Came to the thread expecting talk of the campaign and latest expansions. Instead I get walls of text complaining Armada is dead.

Anyway, I plan on running my campaigns casually at home. And I can't wait. For flotillas. For the Interdictor. For the campaign. It's safe to say I can't wait for the next three expansion waves in this "dying" game.

Came to the thread expecting talk of the campaign and latest expansions. Instead I get walls of text complaining Armada is dead.

Anyway, I plan on running my campaigns casually at home. And I can't wait. For flotillas. For the Interdictor. For the campaign. It's safe to say I can't wait for the next three expansion waves in this "dying" game.

Enjoy your campaign! I would love to hear reports of what happens

Hey, just a quick question, is it a 2 players campaign or can it be built around a rotating group of players ? In my area, I found that non committing game events were most popular and that campaigns planned over the long run were usually faltering

I'm interested in what the exact mechanics are for the Corellian Conflict Campaign Package with regards to its victory conditions. We know that it's going to have a set number of Campaign Points necessary to claim victory for the sector, but how many, what for, and are there other conditional factors? The easy thing to do with more than six players is to run more than one campaign concurrently as an 'oversector' campaign with equal players in each warzone. Then just tally the campaign points of those separate campaigns into a single extrapolated 'victory threshold'.

You know, potentially easy but it might be a bit boring. Between 5-6 players shouldn't be hard to find around here, and I'm running my own Ceknell derived Corellian conflict in addition to that. I'm simply using my own map and shifting a few locations to make it work, I have 4 players but we're splitting it into the 6 fleets (and potentially more given the Imperial schism that occurred) fleets under 6 fairly well known admirals. I'll be very interested to see if I can add in 3 semi-separate factions rather than just the 2 from the CCCP.

Oh I know Lyr. And I love Armada. I'm just fed of of listening to some people's pessimism.

And thanks, I'm sure it'll be fun likely 1v1's because, as above, my friends have commitment issues when it comes to campaign style games. But either way, it'll be great!

Hey, just a quick question, is it a 2 players campaign or can it be built around a rotating group of players ? In my area, I found that non committing game events were most popular and that campaigns planned over the long run were usually faltering

I assume games are played 1v1 at a time though? Up to 6 players on one map would get a little crowded and play would possibly slow to as crawl?

I assume games are played 1v1 at a time though? Up to 6 players on one map would get a little crowded and play would possibly slow to as crawl?

But @Mikael is absolutely right. We should probably focus on the Corellian Conflict, and save our debate on the state of the game for elsewhere.

My question for all of you, how and where are you going to run you campaigns? What will you do if you have too many players?

My hope I'd that I'll probably run a couple of campaigns concurrently; one at the store with 3-5 other people (to give the team-based dynamics a go) and one with Ginkapo over a longer period of time, just to give a focus to our games.

That is, if Ginkapo is willing.

Never

But @Mikael is absolutely right. We should probably focus on the Corellian Conflict, and save our debate on the state of the game for elsewhere.

My question for all of you, how and where are you going to run you campaigns? What will you do if you have too many players?

My hope I'd that I'll probably run a couple of campaigns concurrently; one at the store with 3-5 other people (to give the team-based dynamics a go) and one with Ginkapo over a longer period of time, just to give a focus to our games.

That is, if Ginkapo is willing.

Never

Which is Ginkapo for yes.

Don;t know if anyone noticed, but 5 missing SKU's between Correlian Conflict and Wave 3/4. More Armada is coming! Yah!

I suspect if your local meta is healthy and you reasonably expect a dozen players at a tourney then you think all is well. OTOH, if you are seeing reduced play in your area or your tourneys are in the half dozen player or less category then it's not being irrational to worry if your models might end up being for show. Perceptions matter and arguing that someone else perception is wrong because it's negative and not in line with the "facts" is pretty hard to do without being rude and wrong.

It sounds like Hero is looking at a trend and maybe being unable to see the curves bend the other way in the future, but I can tell you I really want to see the campaign get played and if it doesn't I'm going to hope to sell my figs before the game gets anymore obscure locally. I say this as a person who has sold only a couple game systems in almost four decades of gaming.

The flotillas needed to be out months ago, and I don't care about anything but results. If the releases disappear for this long again, the game is virtually done (which means it won't disappear just whither). You guys in the happy metas are not enough to support the game's production when the rest of the world stops caring.

