of the system: the system and its flaws generally just dictate the extent and extremes of the player's natural inclination. A loose 'fun' system gives more leeway, and abusive players will abuse said leeway. Create a tight and generally well balanced game, and you typically get a more balanced experience.

Aye Reegsk, you basically nailed it for me. WFB 7E 'Daemons', 'nuff said. As a sort of bookend for me on the GW battlefront, they made their game like a toolbox for entertainment:, but there's a lot of combinations meant for customization that just end up being too powerful. They once made some very fun games that had the tremendous potential to generate great memories. --sighs, fondly remembering the glorious Vostroyans leading a bayonet charge into the mouth of hell to the tune of Farewell to Slavianka playing on a dilapidated Ipod- If anything, FFG and most of the industry at large learned from the mistakes made by that titan, and they learned how to Eren Jaeger it up.

Armada was not meant to replace X-Wing. It is neither better nor worse. Both are excellent games on their own. I prefer Armada but I think liking one over the other says more about what you are looking for in a game rather than which one is the better game.

Except that Armada is not a refinement of X-Wing, it's an entirely different game. X-Wing and Armada have nothing in common except that they are both Star Wars games in space. The movements are differents, the planning is different, the actions are differents, the attack is different, the order of play is different, everything is different. You don't play X-Wing expecting the same things from Armada because you'll be disappointed; You don't play Armada expecting X-Wing 2.0 because you'll be disappointed. Like Kite said, there is no better game, only what you are personally looking for in a game.

I'm not sure what you were expecting from your first post really, if you were expecting something at all. Posting that Armada is better than X-Wing on the Armada forum is just like posting that X-Wing is better than Armada on the X-Wing Forum. It will gives you some likes by other people that share your point of view and then it will either go into a community discussion about how Armada really is better (obviously, we're on the Armada forum so everybody at least love this game), positive reinforcement that you picked the best game out of the two; or it will turn into a let's bash the other game because we have nothing else to do except wait for FFG to give some news. In the end, all it might do is say: ''hey Armada players that never tried X-Wing, don't bother because Armada is better.''Maybe post it again but in the X-Wing forum, you'll get a more divided opinion and people more encline to disagree with you.

Anyway, I'm glad that you like Armada, it is indeed a very good game. For my part, I prefer X-Wing. I like how fast it is, how you have to make calculated risk (clearly gambling here) and how a game can turnover pretty fast if you're not careful. Clearly, that is only my opinion, but sadly (because I do like Armada) one shared by most of the community around here. No Armada tournament scene, I only have 1 other player to spare with. I'll finally go to a Store Championship next week, I have to drive for 1h30 and looking at the event, I'm not sure we'll be more than 4-5 players. Meanwhile, there is X-Wing night (sometimes 2) every week, a tournament every month, and more if I include the next community (like I did for Armada) and we always get 10-20 players. A lot of those players tried Armada but decided to go back to X-Wing.

wow, this thread has digressed.

But still, coming back to a topic you started to see it at 7 pages long

The original purpose of the thread seems a bit negative anyway. "After Armada, X-Wing sucks."

I think we've had some good discussion since then.

My original intent was more praise towards FFG in how they have refined their game system mechanics. X-wing is still fun to play, and at the moment the only thing I can play Wilst I am away with work.

Think of X-Wing as ANH, its great on its own, is a fun, wacky ride.

Armada is ESB. Its just better, in every way. Its a deeper, richer experience.To quote Dano quoting, "it's got more power, more acceleration"

Except that Armada is not a refinement of X-Wing, it's an entirely different game. X-Wing and Armada have nothing in common except that they are both Star Wars games in space. The movements are differents, the planning is different, the actions are differents, the attack is different, the order of play is different, everything is different. You don't play X-Wing expecting the same things from Armada because you'll be disappointed; You don't play Armada expecting X-Wing 2.0 because you'll be disappointed. Like Kite said, there is no better game, only what you are personally looking for in a game.

I'm not sure what you were expecting from your first post really, if you were expecting something at all. Posting that Armada is better than X-Wing on the Armada forum is just like posting that X-Wing is better than Armada on the X-Wing Forum. It will gives you some likes by other people that share your point of view and then it will either go into a community discussion about how Armada really is better (obviously, we're on the Armada forum so everybody at least love this game), positive reinforcement that you picked the best game out of the two; or it will turn into a let's bash the other game because we have nothing else to do except wait for FFG to give some news. In the end, all it might do is say: ''hey Armada players that never tried X-Wing, don't bother because Armada is better.''Maybe post it again but in the X-Wing forum, you'll get a more divided opinion and people more encline to disagree with you.

