So I am thinking that planing for turn 6 sort of breaks the immersion because you know exactly when the game is going to end. It creates sort of this win in the 4th quarter scenarios where you don't push for objectives until turn 4 or 5. So I am thinking of a scenerio that randomizes the game length by one turn.

• At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.
• At the end of the 6th turn roll a red die. If a critical hit result is shown play one more turn the game ends at the 7th turn.

So with having the possibility of a game ending shortly you press for the objectives sooner rather than later. However with the possibility of an extra turn you don't depend on an all out offensive in the last turn.

What do you think, or should it only be 1 die roll at the end of the 5th round so by the 6th round players know if it will be an extra turn?

I feel that its a viable casual game concept.

It doesn't fly in a timed tournament experience.

I've been to a fluffy-side 40k tournament that had this rule in many of its (super-awesome) scenarios. Generally people played quickly enough that it never was an issue, and it definitely added to the narrative tension of the game. I'd be all in favor of this type of card. I haven't played tourney games in a squadron-heavy environment yet though, and am wondering if that will push time limits...

Which is why I am keeping it to +/- 1 turn so even in time tournaments it won't go as long. Plus I think the 2nd and 3rd turn are always the longest because that is when the combat starts and ships haven't been removed yet. By the time of the later turn there will be a less cluttered board so adding a turn at the end won't be as long as a regular turn. I mean I know players that don't even bother to set command dials on the 5th turn.

I think the biggest question would be is what color this scenario would be. Should it be a Red, a Yellow or a Blue.

• Red I think is the less likely as the goal for red would be to table them. So if table the opponent by the 4th round the objective is rather null.
• Yellow is more likely as when you are in defense it is the attacker that chooses the time the battle starts and the time the battle stops.
• Blue is also a possibility as for me navigation scenarios hold the most unknown elements.

Green objectives

So I am thinking that planing for turn 6 sort of breaks the immersion because you know exactly when the game is going to end. It creates sort of this win in the 4th quarter scenarios where you don't push for objectives until turn 4 or 5. So I am thinking of a scenerio that randomizes the game length by one turn.

• At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.
• At the end of the 6th turn roll a red die. If a critical hit result is shown play one more turn the game ends at the 7th turn.

So with having the possibility of a game ending shortly you press for the objectives sooner rather than later. However with the possibility of an extra turn you don't depend on an all out offensive in the last turn.

What do you think, or should it only be 1 die roll at the end of the 5th round so by the 6th round players know if it will be an extra turn?

I'm on board with the idea, but I would change this bit:

At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.

Maybe do it at the beginning of the fifth turn? Seems like the game would kind of end with a fizzle this way.

"AAAAAAAAND...... well, the game's over. GG?"

I would just throw it into the setup text of the mission that the second player can chose to play 5 or 7 turns. Making it variable means less of an advantage for the 2nd player, by making it a choice he gets to build his fleet as to go for one less turn or one more.

So I am thinking that planing for turn 6 sort of breaks the immersion because you know exactly when the game is going to end. It creates sort of this win in the 4th quarter scenarios where you don't push for objectives until turn 4 or 5. So I am thinking of a scenerio that randomizes the game length by one turn.

• At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.
• At the end of the 6th turn roll a red die. If a critical hit result is shown play one more turn the game ends at the 7th turn.

So with having the possibility of a game ending shortly you press for the objectives sooner rather than later. However with the possibility of an extra turn you don't depend on an all out offensive in the last turn.

What do you think, or should it only be 1 die roll at the end of the 5th round so by the 6th round players know if it will be an extra turn?

I think thats a very interesting concept. Especially for competitive play, of course with the exception of time constraints, the most important factor for those events. But would love to see this when people know they can move their speed 3 ISD with impunity in turns 5 and 6 as there is no turn 7 where it would fly off the board with certainty.

So I am thinking that planing for turn 6 sort of breaks the immersion because you know exactly when the game is going to end. It creates sort of this win in the 4th quarter scenarios where you don't push for objectives until turn 4 or 5. So I am thinking of a scenerio that randomizes the game length by one turn.

• At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.
• At the end of the 6th turn roll a red die. If a critical hit result is shown play one more turn the game ends at the 7th turn.

So with having the possibility of a game ending shortly you press for the objectives sooner rather than later. However with the possibility of an extra turn you don't depend on an all out offensive in the last turn.

What do you think, or should it only be 1 die roll at the end of the 5th round so by the 6th round players know if it will be an extra turn?

I'm on board with the idea, but I would change this bit:

At the end of the 5th turn roll a red die. If the double hit result is shown the game ends at the end of the 5th turn.

Maybe do it at the beginning of the fifth turn? Seems like the game would kind of end with a fizzle this way.

"AAAAAAAAND...... well, the game's over. GG?"

Good point, Also it makes it easier for 2 command ships while still keeping 3 command ships guessing if they need to get that command dial ready (besides leaving it on the table.) I think having 4 turns of not knowing how long the game will be is enough to keep things interesting.

I would just throw it into the setup text of the mission that the second player can chose to play 5 or 7 turns. Making it variable means less of an advantage for the 2nd player, by making it a choice he gets to build his fleet as to go for one less turn or one more.

I don't think at the set up will do. The whole point is to keep players guessing when it is the end. If they know from the start then well it defeats the purpose of this mechanic. If the extra turn less or more is too much of a problem for the 2nd player they simply won't pick it as one of their objectives and if it is too much of a problem for the first player they simply won't pick it from the three.

