14 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Super sick of this statement.

It would be so much less annoying if it were true so we could all move on, but I see some doofus say something like this every time I post on an FFG article, despite often being one of many people asking for Armada news.

"Ah people are talking about it, playing it, and asking for more, must be dead".

Not to target you but seriously, I'm sick of hearing it, it's just not true.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I just think that its odd when product that was announced 6 months ago has no updates or previews, but product that was announced no longer than 3 months ago has multiple articals about it. I love this game and play it on a weekly basis, It bothers me when people say its dead, as its not and I dont think it will be dead for quite some time, but it also bothers me that we have had no new content in basically a year, and that we have not heared anything about our upcoming product in over 6 months. I hope they get the SSD out soon, so that they can redirect the massive amounts of resources im sure it is taking up into a new wave for armada.

3 minutes ago, xero989 said:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I just think that its odd when product that was announced 6 months ago has no updates or previews, but product that was announced no longer than 3 months ago has multiple articals about it. I love this game and play it on a weekly basis, It bothers me when people say its dead, as its not and I dont think it will be dead for quite some time, but it also bothers me that we have had no new content in basically a year, and that we have not heared anything about our upcoming product in over 6 months. I hope they get the SSD out soon, so that they can redirect the massive amounts of resources im sure it is taking up into a new wave for armada.

Who knows why, but it has to make sense to them.

If we presume the sky isn't falling, as anyone who sees how much Armada product they move should, we also have to presume they have a plan.

Odds are the SSD is behind schedule because of X-wing 2.0 and Legion. Legion has had a TON of releases over the last year, so much so that I can't even keep up. X-wing 2.0 has as well.

I get the feeling the majority of last years development and marketing was spent pushing these two because they NEED pushed. X-wing 2.0 may have sold okay, but my guess is (based on all the players that sold their entire collection after hearing the news) not as many as they wanted. I mean, 3 or 4 of our local players for Armada even play 2.0 on sundays but from what I hear the turnout is kinda spotty. With the prospect of Clone Wars ships being their big reason for old players to buy back in, my guess is they were pushing hard to get those developed and balanced enough to release ASAP.

As for Legion, well, it suffers from the same lack of variety most TTGs do when they first release. Using spam armies and lots of activations tends to do well while using specialized units seems to create weak points. If I had to guess they want to give players enough variety to build diverse armies asap so players don't get bored and move on. Considering their target demo is people who want a warhammerish star wars game, they have to work twice as hard to compete.

Taking all this into account, it's easy to understand how Armada got pushed to the back.

We also may want to consider the possibility of wave 8 being developed to be released soon after the SSD. That could explain the delay. Play testing all the new stuff before the SSD is released to confirm it all functions before it's released. (Something I'm not convinced they do for x-wing).

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/2/5/alert-all-commands/?fbclid=IwAR1fpbxQhp2a3lC896hitwha4Kgv3WG0-g0B2Kk2sCZSxMiu_SNLcJw4tQA


It happened! NEWS!

Finally. This will be a day long remembered.

I'm totally taking credit for this BTW....


I heckled them into submission

13 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm totally taking credit for this BTW....


I heckled them into submission

it's clearly you're doing. You know what did it? Linking that same JPG 300+ times.

I am excited for the Sector Fleet Rules. Some key points I'd like to point out:

2 Player Sector Fleet Games:

• Fleets can have no more than 3 Flotillas
• Squadrons cannot exceed 1/4th fleet points

4+ Player Sector Fleet Games:

• Sector Fleets must be of the same Faction
• Squadrons Cannot exceed more than 1/4th fleet points
• For all player size Sector Fleet Games, the number of points in a fleet is the total points per team divided by number of players. (example: 8p/1200pt per team game = 300pts per player (4p) [ptpp])
• For 4 player games, individual fleets cannot exceed the 2 Flotilla limit
• For 6+ player games, individual fleets may only have 1 Flotilla
• Teams CANNOT have more than 1 copy of a card with a unique name
• Players are not knocked out if all ships are destroyed, and may continue to play using surviving squadrons. Friendly ships may activate your squadrons with a squadron command.
• "Friendly" effects, such as Tarkin, only work for the owners fleet.
• "Enemy" effects of commanders, such as Konstantine, only work against 1 target enemy fleet.

