Sure we can track those numbers but they account for very little for us as game members. You are saying that some ships that has been around longer is equal to something that has not when you compare X-Wing to Armada. The comparison points are so different because of this.

You haven't argued against my 2 to 1 player ratio for Armada to X-Wing players so we know that while we have had some regionals with fewer players (could be for a variety of reasons) we also had some really comparable regionals since as Martinsburg which was 68 X-Wing to 30 Armada which taking space and cost considerations into account the Armada crowd was worth roughly 60 X-Wing players.

Even in 2014 with the first regionals like we have today 60 players was nothing to scoff at. This means that we are on a good track.

We can debate that X-Wing has more players currently, they will always have more players because their table space and costs are less but as long as we factor those things in we are fine. This is likely for the higher MSRP and cost of the Armada kits. FFG expects less player count due to size requirements and so has made the game to match that.

We can talk in PM about naval warfare. I am much more fluent with modern weapons however due to my time as an US Navy IS.

In the end HERO it is a mater of opinion. I want to see what the historical trends are and see if Armada is growing or exceeding those and you want to see how Armada is standing up to an established game.

I feel my way is right and you feel your way is right. So let's both put our data out there and caveat everything with what the goal for them is.

Sure we can track those numbers but they account for very little for us as game members. You are saying that some ships that has been around longer is equal to something that has not when you compare X-Wing to Armada. The comparison points are so different because of this.

You haven't argued against my 2 to 1 player ratio for Armada to X-Wing players so we know that while we have had some regionals with fewer players (could be for a variety of reasons) we also had some really comparable regionals since as Martinsburg which was 68 X-Wing to 30 Armada which taking space and cost considerations into account the Armada crowd was worth roughly 60 X-Wing players.

Even in 2014 with the first regionals like we have today 60 players was nothing to scoff at. This means that we are on a good track.

We can debate that X-Wing has more players currently, they will always have more players because their table space and costs are less but as long as we factor those things in we are fine. This is likely for the higher MSRP and cost of the Armada kits. FFG expects less player count due to size requirements and so has made the game to match that.

We can talk in PM about naval warfare. I am much more fluent with modern weapons however due to my time as an US Navy IS.

I don't think the 2:1 ratio for players matter because both games take 2 players to play. One Armada player is not worth 2 X-Wing players when the game is actually concerned, only when we're talking about table-space. Now, I don't know about the actual venues the Regional places took place.. at least I didn't see any venues listed.

And you're right, I think we've both agreed and said this a billion times now: X-Wing will always have more players. It's easier to pick up, cheaper buy-in, and takes less time to play. However, I still think these numbers are very important for us to track. If not now, then a year from now so we can see the growth for both games

Check out the cost of my two Wave 4 fleets currently.

Sure we can track those numbers but they account for very little for us as game members. You are saying that some ships that has been around longer is equal to something that has not when you compare X-Wing to Armada. The comparison points are so different because of this.

You haven't argued against my 2 to 1 player ratio for Armada to X-Wing players so we know that while we have had some regionals with fewer players (could be for a variety of reasons) we also had some really comparable regionals since as Martinsburg which was 68 X-Wing to 30 Armada which taking space and cost considerations into account the Armada crowd was worth roughly 60 X-Wing players.

Even in 2014 with the first regionals like we have today 60 players was nothing to scoff at. This means that we are on a good track.

We can debate that X-Wing has more players currently, they will always have more players because their table space and costs are less but as long as we factor those things in we are fine. This is likely for the higher MSRP and cost of the Armada kits. FFG expects less player count due to size requirements and so has made the game to match that.

We can talk in PM about naval warfare. I am much more fluent with modern weapons however due to my time as an US Navy IS.

I don't think the 2:1 ratio for players matter because both games take 2 players to play. One Armada player is not worth 2 X-Wing players when the game is actually concerned, only when we're talking about table-space. Now, I don't know about the actual venues the Regional places took place.. at least I didn't see any venues listed.

And you're right, I think we've both agreed and said this a billion times now: X-Wing will always have more players. It's easier to pick up, cheaper buy-in, and takes less time to play. However, I still think these numbers are very important for us to track. If not now, then a year from now so we can see the growth for both games

Good, we are starting to agree on number tracking. It IS important. Don't let anyone tell you different, however, what it is compared to is just as vital. We can track growth much more accurately I think with a trend analysis. Finding how X-Wing did in its infancy and comparing it to how Armada is doing. This is important because if Armada is not doing as well as X-Wing did in the same time period there are obvious issues. We might see some similar numbers as well but that can be accountable for the fact that FFG has changed their structure a lot.

