Watching Xwing has made me worry about the future of Armada. I have not been truly interested in a Xwing wave in quite some time as the ships seem cartoony or just more of the same. I worry that if FFG tries to keep up with multiple waves a year, Armada will become watered down in the same manner as Xwing.

Well, half of W3 and W4 are from a cartoon, so your fears have already been realized.

Well, half of W3 and W4 are from a cartoon, so your fears have already been realized.

My issue isn't that they are from the cartoons, but that they are cartoony AND that they are just more plastic with little difference (IMO). It may not matter for Armada since capital ships tend not to look cartoony (although the MkI looks ridiculous and I refuse to buy it).

I'm not really getting this. The recent minis look FANTASTIC. The Shadow Caster is gorgeous, the protectorate fighter is hot, they even seem to have made the ugly ARC-170 look pretty good. The Ghost is significantly less cartoony than in the cartoon. The only recent(ish) ship I think that doesn't look great is the K-Wing and there really wasn't anything FFG could do to make that ship look good.

Mechanically I am a little concerned. Wave 9 seems like it is throwing more than a few mechanics into the mix that are complicated just because they have run out of simple things to do. It also looks like they have go seriously overboard on the "can't do anything with a turret, have to shove attack arcs down their throats" vibe.

The ARC was beautiful. The FFG model honestly looks.... eww. What the heck? It doesn't look like the ARC i wanted.

No they didn't.

Including some fake Gungan craft with Jar-Jar as the pilot or that "this is sooo videogames" overdesigned monstrosity from Force Unleashed or the Naboo fighter with Lil' Annie* as the pilot - THAT would be jumping the shark.

*Read in Jar-Jar's voice for extra outrage

People ***** about every wave.

Right now most of it is focused on the Pilots flying the ARC fighters instead of their As, Ys and Xs per comics/novels.

Armada's fine, the cartoon Interdictor is pretty, flotillas look cool from strategic standpoint so the rebels cartoon caused no harm.

The one problem I see with the X-Wing stuff is this:

The Shadow Caster looks awful and yet so interesting. But fugly.... but interesting...

...but really really ugly.

BTW: multiple releases in a year? You think late Q3 is not going to mean early Q2 next year? ;-)

Wasn't Armada W3 split into two waves because of supply chain issues?

The sky is not falling. (yet)

That's why I love not playing competitively.... I plan on getting one of each of wave 4, a pair of each of wave 3, and then being done. That is plenty of variety and it all "works" for me:)

That's why I love not playing competitively.... I plan on getting one of each of wave 4, a pair of each of wave 3, and then being done. That is plenty of variety and it all "works" for me:)

You say that, but then they will come out with even more Prack.

Delicious delicious Prack...

Armada's fine, the cartoon Interdictor is pretty, flotillas look cool from strategic standpoint so the rebels cartoon caused no harm.

The only recent(ish) ship I think that doesn't look great is the K-Wing and there really wasn't anything FFG could do to make that ship look good.

I'm sorry, I am going to nit-pick. Yes, they absolutely could have done something about this monstrosity. They (appear to have) ditched the Neb-B2 or Lancer in favor of pulling the Raider out of someone's backside somewhere, they sure as heck could have done the same for the K-Wing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Raider design, I like it. I'm saying if you can replace one "bad" design, you can sure as heck replace an even worse one.

Trivial complaint over with.

I do wonder, with the idea of gunners, if we aren't going to see more focus on odd fire arcs. Fighters designed to do "flyby broadsides, rear facing support emplacements, etc." I mean, why make a torpedo bomber that has to fly at its target head on when you could design one that can just fly past the entire long axis of its target, dumping shot after shot out the port or starboard fuselage?

The Y-Wing was supposed to have a gunner (before they removed the gunner couch to reduce weight and fixed the turret in a forward arc), will we see updated cards giving the Y-Wing a turret? What about "older, slower turrets?" Guns allowed to fire into any arc, but can only shift one adjacent firing arc per turn?

You may be right, FFG may indeed be looking at new or simply theme/interesting mechanics to help keep things fresh. Whether they are hit or miss? Time will tell.

are we all so old on here that we are using the "Jump the shark" reference?

How many people even know what that means?

are we all so old on here that we are using the "Jump the shark" reference?

How many people even know what that means?

Alright, Granddad, settle down. Most of us weren't alive when the show was on.

In fairness a lot of us weren't alive when Star Wars was released, so...

are we all so old on here that we are using the "Jump the shark" reference?

How many people even know what that means?

how on earth is there a thread about to much to fast on this forum??? Wasn't the general term just 8 weeks ago that we had been forgotten? Lol I love this place

not even close. The wave looks awesome. The fighter from rebels looks good and the ARC 170 would logically be used by rebels and even some scum who were able to appropriate some outdated technology.

This is nowhere near "jumping the shark"

Jumping the shark? Only if they put in UA sillyness. Plenty of material in the Cartoons, Movies and the few approved books to go off.

They've still got a ways to go before they've jumped the shark. As long as the gameplay is there I'm not inclined to get too twisted up about the source of the vessel.

how on earth is there a thread about to much to fast on this forum??? Wasn't the general term just 8 weeks ago that we had been forgotten? Lol I love this place

I was certainly not complaining. I would have taken Wave 3 as the only one this year and been very happy about it.

'Jumping the shark' is fine, start to worry when they are 'Nuking the fridge'

The only recent(ish) ship I think that doesn't look great is the K-Wing and there really wasn't anything FFG could do to make that ship look good.