Anyway, I'm glad that you like Armada, it is indeed a very good game. For my part, I prefer X-Wing. I like how fast it is, how you have to make calculated risk (clearly gambling here) and how a game can turnover pretty fast if you're not careful. Clearly, that is only my opinion, but sadly (because I do like Armada) one shared by most of the community around here. No Armada tournament scene, I only have 1 other player to spare with. I'll finally go to a Store Championship next week, I have to drive for 1h30 and looking at the event, I'm not sure we'll be more than 4-5 players. Meanwhile, there is X-Wing night (sometimes 2) every week, a tournament every month, and more if I include the next community (like I did for Armada) and we always get 10-20 players. A lot of those players tried Armada but decided to go back to X-Wing.

You're not the only one to call out the OP. More level-headed, less adversarial than I was.

I fully agree with your post, and I am experiencing the same problems with Armada in my community. X-wing is fine, we have plenty of tournaments. With Armada, although we try to keep having the same amount of tournaments, we have a very low turnout, some people bought into the game then regretted it, some only play at tournaments because we provide them ships. People that were enthusiastic about Armada are playing less and less, preferring X-wing or even random boardgames on "Star Wars night".

I think I need to apologise to anyone who thought I was being trollish or inflamatory.

It was not my intent in anyway. Purely to write down some observations after playing X-Wing for the first time since Armada was released.

To say its a completely different game system is a broad stroke though. There are mechanics that it shares with x-wing, that I think have been refined

1. It is prepainted miniatures with a base with info. That base now has inbuild shield dials

2. You use a bespoke movement tool(s) to move your ships

3. You use Bespoke (Kevin McLeod would love this) dice to perform attacks (and defence)

4. Custom tokens are used to represent effects

5. Circular dials are used to represent preplanned actions

6. Abitary measurement tool is used

7. List building consists of ship cards and upgrade cards

8. The tournament system is near identical.

It was these similarities and how the two game systems utilise them that I was comparing.

Again, my purpose was not to incite. I have been far to long away from getting an Armada fix because of work and am feeling the withdrawals that X-Wing does not quite satisfy

I think I need to apologise to anyone who thought I was being trollish or inflamatory.

It was not my intent in anyway. Purely to write down some observations after playing X-Wing for the first time since Armada was released.

To say its a completely different game system is a broad stroke though. There are mechanics that it shares with x-wing, that I think have been refined

1. It is prepainted miniatures with a base with info. That base now has inbuild shield dials

2. You use a bespoke movement tool(s) to move your ships

3. You use Bespoke (Kevin McLeod would love this) dice to perform attacks (and defence)

4. Custom tokens are used to represent effects

5. Circular dials are used to represent preplanned actions

6. Abitary measurement tool is used

7. List building consists of ship cards and upgrade cards

8. The tournament system is near identical.

It was these similarities and how the two game systems utilise them that I was comparing.

Again, my purpose was not to incite. I have been far to long away from getting an Armada fix because of work and am feeling the withdrawals that X-Wing does not quite satisfy

All you listed here are just components, it's not game mecanics. And while you consider some of them as a refinement, I consider some as a step backwards that would not fit well in X-Wing. Like the shields being on the base instead of tokens on the cards. Works wonderfully in Armada, but would be a mess in X-Wing.

As for game mecanics, there is not much alike. The game goes completely differently. The most obvious differences are:

-In X-Wing you must plan all your maneuvers in advance, while in Armada you can premesure and decide where you want to go only when it's that ship turn to activate.

-In X-Wing all ship moves, then every ship will attack. In Armada, you attack before moving.

-In X-Wing you defend with dice and modifiers. In Armada, you defend with tokens.

-In X-Wing range will either help the attacker or the defender by giving him one dice, and there is just one kind of attack dice. In Armada, there is 3 kind of attack dice and range determine what kind of dice you can use.

-In X-Wing your ship move fast and can do some hit and run, while in Armada, there is a feeling of mass, especially with bigger ship. You can't turn around on a dime like you can in X-Wing.

Both games are set in the same universe, in space, and from the same company, so of course there will be some similarities, like asteroids or debris in both game, or the dice being 8 sided. But I'm actually surprise how much those two game plays completely differently. Kudos to FFG for making 2 wonderful games. But saying that one is better than the other is just giving your personal opinion, not stating fact.

I think I need to apologise to anyone who thought I was being trollish or inflamatory.

It was not my intent in anyway. Purely to write down some observations after playing X-Wing for the first time since Armada was released.

