16 squadron cards = absolutely awesome.

For the 12 objectives, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we still pick from a pool of 12, but these are a combination of updates to old objectives and completely new replacements for the old objectives. A pool of 24 would be an absurd amount to pick from both in designing and in planning out your own plan of attack against other players.

Well, you still only pick 3. Picking 3 from a Pool of 24? Not a big deal. Still has to be 3 from each Type.... So it just means you'll have 8 Reds to Pick 1 from, and so on....

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

Ever contemplated, that's what the stickers are for

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Best i can figure 24 options is better than 12 options.

Best click of the day!!!

16 squadron cards = absolutely awesome.

For the 12 objectives, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we still pick from a pool of 12, but these are a combination of updates to old objectives and completely new replacements for the old objectives. A pool of 24 would be an absurd amount to pick from both in designing and in planning out your own plan of attack against other players.

Well, you still only pick 3. Picking 3 from a Pool of 24? Not a big deal. Still has to be 3 from each Type.... So it just means you'll have 8 Reds to Pick 1 from, and so on....

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

Ever contemplated, that's what the stickers are for

It says "Campaign sticker set" I'm pretty sure that means the stickers are for use with the campaign, not replacements for regular rules. Hopefully you can buy sticker sheets separately if you want to play the campaign again. (or it comes with enough for you to play multiple times)

if the stickers were for rules, I'd think they either A, print a new rules reference guide including errata and FAQs (which WOULD be a nice addition to something like this) or it would be called "Rules update sticker sheet"

Aren't the B-wings Dagger Squadron? Gamma Squadron was TIE Bombers.

Not clicking the link!!! /bullsh**

Best click of the day!!!

Aren't the B-wings Dagger Squadron? Gamma Squadron was TIE Bombers.

It might be, its hard to read... It just kinda looked like Gamma... I can't clear it up any further.

16 squadron cards = absolutely awesome.

For the 12 objectives, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we still pick from a pool of 12, but these are a combination of updates to old objectives and completely new replacements for the old objectives. A pool of 24 would be an absurd amount to pick from both in designing and in planning out your own plan of attack against other players.

Well, you still only pick 3. Picking 3 from a Pool of 24? Not a big deal. Still has to be 3 from each Type.... So it just means you'll have 8 Reds to Pick 1 from, and so on....

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

Noooooooooooo

I want there to be loads of choice so fleets bring a set of three objectives that actually hurt me. It sucks that I know there is no combination of objectives where I am not comfortable playing at least one.

First player shouldnt be comfortable! Bring precision strikr, superior positions and a new yellow and i am in for a tough game.

Right now, we play contested outpost, I table in four turns, but leave your weakest unit alive so I can pick up extra tokens. Thats not scary, it plays into my hands.

We NEED variation

I will be watching this with much interest, and if it is what I think it is I may be trading all my X-Wing stuff and buying into Armada.

That, and I don't want anything in the core set invalidated by something being "new and better"

"new" needs to be balanced with the original. Not better. Not worse. Not a replacement.

So I think the B-Wings are Dagger Squadron, not Gamma. Also, that definitely looks like the Swarm symbol. Interesting choice, but the firepower should be fairly solid with that black die in there.

That, and I don't want anything in the core set invalidated by something being "new and better"

"new" needs to be balanced with the original. Not better. Not worse. Not a replacement.

Sometimes cards just stop being good. Sometimes, they were never good. I'm fine with older stuff being invalidated, I only get concerned when the stuff that never lived up to the intent doesn't even get a modest attempt at correction.

Aren't the B-wings Dagger Squadron? Gamma Squadron was TIE Bombers.

It might be, its hard to read... It just kinda looked like Gamma... I can't clear it up any further.

Dagger Squadron?

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Best i can figure 24 options is better than 12 options.

The Paradox of Choice.

More choices is not always better. That's why when you go to really high end restaurants, you might see a menu of five and only five items. From a strategical dimension, it is better to have choices constrained a bit. That's because when making strategic decision, it is not merely important to decide what you want to do, but the range of possible decisions an opponent could take,

I see two dimensions to this. If you're a casual gamer, then more objective options means that every game can be very different from every other game. In that case, why wouldn't you want more objectives. If you're a strategical purist with a long history of playing many types of strategical games competitively, it just gets to be a bit much.

Well, no reason why you can't restrict yourself as a personal choice, after all...

But I'm not doing so

That, and I don't want anything in the core set invalidated by something being "new and better"

"new" needs to be balanced with the original. Not better. Not worse. Not a replacement.

I'm sure that nothing is going to be invalidated by rule. Meta, quite possibly, but not by rule.

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Best i can figure 24 options is better than 12 options.

The Paradox of Choice.

More choices is not always better. That's why when you go to really high end restaurants, you might see a menu of five and only five items. From a strategical dimension, it is better to have choices constrained a bit. That's because when making strategic decision, it is not merely important to decide what you want to do, but the range of possible decisions an opponent could take,

I see two dimensions to this. If you're a casual gamer, then more objective options means that every game can be very different from every other game. In that case, why wouldn't you want more objectives. If you're a strategical purist with a long history of playing many types of strategical games competitively, it just gets to be a bit much.

