Great game. Just played my first time through. Itching to play again.

But combat seemed a little odd. Anyone else experiencing this?

What was odd about it? I've been running demos of the game all weekend for FFG at Adepticon. Combat is actually very smooth once you get it down.

Honestly, FFG NEEDS to have videos that show how this stuff works so people can see how to approach combat and other mechanics in a way that's less intimidating and more efficient. I thought Armada's rules seemed a bit awkward until I watched a play through online. After that, I got it. I understood the ebb and flow for how it works. Demoing at a con is great, but it's better if you do the same for everyone who has an Internet connection.

First off, I have to say I really enjoy the game, but I do agree about the combat being wonky. The rest of the gameplay flows smoothly, but once you resolve combat it seems to bog the game down. This, I believe, is due to the tactic cards. There are enough cards in the game to keep track of and the tactic cards seem to be overkill. I will still play the game as intended; however, I wonder if you want to squeeze in a game that runs closer to 2 hours, just eliminate using the tactic cards. Just roll the dice Risk style.

First off, I have to say I really enjoy the game, but I do agree about the combat being wonky. The rest of the gameplay flows smoothly, but once you resolve combat it seems to bog the game down. This, I believe, is due to the tactic cards. There are enough cards in the game to keep track of and the tactic cards seem to be overkill. I will still play the game as intended; however, I wonder if you want to squeeze in a game that runs closer to 2 hours, just eliminate using the tactic cards. Just roll the dice Risk style.

But surely without the tactics cards the combat is too simplistic? Just rock up with your units and roll dice, compare the results - done.

Tactics card add that little bit of spice/hidden information

It also makes the choice of leader important. Otherwise they're all pretty much the same. Especially in starter rules

First off, I have to say I really enjoy the game, but I do agree about the combat being wonky. The rest of the gameplay flows smoothly, but once you resolve combat it seems to bog the game down. This, I believe, is due to the tactic cards. There are enough cards in the game to keep track of and the tactic cards seem to be overkill. I will still play the game as intended; however, I wonder if you want to squeeze in a game that runs closer to 2 hours, just eliminate using the tactic cards. Just roll the dice Risk style.

But surely without the tactics cards the combat is too simplistic? Just rock up with your units and roll dice, compare the results - done.

Tactics card add that little bit of spice/hidden information

This is all the combat in Twilight Imperium 3 is or Risk or Axis and Allies. Roll dice , assign hits, repeat. Lot of people enjoy those games. This has the added benefit of cards that mitigate your luck some. I enjoy the cards they add just an extra enough to make it fun. Reminds me of Forbidden Stars only simpler.

I agree the tactic cards add more depth to combat by not leaving resolution in just the "luck of the dice." This game can last 3+ hours and I merely suggest eliminating the tactic cards to shave time off the overall time. Sometimes life doesn't allow for long game sessions and this could be a way to squeeze in a 2 hour game and not take away from the experience.

We found the combat to move very quickly, and was very straightforward.

As I learned one turn when I moved my leader away from a combat area (was playing Imperial), without the aid of defensive tactic cards that come from your leader's presence, the Rebels overran a more powerful ground force and took control of the planet.

Fits in quite nicely for the logic, and theme.

Great game. Just played my first time through. Itching to play again.

But combat seemed a little odd. Anyone else experiencing this?

I think you need to clarify what you found odd about it. Odd can mean you think its to simple, to complex, to much unlike game X, to random or not random enough.

Two people can agree that something is odd, but mean completely opposite things when they say its odd.

I agree the tactic cards add more depth to combat by not leaving resolution in just the "luck of the dice." This game can last 3+ hours and I merely suggest eliminating the tactic cards to shave time off the overall time. Sometimes life doesn't allow for long game sessions and this could be a way to squeeze in a 2 hour game and not take away from the experience.

I don't think removing tactics cards takes that much time off the game. It would shorten things a bit, sure. But not an entire third of the playtime like you suggested.

Removal of the tactic cards undermines the effectiveness of leaders.

The good mission leaders tend to have lackluster combat ability, while the good combat leaders have less impressive mission skills (there are of course some that are great at both). Cutting the tactics cards suddenly undermines several leaders.

It also completely throws off the balance of the game and you no longer need to place leaders to defend.

This is a key argument against saving any time. If you don't defend with leaders, then you have more leaders to take actions with. Those actions could include more missions or more combat which would eat up any time saved by slightly shorter combat encounters in the first place.

Beyond that, leader placement for combat is a pretty big strategic element. Attack an important force and have them play a leader to defend, now that battle group is locked in place. If they don't place a leader, your tactic cards could really change the course of the battle since they don't have any. Take a look at the space battle towards the end of the Dice Tower playthrough. Sam attacks and Tom decides NOT to play a leader to defend so he wouldn't lock down a large fleet (DS, 2 SD, and some TIEs) Sam's dice, plus tactic cards allowed him to destroy the 2 SD, and with the help of an objective card, he destroyed the DS also. It was a major hit to Tom's military might, and Sam's losses were minimal. Had Tom played a leader and pulled an offensive damage card, he could have saved the DS by taking out the fighters. Had he pulled a defensive card, he could have saved both SDs. It created a tactical decision that cost Tom dearly.

Your one minor change (removal of tactic cards) reduces the tactical and strategic decisions in a war game, throws off the balance of the value of leaders, and provides you with more overall actions. In effect, I think this would give a slight to moderate advantage to the Imperials overall when you consider the effects this would have on various missions, actions, and combat.

Also, some people may enjoy RISK, just like some people may enjoy Monopoly, but that doesn't make it a good example to use to defend something like this. Axis and Allies combat system is fundamentally different. No dice limits, no leaders, and the fact that combat IS the game make it a different factor all together.