Sure we can track those numbers but they account for very little for us as game members. You are saying that some ships that has been around longer is equal to something that has not when you compare X-Wing to Armada. The comparison points are so different because of this.

You haven't argued against my 2 to 1 player ratio for Armada to X-Wing players so we know that while we have had some regionals with fewer players (could be for a variety of reasons) we also had some really comparable regionals since as Martinsburg which was 68 X-Wing to 30 Armada which taking space and cost considerations into account the Armada crowd was worth roughly 60 X-Wing players.

Even in 2014 with the first regionals like we have today 60 players was nothing to scoff at. This means that we are on a good track.

We can debate that X-Wing has more players currently, they will always have more players because their table space and costs are less but as long as we factor those things in we are fine. This is likely for the higher MSRP and cost of the Armada kits. FFG expects less player count due to size requirements and so has made the game to match that.

We can talk in PM about naval warfare. I am much more fluent with modern weapons however due to my time as an US Navy IS.

I don't think the 2:1 ratio for players matter because both games take 2 players to play. One Armada player is not worth 2 X-Wing players when the game is actually concerned, only when we're talking about table-space. Now, I don't know about the actual venues the Regional places took place.. at least I didn't see any venues listed.

And you're right, I think we've both agreed and said this a billion times now: X-Wing will always have more players. It's easier to pick up, cheaper buy-in, and takes less time to play. However, I still think these numbers are very important for us to track. If not now, then a year from now so we can see the growth for both games

Sure both games take 2 players but what is the table space requirements for both games? One is a 3x3 one is a 6x3. If a store can hold 20 3x3 mats how many 6x3 mats can it hold? See how that suddenly matters?

Good, we are starting to agree on number tracking. It IS important. Don't let anyone tell you different, however, what it is compared to is just as vital. We can track growth much more accurately I think with a trend analysis. Finding how X-Wing did in its infancy and comparing it to how Armada is doing. This is important because if Armada is not doing as well as X-Wing did in the same time period there are obvious issues. We might see some similar numbers as well but that can be accountable for the fact that FFG has changed their structure a lot.

I think we've always agreed on number tracking, just differed on what statistics to actually track So the best solution is to track them all!

I bet I can talk Nevetz to help us create a data reporting tool after he's done with mobile warlord.

Sure we can track those numbers but they account for very little for us as game members. You are saying that some ships that has been around longer is equal to something that has not when you compare X-Wing to Armada. The comparison points are so different because of this.

You haven't argued against my 2 to 1 player ratio for Armada to X-Wing players so we know that while we have had some regionals with fewer players (could be for a variety of reasons) we also had some really comparable regionals since as Martinsburg which was 68 X-Wing to 30 Armada which taking space and cost considerations into account the Armada crowd was worth roughly 60 X-Wing players.

Even in 2014 with the first regionals like we have today 60 players was nothing to scoff at. This means that we are on a good track.

We can debate that X-Wing has more players currently, they will always have more players because their table space and costs are less but as long as we factor those things in we are fine. This is likely for the higher MSRP and cost of the Armada kits. FFG expects less player count due to size requirements and so has made the game to match that.

We can talk in PM about naval warfare. I am much more fluent with modern weapons however due to my time as an US Navy IS.

I don't think the 2:1 ratio for players matter because both games take 2 players to play. One Armada player is not worth 2 X-Wing players when the game is actually concerned, only when we're talking about table-space. Now, I don't know about the actual venues the Regional places took place.. at least I didn't see any venues listed.

And you're right, I think we've both agreed and said this a billion times now: X-Wing will always have more players. It's easier to pick up, cheaper buy-in, and takes less time to play. However, I still think these numbers are very important for us to track. If not now, then a year from now so we can see the growth for both games

Sure both games take 2 players but what is the table space requirements for both games? One is a 3x3 one is a 6x3. If a store can hold 20 3x3 mats how many 6x3 mats can it hold? See how that suddenly matters?

Good, we are starting to agree on number tracking. It IS important. Don't let anyone tell you different, however, what it is compared to is just as vital. We can track growth much more accurately I think with a trend analysis. Finding how X-Wing did in its infancy and comparing it to how Armada is doing. This is important because if Armada is not doing as well as X-Wing did in the same time period there are obvious issues. We might see some similar numbers as well but that can be accountable for the fact that FFG has changed their structure a lot.