To say its a completely different game system is a broad stroke though. There are mechanics that it shares with x-wing, that I think have been refined

1. It is prepainted miniatures with a base with info. That base now has inbuild shield dials

2. You use a bespoke movement tool(s) to move your ships

3. You use Bespoke (Kevin McLeod would love this) dice to perform attacks (and defence)

4. Custom tokens are used to represent effects

5. Circular dials are used to represent preplanned actions

6. Abitary measurement tool is used

7. List building consists of ship cards and upgrade cards

8. The tournament system is near identical.

It was these similarities and how the two game systems utilise them that I was comparing.

Again, my purpose was not to incite. I have been far to long away from getting an Armada fix because of work and am feeling the withdrawals that X-Wing does not quite satisfy

All you listed here are just components, it's not game mecanics. And while you consider some of them as a refinement, I consider some as a step backwards that would not fit well in X-Wing. Like the shields being on the base instead of tokens on the cards. Works wonderfully in Armada, but would be a mess in X-Wing.

As for game mecanics, there is not much alike. The game goes completely differently. The most obvious differences are:

-In X-Wing you must plan all your maneuvers in advance, while in Armada you can premesure and decide where you want to go only when it's that ship turn to activate.

-In X-Wing all ship moves, then every ship will attack. In Armada, you attack before moving.

-In X-Wing you defend with dice and modifiers. In Armada, you defend with tokens.

-In X-Wing range will either help the attacker or the defender by giving him one dice, and there is just one kind of attack dice. In Armada, there is 3 kind of attack dice and range determine what kind of dice you can use.

-In X-Wing your ship move fast and can do some hit and run, while in Armada, there is a feeling of mass, especially with bigger ship. You can't turn around on a dime like you can in X-Wing.

Both games are set in the same universe, in space, and from the same company, so of course there will be some similarities, like asteroids or debris in both game, or the dice being 8 sided. But I'm actually surprise how much those two game plays completely differently. Kudos to FFG for making 2 wonderful games. But saying that one is better than the other is just giving your personal opinion, not stating fact.

I guess that comes down to how I define mechanics verse components.

Mechanic - a gameplay element that, when combined together, generates the rules or system

Components - plastic and carboard bits.

The Rules for each game are different, by employing same or similar mechanics in different ways.

But yes I completely agree, this is, and all it ever was, my personal opinion based on the observations I made.

We have to keep in mind FFG made two separate games. I had trouble adjusting to armada mechanics at first and honestly some posts in this community helped me figure it out. If they had not made each one separate I would think less of both games. You look at them and can tell both were created by the same people, but I at least can see built each game ground up differently. A post I saw earlier giving suggestions for play stressed taking your time in Armada. Fleet revolutions take time and the way armada is designed reflects this. X-wing is high speed, quick reaction, adrenaline fueled fighters, and game play captures this as well as a board game can. I freely admit I like Armada more personally, but I still appreciate X-wing.

I think a lot of people's preferences boil down to the amount of social interaction they want in their hobby. With a lower price point, easier rules and faster playing time that all lends well to a tournament setting, X-Wing is likely the better choice for the more social gamer.

Being a gaming fungus myself, I prefer playing with close friends who are not interested in competitions and are more entrenched in Star Wars lore. For this, Armada is perfect. I'm that guy who prefers his video games with single-player campaigns rather than multiplayer slugfests. I can see how Armada can be played to a high level but there currently no Armada tournaments where I live because of X-Wing. To be honest, that's how I prefer it to be.

But if people insist on having a metric in determining the "better game", the only non-subjective criteria I can think of is how much money FFG is making out of it. With all the press it continues to receive, X-Wing is clearly the winner.

Thanks everyone. Although there was a little nastiness, I've learned a lot from this thread. I cross-posted this question in the X-Wing forum as well. Wondering what the responses will be like here:

While at the not so LGS yesterday I was drooling over their large selection of X-Wing. As I've posted elsewhere, I've been overthinking my next purchase. So far I've only bought the TFA Core and trying to figure out the best way to grow from there. That however is the topic of another thread.

While I was there with my college-aged son, he mentioned that Armada had "all the cool ships Dad." My question is this: My son has only played a single game of X-Wing with me and had a fair amount of trouble figuring out the maneuvers. Unless he was physically behind the ship he was having a very difficult time visualizing the maneuvers. This sort of put him off. He is still willing to play but so far it is far from his favorite gaming experience.

Because he expressed interest in Armada I'm tempted to start looking at that game system. Can anyone give me a brief overview and comparison of the 2 game systems? Mechanics, play time, learning curve, cost, etc. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank You.

P.S. If cross-posting is disallowed then I apologize in advance. I looked but didn't find anything prohibiting it. Just looking for perhaps a different perspective. Thanks again,

P.P.S. I felt this question belonged here instead of creating a new and somewhat duplicate thread. If I was in error, again I apologize. Forgive a new guy.