Though, those last two points could be home ruled for thematic purposes if you want give the "individual Grand Admiral without a fleet" idea a try. Things this means: A 1200 pt team has 300 points of squadrons and 4 flotillas.

18 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm totally taking credit for this BTW....


I heckled them into submission

No you didn't, I am the one that called Armada dead. I get credit!

Also, they needed to get this article out before a preview article on the SSD. I dare say we are close to seeing one.

I want to see some cool Sector Fleet builds. I also think some large scale youtuber vs games would be fun to see online eventually.

I know I am already thinking about what I would do in Sector fleet.

FFG: Here’s a ship you can’t really use in regular games

Armada Fans: ehh... cool I guess? It’ll look nice on the mantel.

(6 months later)

Armada Fans: Throw us a bone FFG!

FFG: Here’s a rehash of the CC All Out Assault rules so you can use this huge ship (which we STILL haven’t really given you much information on) that didn’t really fit in anywhere else.

Armada Fanbois: Yay! Armada is the best ever!

Everyone else: Meh... too little, too late, FFG.

20 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

FFG: Here’s a ship you can’t really use in regular games

Armada Fans: ehh... cool I guess? It’ll look nice on the mantel.

(6 months later)

Armada Fans: Throw us a bone FFG!

FFG: Here’s a rehash of the CC All Out Assault rules so you can use this huge ship (which we STILL haven’t really given you much information on) that didn’t really fit in anywhere else.

Armada Fanbois: Yay! Armada is the best ever!

Everyone else: Meh... too little, too late, FFG.

Except that two of the four SSD variants CAN be used in regular games...

26 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

Everyone else: Meh... too little, too late, FFG.

TOP KEK

Facebook posts related to Legion and X-wing releases by FFG within 48 hours of latest Armada article:



The Armada article:



Maybe reevaluate your opinion to better suit the facts? lol

This news of a tiny addition to the rules has gotten more of a response than both other IPs got on previews for new releases...


YOU may not be stoked, but to imply it's JUST the die-hard Armada fans that are happy is sheer folly, mate.

Hmm... I sort of liked the support of FFG for Armada better as long as they didn't release articles. 😳

I wouldn't have needed so much help to devide 1.200 FP by 2, or by 3, or by 4 players. Some thoughts about how objectives work when you multiply 400 FP by 1,5 or 2 or 3 would have been nice! A little bit more than: "All standart objectives are usebale, but objectives that alter the play area or introduce ongoing special rules will have a more pronounced effect on larger games."

Best thing to say is that the chances for the SSD release in near future increased. But that nothingness of higher points/multi-player rules let me doubt if they thought about any of the problems the SSD will have when overlapping squadrons, when deploying in Fleet Ambush, when blocked by flotillas and so on.

I hope FFG will proof me wrong! Don't expect any more ... only hope for the best.

Just now, Triangular said:

let me doubt if they thought about any of the problems the SSD will have when overlapping squadrons, when deploying in Fleet Ambush, when blocked by flotillas and so on.

I mean, if they are working on all these interactions it would definitely explain why it's taking so long.

37 minutes ago, Triangular said:

Best thing to say is that the chances for the SSD release in near future increased. But that nothingness of higher points/multi-player rules let me doubt if they thought about any of the problems the SSD will have when overlapping squadrons, when deploying in Fleet Ambush, when blocked by flotillas and so on.

I hope FFG will proof me wrong! Don't expect any more ... only hope for the best.

Fleet Ambush needs addressing, but just regular deployment likely does as well. But the others why would there need to be anything different than the current rule set?

1 minute ago, draco193 said:

Fleet Ambush needs addressing, but just regular deployment likely does as well. But the others why would there need to be anything different than the current rule set?

If you overlap a B-wing with the front of the SSD your opponent can make it move to the rear which is longer than the range ruler. Not very satisfying for a squadron with speed 2 in my eyes.

A flotilla blocking the move of a SSD feels wrong, too. It's ridiculous if a flotilla blocks a large ship but with huge ships is more than I want to accept as abstract rule vs plausibility.

