To be honest, I somewhat agree that all of upgrades can be a bit much. I like them, I'd just prefer fewer of them in play. I'd like to have more ship releases that don't try to include a gimmicky mechanic in the cards.

Former GW redshirt here. No matter what, let the r(w)ookie win.

You can view it as condescending or placating but if you want to grow the game do everything in your power to make the first play experience enjoyable. If you want to avoid making it condescending work the "training" angle.

I second this immensely. I have been a been associated with teaching MtG, 40K, WFB, Mage Knight, Battletech (FASA and Wizkids), Babylon 5: ACTA, and Star Wars: Armada. No matter the game, there are certain things I have found to hold true.

1) A player's first game should never be considered an actual game regardless of his past experience with complex games. In fact, if anything, those experiences make losing worse. Most people that enjoy complex games and stick with them pride themselves on understanding the rule interactions that govern the game. By having upgrade cards he didn't yet understand be his downfall, it sounds like it was a double shot to self esteem (I lost the game and I couldn't seem to understand the rules well enough).

2) You should play poorly. You mentioned you got Dodonna's Pride around for multiple rounds of double arc shots. This tells me you must be decent at maneuvering. He probably wouldn't have believed if you didn't take obvious shots or moves, but I would have done a very sub-optimal deployment, and in particular, set your ships speeds poorly. Scatter poor choices of commands to boot.

3) Make it simple. Upgrades at all were probably a mistake. The ships are gorgeous, the movement and commands work great, and the theme is already a home run.I know its hard to kill ships without upgrades at all, but I have found that actually works better. It means you get to trade shots, play with the mechanics of the rules, but not take ships off the board. For admirals, I would have run Motti and either Cracken or Mon Motha. Taking an offensive admiral ends up with the scenario you got, where you couldn't not give him the worst crits. Defensive admirals would have prolonged the game and at worst made it closer as less ships died.

The golden rule is always to get the player loving the game first. There is plenty of time later win. You beat him once, but it is unlikely he will come back for another try, so you miss out on years of kicking his ass.

Sidenote: One of the best places to learn is to go to a gaming convention, listen for people laughing or cheering, then hang around and watch the company guy demo the game right. Alternately just watch for the people demo-ing in relative silence, getting trounced in a game they don't understand, then walking away as soon as it is over to see the wrong way to do it.

I get where he's coming from as well. There's a point where the "accounting" you have to with these upgrades drags the whole thing down. X-wing is really bad at that for me since I haven't been there since the beginning like I have with Armada. Then you get the guys trying to break stuff and you have to tell them it doesn't work that way.

My guess it's more that he's frustrated that he doesn't know the cards and there effects. I know this aggravated me until I started using a fleet builder and could take my time and study the cards My suggestion would be to ask him to play a relatively "naked" game with no titles and a minimum of other upgrades. No one like to feel like they only know half the rules so give him a learning curve to get familiar with a few cards at a time

Yeah it is tough early on especially playing someone that knows most of if not all of the cards they might be vsing. All War games have these rules. 40k is a classic example with nearly every rule in the rule book broken by some race or unit. X wing is another that suffers from it, I am learning x wing atm due to the lack of armada near me and finding it frustrating when an upgrade for an y wing makes it more manoeuvrable than the TIE interceptor I am flying.

This makes me think of MTG. They have a core set of rules, but they also have their golden rule "the card is always right and can override any other game rules". Some cards let you have an extra attack phase, take extra turns, draw more cards. I think the "break the rules" mechanic is a fun to play with because it breaks the stagnation of the game. With Tycho, you have freedom of movement which means I have to kill him. Otherwise what's to stop me from moving 1 Tie every turn to pin him. Same with Dodanna's Pride. It makes the game interesting because you only get 1 of it.

I've always enjoyed these types of things, and if he is coming from games where they don't do that, it likely feels unfair. I wouldn't let it bother you.

That's immediately what I thought too. A few years ago (ok, more like 20) I tried to teach my father MTG thinking that he'd like it since he enjoyed complex board games. He gave up when he realized that just about every card contradicted the rules. It's definitely not for everyone.

OK, I skipped page 2, but I get this guy completely. The answer to his argument you are looking for is that this is the "thematic portrayal" of events in the star wars universe. If heros and villains are not Bigger than life, it wouldn't be Stsr Wars! That is the point of upgrades.

My group almost never uses upgrades. This is true when we play X-wing also (with the exception of missiles and R2 units). This way the game is won on the battlefield instead of in a spreadsheet.

Needless to say, we aren't going to any tournaments.

OK, I skipped page 2, but I get this guy completely. The answer to his argument you are looking for is that this is the "thematic portrayal" of events in the star wars universe. If heros and villains are not Bigger than life, it wouldn't be Stsr Wars! That is the point of upgrades.

This is mostly what the argument in my head consisted of, and some others have argued as far as a thematic explanation goes.