So argue factoids and attitudes and ought to do's all you want. Hero isn't pulling a chicken little. Posting his opinion on this thread is not going to cause the game to fail. FFG should be concerned with what he is saying and try to do better by the Armada community even if they are victims of bad luck and wanted the flotillas out in April. You should mostly reconsider how you approach responses to posts from guys who see problems where you don't.

As for thinking the game companies are going to do the work to build communities without guys taking on unpaid jobs of doing it themselves that's just not going to happen. It should happen, but it really just won't. The model for that just hasn't been invented.

Wow, such a... lively... debate. There is a really simple way to look at this. Armada will go nowhere, and products will continue to be released as long as one simple thing happens. It sells. If people are buying the game, the game will go on, regardless of the size of tournaments or the complaints of certain members of the player base. The last time I saw any numbers, Armada was selling... WELL. The doomsayers have been saying Armada is dying for months and months, since the delays in Wave 2 got frustrating for all of us. Yet, the sales numbers continue to be extremely strong. When the sales start to significantly dry up, and new releases don't translate to spikes in profit for FFG, then we can all be concerned. Until then, all this pointless wave analysis, comparisons to other games and back and forth bickering is just clutter to these boards.

Don;t know if anyone noticed, but 5 missing SKU's between Correlian Conflict and Wave 3/4. More Armada is coming! Yah!

Then its a safe bet one is the Arquitens Cruiser, as there is one on the front of the box.

No, it's not just clutter. I'm not by any means an important member of the Armada community, I'm just a regular member. But I'm a reasonably important member of the overall gaming community with about as long a history as you will find with a mind that hasn't really started to get lost.

Game companies flip switches based on single points of failure all the time. I've got a great collection of Crimson Skies models I'll sell you which were selling gangbusters right until they weren't and already announced releases didn't materialize. I know names of game companies most of you weren't alive to have known. How about a good game of Stomp?

If you want a healthy gamer community at the scale FFG desires then negative trends are really bad. If I could see the actual sales data I'd be happy to give you a good prognostication. You said sales are good, please link to your data. Otherwise, realize that people are managing their time and money on these boards. They are celebrating and venting on these boards. All are welcome to ignore anything on these boards. These boards will very likely tell someone who knows what to look for about the future of the game.

Here is something you need to know about really popular games and I'm not sure how well the manufacturers really get it: Games are usually dead BEFORE sales have peaked. When sales are falling, it's usually too late.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/33912/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2015

Third best selling non-collectable miniature game in Fall 2015. I believe we're still waiting on the Spring 2016 results, as I couldn't find those.

In some areas the meta is drying up but overall it seems to be doing fine. If your meta is struggling, you're going to see evidence that backs up your gut feeling everywhere. And then you're going to come to the forums and fight with people and tell us Armada is dead/dying. Then the rest of us are going to roll our eyes at you and then someone will say something about AdmiralNelson and we'll move on with life.

Just had a thought, do you think it might be necessary to buy two campaign boxes. or at least hit up ebay, to make sure you have all the options? My thinking is Biggs and Rogue Squadron might be on the same piece of cardboard.

Just had a thought, do you think it might be necessary to buy two campaign boxes. or at least hit up ebay, to make sure you have all the options? My thinking is Biggs and Rogue Squadron might be on the same piece of cardboard.

It's certainly conceivable and would be very sneaky. I'd hope it would be everything you'd need to run everything in one box but then again FFG's motto is "a nerd and his/her money are soon parted" so maybe.

If that is the case, any single-factioners out there should do fine. Just trade your excess Imp/Rebel stuff for the Imp/Rebel stuff you want.

Just had a thought, do you think it might be necessary to buy two campaign boxes. or at least hit up ebay, to make sure you have all the options? My thinking is Biggs and Rogue Squadron might be on the same piece of cardboard.

Nah, it says 16 squadron cards and 16 squadron disks. It's one disk per card with a generic on the back. No worries.

There is 16 Squadron Cards, and 16 Squadron Discs... So unless that actually means (8 Pieces of Cardboard that are Double-Sided)....

Just had a thought, do you think it might be necessary to buy two campaign boxes. or at least hit up ebay, to make sure you have all the options? My thinking is Biggs and Rogue Squadron might be on the same piece of cardboard.