Dude, are you for real? I'm not sure that's purism as much as it is lazy-assness.

16 squadron cards = absolutely awesome.

For the 12 objectives, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we still pick from a pool of 12, but these are a combination of updates to old objectives and completely new replacements for the old objectives. A pool of 24 would be an absurd amount to pick from both in designing and in planning out your own plan of attack against other players.

Well, you still only pick 3. Picking 3 from a Pool of 24? Not a big deal. Still has to be 3 from each Type.... So it just means you'll have 8 Reds to Pick 1 from, and so on....

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

Ever contemplated, that's what the stickers are for

It says "Campaign sticker set" I'm pretty sure that means the stickers are for use with the campaign, not replacements for regular rules. Hopefully you can buy sticker sheets separately if you want to play the campaign again. (or it comes with enough for you to play multiple times)

if the stickers were for rules, I'd think they either A, print a new rules reference guide including errata and FAQs (which WOULD be a nice addition to something like this) or it would be called "Rules update sticker sheet"

Okay you got me on that

16 squadron cards = absolutely awesome.

For the 12 objectives, I wouldn't at all be surprised if we still pick from a pool of 12, but these are a combination of updates to old objectives and completely new replacements for the old objectives. A pool of 24 would be an absurd amount to pick from both in designing and in planning out your own plan of attack against other players.

Well, you still only pick 3. Picking 3 from a Pool of 24? Not a big deal. Still has to be 3 from each Type.... So it just means you'll have 8 Reds to Pick 1 from, and so on....

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

Noooooooooooo

I want there to be loads of choice so fleets bring a set of three objectives that actually hurt me. It sucks that I know there is no combination of objectives where I am not comfortable playing at least one.

First player shouldnt be comfortable! Bring precision strikr, superior positions and a new yellow and i am in for a tough game.

Right now, we play contested outpost, I table in four turns, but leave your weakest unit alive so I can pick up extra tokens. Thats not scary, it plays into my hands.

We NEED variation

You're saying No, but then adding a bunch of points that support my original reasoning. I am in favor of adjustments to objectives for precisely the reasons you express. A discussion of the current objectives and what works or doesn't work about them is the topic for another thread, but it seems to me that there are a number of objectives that are disproportionately selected or selected against. That's a different issue entirely from what exactly is the right number of objectives. I think the basic issue is that a good list can often find an objective it likes on an opponent's list in the current set-up. So change is definitely good.

"My Advanced Gunnery is Better than your Advanced Gunnery."

Is not something I ever, ever want to hear in Armada...

My point.

There is no combination of objectives which is punishing enough to first player because 4 objectives of each type does not allow enough skew per individual objective.

That, and I don't want anything in the core set invalidated by something being "new and better"

"new" needs to be balanced with the original. Not better. Not worse. Not a replacement.

I'm sure that nothing is going to be invalidated by rule. Meta, quite possibly, but not by rule.

That's what I'm saying is a bit absurd. I'd rather have 12 new objectives that are outright replacements/updates, but still a basic pool of 12 objectives.

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Best i can figure 24 options is better than 12 options.

The Paradox of Choice.

More choices is not always better. That's why when you go to really high end restaurants, you might see a menu of five and only five items. From a strategical dimension, it is better to have choices constrained a bit. That's because when making strategic decision, it is not merely important to decide what you want to do, but the range of possible decisions an opponent could take,

I see two dimensions to this. If you're a casual gamer, then more objective options means that every game can be very different from every other game. In that case, why wouldn't you want more objectives. If you're a strategical purist with a long history of playing many types of strategical games competitively, it just gets to be a bit much.

Dude, are you for real? I'm not sure that's purism as much as it is lazy-assness.

That's a bit on the rude side. I mean, if you want to disagree with some ideas, that's fine. This is a great forum for expressing, critiquing, and entertaining ideas. Let's just make sure that our contributions are substantive.

"My Advanced Gunnery is Better than your Advanced Gunnery."

Is not something I ever, ever want to hear in Armada...

Have you experienced this so far?

My point.

There is no combination of objectives which is punishing enough to first player because 4 objectives of each type does not allow enough skew per individual objective.

Fair enough.

"My Advanced Gunnery is Better than your Advanced Gunnery."

Is not something I ever, ever want to hear in Armada...

Have you experienced this so far?

No, but I also havn't been contemplating someone telling me that my objectives should be replaced with these new ones, rather than supplimenting them.

"My Advanced Gunnery is Better than your Advanced Gunnery."

Is not something I ever, ever want to hear in Armada...

Have you experienced this so far?

No, but I also havn't been contemplating someone telling me that my objectives should be replaced with these new ones, rather than supplimenting them.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Its all in a day. At this point, we've got a lot of time between now and release and we've got a lot to learn about everything that will be included. I'm sure I'll come around to what y'all are saying by release day. :)

More basic objectives?

Screw the rest - new objectives is just what this game needs at the moment!