I think we've always agreed on number tracking, just differed on what statistics to actually track So the best solution is to track them all!

I bet I can talk Nevetz to help us create a data reporting tool after he's done with mobile warlord.

I was talking to the creator of List Juggler at my game night last night (got him to play Armada too!) and he said that one would be better starting from scratch than reworking List Juggler. He said that since Warlords has the list building rules already that it is almost where it would need to be.

If Nevetz added in a method to compile a group of lists under a tournament I think we would have something for this. I have no coding knowledge but will be teaching myself when I can so I am useless at this.

I think Lyraeus is right. It's meaningless to compare Armada at 1yr to X-Wing at 4yrs.

How well-attended was 2013 X-Wing regionals compared to this year's? (I think that Armada should have the advantage there, because it could build off the lessons-learned and communities made by X-Wing. But, it would be a comparison that would make more sense.

I see nothing wrong with comparing the USN to any other navy, exp

You could say the same about a high school football varsity team vs a middle school peewee team. Doesn't make the comparison right.

The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.

Sunseekers? They have British luxury yachts? You might want to unpack the jargon for civvies.

The bigger difference between the Chinese navy and the US Navy, I think, would be what they're meant for and how much is spent on each as a result.

It would make more sense, if we had those numbers and if the games were launched at the same time. I mean, we could wait 4 years, but this is what we have in the present and we have just have to accept the numbers as they stand. Currently, this is what we're seeing.

I think Lyraeus is right. It's meaningless to compare Armada at 1yr to X-Wing at 4yrs.

How well-attended was 2013 X-Wing regionals compared to this year's? (I think that Armada should have the advantage there, because it could build off the lessons-learned and communities made by X-Wing. But, it would be a comparison that would make more sense.

I see nothing wrong with comparing the USN to any other navy, exp

You could say the same about a high school football varsity team vs a middle school peewee team. Doesn't make the comparison right.

The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.

Sunseekers? They have British luxury yachts? You might want to unpack the jargon for civvies.

The bigger difference between the Chinese navy and the US Navy, I think, would be what they're meant for and how much is spent on each as a result.

That is the difference between between a Blue water and a Brown water navy.

It would make more sense, if we had those numbers and if the games were launched at the same time. I mean, we could wait 4 years, but this is what we have in the present and we have just have to accept the numbers as they stand. Currently, this is what we're seeing.

You could just get information from the past like I am trying.

It would make more sense, if we had those numbers and if the games were launched at the same time. I mean, we could wait 4 years, but this is what we have in the present and we have just have to accept the numbers as they stand. Currently, this is what we're seeing.

You could just get information from the past like I am trying.

I saw your thread already in the X-Wing forums, you got this. Hopefully we get some long-time TOs to chime in and get some better numbers.

The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.

Sunseekers? They have British luxury yachts? You might want to unpack the jargon for civvies.

The bigger difference between the Chinese navy and the US Navy, I think, would be what they're meant for and how much is spent on each as a result.

That is the difference between between a Blue water and a Brown water navy.

You're classifying the PLA Navy as a brown-water navy? I've heard them described as a green-water navy. Isn't brown-water focused on rivers, or is Wikipedia getting the concepts wrong?

Also, what do you mean by Sunseekers?

The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.

Sunseekers? They have British luxury yachts? You might want to unpack the jargon for civvies.

The bigger difference between the Chinese navy and the US Navy, I think, would be what they're meant for and how much is spent on each as a result.

That is the difference between between a Blue water and a Brown water navy.

You're classifying the PLA Navy as a brown-water navy? I've heard them described as a green-water navy. Isn't brown-water focused on rivers, or is Wikipedia getting the concepts wrong?

Also, what do you mean by Sunseekers?

Brown Water Navy's are those that are focused on their borders, they rarely travel outside of their borders but one of the BIGGEST differences is that Brown Water Navies don't do "at sea replenishments".

The Sunseeker is a Anti-Ship Cruise Missile. I could be getting the name wrong but it is what we called it. It is the Yj-18 though.

Looks like Sunseeker is a nickname of a type of tracking module used in a variety of guided weapons systems.