I also think the SSD should ignore all terrain (including the station), because you will quite easily overlap nearly every round more than one.

FFG can ignore all that, probably will. But I just would wish somebody thinks about it and tries to adjust that if feels more smooth, if you know what I mean.

9 minutes ago, Triangular said:

If you overlap a B-wing with the front of the SSD your opponent can make it move to the rear which is longer than the range ruler. Not very satisfying for a squadron with speed 2 in my eyes.

A flotilla blocking the move of a SSD feels wrong, too. It's ridiculous if a flotilla blocks a large ship but with huge ships is more than I want to accept as abstract rule vs plausibility.

I also think the SSD should ignore all terrain (including the station), because you will quite easily overlap nearly every round more than one.

FFG can ignore all that, probably will. But I just would wish somebody thinks about it and tries to adjust that if feels more smooth, if you know what I mean.

Have the SSD overlap rules been released yet? While these are valid concerns, if not, it may be prudent to wait until the SSD is released before we jump to conclusions about how everything is broken.

“Smooth” is relative @Triangular

I for one, feel seamless integration with existing rules is “smooth”.

Ergo, by not making exceptions, except where direly neccessary rather than merely desired, things are “best”.

Yes... the “Lets break 1200 point games”, and questions of “How do objectives, Squadron overlaps, ship rams, flotillas, etc work” indicates this is a brilliant system. 🙄

7 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

and questions of “How do objectives, Squadron overlaps, ship rams, flotillas, etc work” indicates this is a brilliant system. 🙄

Well, all of those listed currently work the exact same as they've always worked. I'm not sure where people would be getting confused.

26 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

Yes... the “Lets break 1200 point games”, and questions of “How do objectives, Squadron overlaps, ship rams, flotillas, etc work” indicates this is a brilliant system. 🙄

It's a fine system. I really enjoy playing it. I feel very sorry for being so negative. But Sector Fleet is a huge disappointment for me. After waiting patiently for such a long time I can't believe that's all they came up with. I cannot get it because all other new ships and rules have been good and inspiring for me. (All but Corellian Conflict, which was only inspiring in the beginning and proofed to be flawed and unbalanced. But squadron cards and new objectives are still worth it.)

I predict an article next week about SSD release. I will feel better, when I can hug mine in a couple of weeks. Need something triangular soon!

30 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Well, all of those listed currently work the exact same as they've always worked. I'm not sure where people would be getting confused.

Some folks angry just to be angry.

It's not like this is the first time we've got something new. If something glaring comes up, we'll e-mail FFG and get a ruling or a FAQ.... The real question is if that ruling or FAQ will be timely.

Legion is getting two more brand new never before seen releases, both single figures. I wonder if most Legion players get at least one of everything? And if in 12/24 months people will still be able to pick up every expansion?

It just seems to me Legion players are taking a big risk - the release schedule is chugging away quite quickly and if you are burning through money keeping up you aren’t going to want to suddenly turn around and see that the earlier waves are sold out everywhere and unavailable to new players. Also - the kit-bashing aspect just isn’t there like in GW games, so once I have one Sabine, why ever buy another? I probably bought 3-4, 5+ of some single character blisters from GW lines because they were so customisable.

Unless FFG have just decided that the slash/burn model is best profitability-wise for the Star Wars IP. Support IA for 4/5 years, make a bunch of sales then let it burn out, rinse repeat Armada, rinse repeat Legion, etc. Perhaps they never wanted to be custodians of a Warhammer-type game that lasts decades.

3 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Yes... the “Lets break 1200 point games”, and questions of “How do objectives, Squadron overlaps, ship rams, flotillas, etc work” indicates this is a brilliant system. 🙄

How about...

"Like Normal"?

This isn't an indication of a broken or incorrect system. This is a simple desire to want *more* and not necessarily getting it, I feel.

For all the people who just said they wanted *something*... Look. There's something... Be happy with it or not, that's up to you - but it is what it is, and its designed to be as seamless a change as necessary, given the structures that were already in place via the Corellian Campaign.

Its supposed to feel *familiar*.

In that way, its Brilliant... When you see it for what it is.