Nah, it says 16 squadron cards and 16 squadron disks. It's one disk per card with a generic on the back. No worries.

Edit: Weird double post.

By what you're writing, it sounds like by asymmetry you mean that one side has it harder than the other. That's certainly not what I mean by that term, just that one sie has vastly different capabilities, and therefore it's potential path to victory includes very different goals.

I certainly think it's difficult to create an asymmetric game, but they did it right with SW:Rebellion. They made the Empire more powerful, but they also gave it a hard task and put it on a turn clock. Effectively, they modulated the balance by setting the clock. I imagine they did a bunch of playtesting to see how long it generally took the Empire to find the hidden Rebel base, and chose a turn where it would be challenging.

Inspired by Rebellion, I've been working on an Armada campaign idea that has a similar basic principle. With the news of this, I'm wondering if I should hold off to draw further inspiration from their mechanics (and to adopt them because they'll be familiar) or just move ahead.

* and, yes, I know those weren't Porkins' lines.

Well, if we're looking at 'different paths to victories', I think we'll get that in part with the Campaign. In the fact that the bonuses for systems are different, its going to create different paths to victory each time... ALthough, that may still be within the framework of "you need x amount of victories to win" sort of thing, which brings it back to more symmetry...

I get what you're saying, I mean... If I truly believed you were all about that portion of Asymmetric Warfare, where one side just has more and has it easier, I'd be saying things like, Of COURSE you like that. You're a Freakin' Empire Mouthpiece!

But, you will notice, I have not - because I do get what you're saying... Perhaps there will be different crafted victory conditions - Perhaps the very campaign objectives are what cause it... Because individually, game-by-game, you're still probably using the regular objectives, but the differing campaign objectives might be pushing each side, and indeed, each player in different directions at the same time...

I don't know, and about making your own framework - I think if you could be ready to go in a short amount of time, then explore your options.... But if its going to take time, I'd rather see where the "official" campaign is at, where its good, and where its lacking, before pushing something custom on the group... I mean, if your custom is going to be worked up, then it m ight be best to use corellia to Warm the group up to it....

Wow, such a... lively... debate. There is a really simple way to look at this. Armada will go nowhere, and products will continue to be released as long as one simple thing happens. It sells. If people are buying the game, the game will go on, regardless of the size of tournaments or the complaints of certain members of the player base. The last time I saw any numbers, Armada was selling... WELL. The doomsayers have been saying Armada is dying for months and months, since the delays in Wave 2 got frustrating for all of us. Yet, the sales numbers continue to be extremely strong. When the sales start to significantly dry up, and new releases don't translate to spikes in profit for FFG, then we can all be concerned. Until then, all this pointless wave analysis, comparisons to other games and back and forth bickering is just clutter to these boards.

Do you have sales numbers, or a chart that says it's the top 3? Because that doesn't mean anything. It can be 5 billion dollars (jokenumber.gf) behind 40K and still be top 3.

What does matter is how player growth and retention are doing. My current data is based off of entire/large regions, not just some whereevertheF in rural Alabama. I still cannot for the life of me not understand how people in this thread are not getting it. Release cycle means jack if people are not staying with the game. If my NorCal/SoCal/Arizona/Nevada (basically the West Coast minus Washington/Vancouver area) metrics compared to the East Coast numbers (mainly tri-state area + Delaware), two of the MOST populous zones in America (don't have connections in the UK or Asia), then I have a right to be worried about MY hobby.

If you want to talk, let's talk about Regional numbers and participants, how many for X-Wing vs. Armada and what not? The game is both 1v1 in format, so the number of players should be around the same ballpark regardless of the design of the game. We're talking strictly numbers here; I don't want this to become another luxury game like Forgeworld vs. 40K.. look where that got GW.

Wow, such a... lively... debate. There is a really simple way to look at this. Armada will go nowhere, and products will continue to be released as long as one simple thing happens. It sells. If people are buying the game, the game will go on, regardless of the size of tournaments or the complaints of certain members of the player base. The last time I saw any numbers, Armada was selling... WELL. The doomsayers have been saying Armada is dying for months and months, since the delays in Wave 2 got frustrating for all of us. Yet, the sales numbers continue to be extremely strong. When the sales start to significantly dry up, and new releases don't translate to spikes in profit for FFG, then we can all be concerned. Until then, all this pointless wave analysis, comparisons to other games and back and forth bickering is just clutter to these boards.

