With the increasing amount of frontal or Side armaments on the major capital ships in Armada.

How often do 1st player pick Advance gunnery?

Ad Ackbar into the mix will any 1st player in their right mind ever pick Advance Gunnery in preference of the "lesser harmfull" Defence or Navigation missions?

Would it not be better that the first player would pick in random one of the three missions offered up by the second player?

I'm just using the above as an argument that some mission are less (and less) likely to be picked by the first player.

And some missions, I have the impression of, are never offered up by the second player in the first place.

Which mean that out of 12 missions your are more likely to play often only 6-8 of them, while the remaining are very seldom played or not at all.

I've played 49 games at the writing of this post.

And not once have I ever played for one reason or another the three following missions:

Contested Outpost

Fire Lanes

Minefields

The first two I have shyed away from, to offer up as second player, as they have the End of Round thing, which in my view halts the game unnecessary, where you have to meassure up and do some accounting, before you can proceed to the next round.

So should FFG refresh the format in which we pick missions?

I.e. Should Second player offer up four missions? One the First player can see and read and three which are face down he has to randomly pick.

And should FFG offer up an additional 3,6,9 or 12 new missions, so there is even more to choose between?

So what are your thoughts on the subject?

Another Ewok Snowball from the Kiwi Rat

I'd say release more so that you don't have to change the rules. More options is always better.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love more choice in objectives, too...

But a statement that "there is not enough variety" cannot be verified when, by admission, parts of the variety have never been sampled.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love more choice in objectives, too...

But a statement that "there is not enough variety" cannot be verified when, by admission, parts of the variety have never been sampled.

For instance, with the advent of wave 3 coming out, you now have a threat of Hyperspace Assault Slicer Tools Flotillas with Hanger Bay and 3 squadrons. A stromthreat to be sure!

Each wave will add and change things

Taking Advanced Gunnery as first player depends upon a key question: Can your fleet make good use of the first player advantage that you can get from the objective?

Your bonus is just a touch better than a Gunnery team, because if you can target a separate hull zone of his main ship, you are basically firing on even terms.

Sometimes, your opponent really has a fleet designed for a key objective that you absolutely cannot pick. A fully tooled Ackbar MC80 on Gunnery teams is like this, but I'd hesitate to pick it against any commander's fully tooled MC80. I've also seen Advanced Gunnery taken with a big ship in a carrier style list, and there I think it is a bit more justifiable to take Advanced Gunnery as first player provided you have a good way of putting your objective ship in a position to target multiple arcs from the enemy. I'd think a fully tooled MC80 with engine techs could do this. A nav-heavy ISD rush list might also do well enough.

I've not noticed that Mission selection has been a problem. I've played a lot of different objectives from both sides.

Taking Advanced Gunnery as first player depends upon a key question: Can your fleet make good use of the first player advantage that you can get from the objective?

Wrong question.

How quickly can you kill a single ship? First player needs to take out the threat fast without giving it a chance to fire a single shot.

There is minimal benefit to first player. Its a curse to have pseudo gunny teams in most cases. Double points is a high cost.

Taking Advanced Gunnery as first player depends upon a key question: Can your fleet make good use of the first player advantage that you can get from the objective?

Wrong question.

How quickly can you kill a single ship? First player needs to take out the threat fast without giving it a chance to fire a single shot.

There is minimal benefit to first player. Its a curse to have pseudo gunny teams in most cases. Double points is a high cost.

That is the right question.

It is not always about it not firing a single shot. I have had an ISD 2 attack my TRC90 Flagship at long range before because I knew 4 red dice with out a lot of manipulation would not be a HUGE threat. Oh there is the possibility of it wiping me out but it is not that high. My Flagship survived both shots while that ISD later got pounded on by my MC30's.

It is more about limiting their capacity to use their double shot to the fullest.

Taking Advanced Gunnery as first player depends upon a key question: Can your fleet make good use of the first player advantage that you can get from the objective?

Wrong question.

How quickly can you kill a single ship? First player needs to take out the threat fast without giving it a chance to fire a single shot.

There is minimal benefit to first player. Its a curse to have pseudo gunny teams in most cases. Double points is a high cost.

Generally you're more capable of killing that single ship quickly because your fleet can make good use of that first player advantage. Killing the ship quickly would be the very definition of "making good use" of your first player advantage. They are really the same question, your wording is perhaps a bit more precise though.

I usually pick AG with my MC30's if my opponent has it. It's not terribly difficult to double-arc yourself on an ISD or MC80 to get the double tap. Two MC30 side arcs will crush or cripple most ships, and that is a ton of free points for killing the objective ship. Even if I trade the MC30 for the objective ship, I come out way ahead.

I usually pick AG with my MC30's if my opponent has it. It's not terribly difficult to double-arc yourself on an ISD or MC80 to get the double tap. Two MC30 side arcs will crush or cripple most ships, and that is a ton of free points for killing the objective ship. Even if I trade the MC30 for the objective ship, I come out way ahead.

That is how I handle the situation as well. It works most times. You just have to get the attack run just right.

This was my first thought when I saw the thread title. If you have something like a tricked out Demolisher and you know your opponent is going to AG their ISD or MC80, I'll take it for the extra points.

All good points and on the right track. I see advanced gunnery as a chance for your opponent to double the point value of their behemoth while you can choose to only double the point value of a tiny TRC. If they choose their ISD II, that gives you 120 points versus 44 for your CR90a. Why would you do this? Because you are bold and daring.

And like everyone has been saying, it's about maneuvering to prevent your opponent from making good use of their advantage. But yeah, the other objectives are typically safer.

I typically use it to deny fleets access to opening salvos or another red that would help them more. This will push people onto my yellows or blues which I know I can win

I just picked my opponents Advanced Gunnery and we are playing wave 4 stuff. I have a Liberty, Yavaris, Salvation, and Bright Hope to his ISD1, 2 INT Combat and Zanti. The Liberty does have Gunnery Teams and is a Star Cruiser.

So far I was able to use Advanced Gunnery with Salvation to get a hit to the side and front of the ISD

Advanced gunnery got the weird nerf by being worse if you took gunnery teams. Weird

If you have gunnery teams you cannot fire on the same ship twice. Advanced Gunnery says you may fire on the same shop, but because gunny teams says cannot, its effects take precedence over AG's may

I typically use it to deny fleets access to opening salvos or another red that would help them more. This will push people onto my yellows or blues which I know I can win

Totally agree with this. The skill in missions isn't variety it's the exact opposite. My goal is to engineer a mission deck where you will pick what I want you to.

That said that's only a competitive outlook. I also play social games where we deliberately pick the less used ones just for interest sake. If you've played 50+ games and never played certain missions then you are too competitive to whine about needing variety. If that's your goal then find an opponent who feels the same and just do it.