Yeah but if it doesn't benefit the second player somehow, then why would he even include it as a possible objective for the first player to pick?

I agree with Dras though that it would be a bad idea for tournaments. I've had enough tournaments drag because people went to time at 6 turns, the possibility of a 7th turn just seems to increase the odds of that happening.

I would just throw it into the setup text of the mission that the second player can chose to play 5 or 7 turns. Making it variable means less of an advantage for the 2nd player, by making it a choice he gets to build his fleet as to go for one less turn or one more.

I like this. It gives the required advantage to the second player. I would suggest scenario text such as this.

Green Mission Scenario: Hyperspace Retreat.

Setup: Players must deploy all their ships before any of their squadrons are deployed.

Special Rule: At the end of the third turn the second player may announce that the game will last 5, 6 or 7 turns. (i.e. they all enter hyperspace)

I thought delaying the decision until the end of turn 3 would give player 2 the ability to see which way the game was developing to further inform the decision while it still gives player 1 sufficient warning.

Actually in the rule book it says you dont have to play a turn limit and in that case dont use missions. So it's a '13th' mission already

You also swap initiative each turn. never tried it but it sounds fun.

do it at the end of the 5th turn so you play it like it is the last turn and you might get turn 6 This would be much more of the effect your looking for, and you would want something more in line to a 50% chance its the last turn like flipping a coin.

do it at the end of the 5th turn so you play it like it is the last turn and you might get turn 6 This would be much more of the effect your looking for, and you would want something more in line to a 50% chance its the last turn like flipping a coin.

I still want to keep the 6th turn the most likely outcome. Maybe instead of a dice roll at the end of the 5th and 6th turn just have one at the end (or beginning) of the 5th. If the double hit shows then it is a 5 turn game, if one of the crits show it is a 7 turn game.

How about a "no surrender" objective card that says the game goes until all ships of one opponent (not fighters) are destroyed?

What would this do to game balance? Cards like Garm become less attractive, engineering capability more so, not sure what other impacts it would have.

How about a "no surrender" objective card that says the game goes until all ships of one opponent (not fighters) are destroyed?

What would this do to game balance? Cards like Garm become less attractive, engineering capability more so, not sure what other impacts it would have.

Effectively, that removes objectives and the points you can get from them, so you are essentially defaulting to the Optional Rules in the Rulebook at that point... And in order to be "fair" to both Second and First players, the Initiative should switch between them....

Because the whole point of objectives is to balance the fact that going first is a definite and distinct advantage.........

If you remove objectives, you must find some way to make 2nd Player not be playing with a disadvantage.

How about a "no surrender" objective card that says the game goes until all ships of one opponent (not fighters) are destroyed?

What would this do to game balance? Cards like Garm become less attractive, engineering capability more so, not sure what other impacts it would have.

Not really as people found out thanks to ship regeneration and the larger play area Armada games tend to last longer. Which is why they put in objectives and a 6 turn limit.

The whole concept of Red Objectives is to amp up damage. Red is for tabling opponents (win through destruction), Yellow is for playing to time(have the most points left on the table at the end of the game) and Blue is for objective grabbing and running (playing the objective, not the killing).

The whole concept of Red Objectives is to amp up damage. Red is for tabling opponents (win through destruction), Yellow is for playing to time(have the most points left on the table at the end of the game) and Blue is for objective grabbing and running (playing the objective, not the killing).

/disagree

Precision Strike and Opening Salvo both award points for playing the objective, rather than actively killing.

Hyperspace Assault nets no points, but its all about doing the destruction - isn't having most of the points on the table at the end always the side-objective? I mean, under that concept, Hyperspace Assault should be a red objective, right?

The whole concept of Red Objectives is to amp up damage. Red is for tabling opponents (win through destruction), Yellow is for playing to time(have the most points left on the table at the end of the game) and Blue is for objective grabbing and running (playing the objective, not the killing).

/disagree

Precision Strike and Opening Salvo both award points for playing the objective, rather than actively killing.

Hyperspace Assault nets no points, but its all about doing the destruction - isn't having most of the points on the table at the end always the side-objective? I mean, under that concept, Hyperspace Assault should be a red objective, right?

Haha, yes actually. It literally has the word assault in there, which is by definition an offensive task. I think it actually causes the first player to play more defensively than second player, as they try to avoid getting jumped by Salvation/Landmonition. It also really hurts the second player by taking away a deployment during setup (granted they get it back, but it's still a trade whereas other objectives will give advantages without opportunity costs).

And for the thread topic, I liked the idea where the second player gets to choose towards the end of the game, and it was titled hyperspace retreat. However some people have legitimate concerns over the time for a 7 turn game in tournament settings... what if the advantage for the second player was instead that they could run ships off the table without conceding the points. That would be a literal hyperspace retreat, it would really force first player to bring the heat, and it would fit into the defensive scheme of objectives. It would certainly be hard to accomplish with interdictors in the mix.

Now you say, why would that be a thing? I'm thinking MC30 (and other MSU) mad dash runs. They often get severely crippled after their attack run, and this objective would play into that style of play where some devil-dare does his damage and escapes by the skin of his/her teeth, leaving the Imperial scum behind in a trail of stardust...