I was wrong. It is the Sunburn I was thinking of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

I vote we wait 4 years.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

What is the point of you linking that thread outside of trolling, seriously? You don't think I know people can borrow from friends? You think Armada players are world first in resourcefulness?

This must be what you brits consider cheeky.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

What is the point of you linking that thread outside of trolling, seriously? You don't think I know people can borrow from friends? You think Armada players are world first in resourcefulness?

This must be what you brits consider cheeky.

There are lists of people costing their fleets.......

But sure, lets go back to angry Hero writing in that tone that pisses everyone of.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

What is the point of you linking that thread outside of trolling, seriously? You don't think I know people can borrow from friends? You think Armada players are world first in resourcefulness?

This must be what you brits consider cheeky.

There are lists of people costing their fleets.......

But sure, lets go back to angry Hero writing in that tone that pisses everyone of.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

What is the point of you linking that thread outside of trolling, seriously? You don't think I know people can borrow from friends? You think Armada players are world first in resourcefulness?

This must be what you brits consider cheeky.

There are lists of people costing their fleets.......

But sure, lets go back to angry Hero writing in that tone that pisses everyone of.

Sorry. My bad. I also didn't find any different or new information from that thread that would throw off the average. There's some far out ones listed there that are non-archetype. Do you think we should list those as well?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/222921-the-cost-of-victory-firstworldproblems/?p=2271988

Leaving this useful thread here for Hero.

Can we also go back to the point where Lyraeus said you cant compare the US navy to the chinese....

What is the point of you linking that thread outside of trolling, seriously? You don't think I know people can borrow from friends? You think Armada players are world first in resourcefulness?

This must be what you brits consider cheeky.

There are lists of people costing their fleets.......

But sure, lets go back to angry Hero writing in that tone that pisses everyone of.

I costed DtO there. That was the first thing I thought of when Ginkapo linked that.

It was at first, and then the second part of his post

Sorry. My bad. I also didn't find any different or new information from that thread that would throw off the average. There's some far out ones listed there that are non-archetype. Do you think we should list those as well?

In this case I was not being overly helpful, just bringing up old information you might find useful. In the case of the far out lists, they do have some influence as the beauty of this game is we dont stick to archtypes rigidly. Your analysis seemed pretty good of fleet costs, I just thought you should see what others cost as a different source.

ps The second part of my post WAS an example of British cheek.

Considering that X-Wing regionals in 2013 wasn't that big either, I think we are doing fine for year 1.

There were not X-Wing "Regionals" in 2013. While it's true there were Regionals hosted in 2013, they were not nearly as official or prestigous and pretty much every store hosted one. They would be akin to the "Store Championships" of today, which didn't start until 2014, when the "proper" FFG Regionals started, with geographically divided regions and application-based Regional site determination.

While it's true that this is only Armada's first year and X-Wing's fourth, it would be much more appropriate to compare X-Wing's 2013 "Regionals" to Armada's 2016 Store Championships. I attended three "Regionals" for X-Wing in 2013 and they averaged about 20 players. I attended three Armada Store Championships this year and they averaged about 10 players.

Which means the equate.

Armada takes up twice the space and costs far more per player than X-Wing. So if Armada is averaging 10 players per store championship that is roughly equivalent to 20 X-Wing players.

Think about it in a space sense of the store.

If a store can hold an event but can only cater to 20 X-Wing players how many Armada players can that store host? Obviously just 10. So that means that 10 players on Armada is going to take up twice as much space and cost far more making the ratio sound.

That's true, but it also means the store hosting the event makes only half the money they do when they host an X-Wing event. If a store charges $5 entry and gets twenty players for an X-Wing Season Kit and only ten for an Armada kit, the store makes twice as much when it hosts X-Wing. Which partially explains why so many stores host every kit they can for X-Wing, but comparatively few run Armada season kits (at least in the US).

The fact that Armada players spend "twice as much" on their collections than X-Wing players is not really applicable. Most people buy their ships online (CoolStuff, MiniMarket, etc.) so when they roll into a store for an event the store hasn't yet made a dime from them. Even those rare players who do purchase product at a Brick N Mortar only buy from their FLGS but might travel to a few stores, some even a ways away, when playing in events.

@AllWings:

Do you have something to back up your assertion that Brick and Mortar buyers are rare?

Or that people buy the majority online where its cheap? (Where, at least for quite a few outside of the US, it isn't.)

I mean, I offer nothing to refute you, I'm just wondering if there's evidential support, or wether its anecdotal.