I'm sorry, I am going to nit-pick. Yes, they absolutely could have done something about this monstrosity. They (appear to have) ditched the Neb-B2 or Lancer in favor of pulling the Raider out of someone's backside somewhere, they sure as heck could have done the same for the K-Wing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Raider design, I like it. I'm saying if you can replace one "bad" design, you can sure as heck replace an even worse one.

Trivial complaint over with.

I do wonder, with the idea of gunners, if we aren't going to see more focus on odd fire arcs. Fighters designed to do "flyby broadsides, rear facing support emplacements, etc." I mean, why make a torpedo bomber that has to fly at its target head on when you could design one that can just fly past the entire long axis of its target, dumping shot after shot out the port or starboard fuselage?

The Y-Wing was supposed to have a gunner (before they removed the gunner couch to reduce weight and fixed the turret in a forward arc), will we see updated cards giving the Y-Wing a turret? What about "older, slower turrets?" Guns allowed to fire into any arc, but can only shift one adjacent firing arc per turn?

You may be right, FFG may indeed be looking at new or simply theme/interesting mechanics to help keep things fresh. Whether they are hit or miss? Time will tell.

Disney is never going to allow FFG to produce a ship that looks like this:

When they could put in a ship that does the exact same thing and looks like this:

And given how much easier it would be to legally protect the latter, they'd be fools to go with the former.

The only recent(ish) ship I think that doesn't look great is the K-Wing and there really wasn't anything FFG could do to make that ship look good.

I'm sorry, I am going to nit-pick. Yes, they absolutely could have done something about this monstrosity. They (appear to have) ditched the Neb-B2 or Lancer in favor of pulling the Raider out of someone's backside somewhere, they sure as heck could have done the same for the K-Wing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Raider design, I like it. I'm saying if you can replace one "bad" design, you can sure as heck replace an even worse one.

Trivial complaint over with.

I do wonder, with the idea of gunners, if we aren't going to see more focus on odd fire arcs. Fighters designed to do "flyby broadsides, rear facing support emplacements, etc." I mean, why make a torpedo bomber that has to fly at its target head on when you could design one that can just fly past the entire long axis of its target, dumping shot after shot out the port or starboard fuselage?

The Y-Wing was supposed to have a gunner (before they removed the gunner couch to reduce weight and fixed the turret in a forward arc), will we see updated cards giving the Y-Wing a turret? What about "older, slower turrets?" Guns allowed to fire into any arc, but can only shift one adjacent firing arc per turn?

You may be right, FFG may indeed be looking at new or simply theme/interesting mechanics to help keep things fresh. Whether they are hit or miss? Time will tell.

Disney is never going to allow FFG to produce a ship that looks like this:

When they could put in a ship that does the exact same thing and looks like this:

And given how much easier it would be to legally protect the latter, they'd be fools to go with the former.

Swap the backgrounds and the angles on those shots and you could make the Lancer look like the cooler of the two. I've seen several people mention that the Lancer is too generic-looking to include, but the Decimator, Ghost, and Shadow Caster all look like they could have come from any old '80s sci-fi movie, too.

The ghost is an ugly ship. I have 0 desire to have it on my shelf...

The only recent(ish) ship I think that doesn't look great is the K-Wing and there really wasn't anything FFG could do to make that ship look good.

I'm sorry, I am going to nit-pick. Yes, they absolutely could have done something about this monstrosity. They (appear to have) ditched the Neb-B2 or Lancer in favor of pulling the Raider out of someone's backside somewhere, they sure as heck could have done the same for the K-Wing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Raider design, I like it. I'm saying if you can replace one "bad" design, you can sure as heck replace an even worse one.

Trivial complaint over with.

I do wonder, with the idea of gunners, if we aren't going to see more focus on odd fire arcs. Fighters designed to do "flyby broadsides, rear facing support emplacements, etc." I mean, why make a torpedo bomber that has to fly at its target head on when you could design one that can just fly past the entire long axis of its target, dumping shot after shot out the port or starboard fuselage?

The Y-Wing was supposed to have a gunner (before they removed the gunner couch to reduce weight and fixed the turret in a forward arc), will we see updated cards giving the Y-Wing a turret? What about "older, slower turrets?" Guns allowed to fire into any arc, but can only shift one adjacent firing arc per turn?

You may be right, FFG may indeed be looking at new or simply theme/interesting mechanics to help keep things fresh. Whether they are hit or miss? Time will tell.

Disney is never going to allow FFG to produce a ship that looks like this:

When they could put in a ship that does the exact same thing and looks like this:

And given how much easier it would be to legally protect the latter, they'd be fools to go with the former.

Swap the backgrounds and the angles on those shots and you could make the Lancer look like the cooler of the two. I've seen several people mention that the Lancer is too generic-looking to include, but the Decimator, Ghost, and Shadow Caster all look like they could have come from any old '80s sci-fi movie, too.

All the cooler images of the Lancer were blocked, apparently FFG forums doesn't play nice with Wookiepedia.

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs, is more visually distinctive for copyright purposes, fulfills the same task, and has the minor added benefit of not looking like a giant space dildo.

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

Because the Rebellion doesn't have many ways of procuring new warships. The Empire does, so their ships are designed to be uniform in appearance, based on proven military designs, cost effective, and capable of mass production.

It's like complaining that Delta Airlines' fleet of Boeing jets all look nearly identical compared to to a regional airline flying a combination of Airbus, CanadAir, Gulfstream and DC-10s. Size and purchasing power have clear benefits.