Do you have sales numbers, or a chart that says it's the top 3? Because that doesn't mean anything. It can be 5 billion dollars (jokenumber.gf) behind 40K and still be top 3.

What does matter is how player growth and retention are doing. My current data is based off of entire/large regions, not just some whereevertheF in rural Alabama. I still cannot for the life of me not understand how people in this thread are not getting it. Release cycle means jack if people are not staying with the game. If my NorCal/SoCal/Arizona/Nevada (basically the West Coast minus Washington/Vancouver area) metrics compared to the East Coast numbers (mainly tri-state area + Delaware), two of the MOST populous zones in America (don't have connections in the UK or Asia), then I have a right to be worried about MY hobby.

If you want to talk, let's talk about Regional numbers and participants, how many for X-Wing vs. Armada and what not? The game is both 1v1 in format, so the number of players should be around the same ballpark regardless of the design of the game. We're talking strictly numbers here; I don't want this to become another luxury game like Forgeworld vs. 40K.. look where that got GW.

One thing to consider is Armada is not built at it's core as tournament friendly as x-wing. Xwing is quicker, simpler, with less product to cart to the tourney (more relevant for big conventions than local tourneys).. it also very much shares playerbases with xwing, which was out first and already established it's tournament scene. IMO it was a mistake to put all 3 star wars games on the same timetable for championships.

That said, it can sell very well and be played plenty without being as big a presence at gaming tournaments. It's sales numbers demonstrate it's doing great. FFG seem to see it's more a personal play game than big tournament monster with the campaign pack. Things are good. It doesn't have to beat X-wing's numbers to be good. If I really cared to show off my skills and be a big shot competitive player invited to many podcasts, this game would not be my first pick... but I just want to play games, the more narrative to them with less repetitive play the better, so the current direction of Armada is great for me.

Wow, such a... lively... debate. There is a really simple way to look at this. Armada will go nowhere, and products will continue to be released as long as one simple thing happens. It sells. If people are buying the game, the game will go on, regardless of the size of tournaments or the complaints of certain members of the player base. The last time I saw any numbers, Armada was selling... WELL. The doomsayers have been saying Armada is dying for months and months, since the delays in Wave 2 got frustrating for all of us. Yet, the sales numbers continue to be extremely strong. When the sales start to significantly dry up, and new releases don't translate to spikes in profit for FFG, then we can all be concerned. Until then, all this pointless wave analysis, comparisons to other games and back and forth bickering is just clutter to these boards.

Do you have sales numbers, or a chart that says it's the top 3? Because that doesn't mean anything. It can be 5 billion dollars (jokenumber.gf) behind 40K and still be top 3.

What does matter is how player growth and retention are doing. My current data is based off of entire/large regions, not just some whereevertheF in rural Alabama. I still cannot for the life of me not understand how people in this thread are not getting it. Release cycle means jack if people are not staying with the game. If my NorCal/SoCal/Arizona/Nevada (basically the West Coast minus Washington/Vancouver area) metrics compared to the East Coast numbers (mainly tri-state area + Delaware), two of the MOST populous zones in America (don't have connections in the UK or Asia), then I have a right to be worried about MY hobby.

If you want to talk, let's talk about Regional numbers and participants, how many for X-Wing vs. Armada and what not? The game is both 1v1 in format, so the number of players should be around the same ballpark regardless of the design of the game. We're talking strictly numbers here; I don't want this to become another luxury game like Forgeworld vs. 40K.. look where that got GW.

I live in Alabama, and where as a good portion of it is rural, the traffic in the two cities I have to drive through for work will strongly disagree with your summary. You don't have rural areas on the west coast?

If I can find games here then I really don't understand all the people who live in more highly populated area who have trouble finding players. At first I thought your arguments were possibly realistic to your area, but after reading through this thread and seeing your arguments and your constant insisting that based on what you do for a living, that this game is doomed, I've come to the conclusion that maybe you are too obtuse and that is what's hurting your personal play group. I mean I'm not sure how it is in sunny California where everything is all concrete and steel, but here in rural Alabama where we play in the fields and use straw for damage counters, we usually only play this game with people who enjoy it and are, y'know, fun to be around.