To use a real life example would be akin to the fact there were lots of pilots in WWI, but there was only one Manfred Von Richthoffen. The idea that the Red Baron wouldn't be any better than any other pilot, or do things that would seem to "break the rules" to the limitations of a normal individual, is absurd.

He was able to accomplish things that seemed impossible. He wasn't unbeatable, but he definitely broke the "rules." I think that should be a similar standard for "Ace's" in this or any game.

I would imagine that many of us learned to play with the scenario in the Learn to Play book and despite its' simplicity got hooked.

I look at Armada as a blend of LCG and Miniatures game, the cards are a fun part of the experience as they can break the rules, bring little traps or mitigate poor dice. But they also ramp up the complexity heaps, that 180/200 point game 2 after the L2P game started to introduce the cards in small parts. With 60 points of Squadrons Luke or Vader is a big deal too. Commands are king here, a timely FP command or Maneuver command can win the game.

Even the 300 point games had a degree of learn more to them. Now you get the VP/Tournament system perhaps, squadrons take on a more defined role and the opportunities to add cards to ships that can change the way those ships behave are in play.

With 400 points you start to see more of the importance of fleet building. The opportunity costs of ships, squadrons and cards are far more noticeable. I find I can agonise over this card or that card, or this ship and those upgrades and because we are playing 400 points those just seem more significant.

Keep in mind too that you may have given your opponent a whole range of great upgrades, but without the experience or understanding of how to best use them all you did was make the game harder to appreciate and learn. Try starting at the beginning and play the VSD against his Nebulon and Corvette, all your knowledge doesn't make the VSD any more maneuverable or able to blow him up. And here, if you win he may want to try another game to try another tactic, or swap sides to see what you do.

At that point you'll have him wanting to play more, because it will be his idea. That is probably far more important than allowing him to win, tickle the tactical itch to try again and see how it works.

TL;DR is that he thought the Dials, maneuver tool, and rules of the game were laid out brilliantly, but was SUPER frustrated that every card text (Especially Dodonna's Pride and Tycho, in this instance) revolved around breaking these rules, "ruining" what would otherwise be an awesome game.

When we were finished he was incredibly frustrated and said that he was tired of companies that, "Won't simply develop a straight-forward war game, but the feel need to add these bull**** 'heroes' doing rule bending and game breaking stuff that just couldn't happen."

Personally?

You can't like the Rules of the Game unless you like all the rules of the Game.

What he wants, is Chess with Miniatures.

Upgrades and special rules are part of the game... ships have been costed accounting for upgrade potential.

If you want to get especially salty... it's an assymetric game... the Rebels are breaking from norms of the Empire and vice versa.

I have found with new players its best to lose the 1st game, so best to give them a good fleet, and take fleet that doesnt gel together

I have found with new players its best to lose the 1st game, so best to give them a good fleet, and take fleet that doesnt gel together

I can see that. I started playing with someone who was as new as I was, on equal footing, but he started running the Gencon Special every time we played, and I got trashed every game. I learned the game pretty quick, and didn't get discouraged mostly due to how freaking fun and thematic Armada is. I eventually overcame that list, and it helped me learn the game, though my first 20+ games were me getting destroyed.

But I can see the value in letting someone see how it is when good stuff does its thing, at their very hands, no less.

It took my 13 year old at least 20 games to beat me, but you are talking about an old Wargamer! He is not even concentrating on the merits of the game, just how it breaks its own rules. He requires a why, for it to be fun.

I feel that is weird, if he is an old wargamer. 40k has power weapons and crap which breaks the rules, nearly all wargames have something like what he is complaining about to some degree.

Personally?

You can't like the Rules of the Game unless you like all the rules of the Game.

What he wants, is Chess with Miniatures.

Speaking as a D&D affectionado, I couldn't agree less, Drassy You can like the rules or a lot of the generalized interactions of the game and utterly loath several individual aspects of it or what they entail without some minute alteration. The reasons for that may be varied, it may be merited, and it may be simply gut instinct based on initial understandings or externally derived preconceptions. Do you like the rule that all tokens and dials must be placed next to a ship on the playing surface (and not on the ship base, or the ship card?) Not that you're okay with it, but you like it! If if not, you better start liking it; like it until you Love it! -shakes an iron mask-

I avoided the topic for a while (partially due to hockey, partially because I was sort of trying to figure out if I was in the same boat or not.) I can see Broba's friend's second cousin twice removed's point, even if the result came from being a product of the outside of a bell curve. Dodonna's Pride is a pretty great ship, but it's usually not that decisive. I don't fault a new player for getting that impression as they don't have the experience to know better, even if you try to point out that it was an outlyer statistically.

So in general, I can see the issue because the game's general flow and mechanics are elegant, especially if you have a background in a lot of other wargames. To have it explained to you one moment, only to have that nascent understanding yanked out the next, is probably not a great way to demonstrate a system. More over, it's bound to throw up some walls as it places a divide between new gamer and the experienced one.

My ideal Armada is one that is upgrade and hero light: a single upgrade per ship, a single title per fleet (or section, if you're playing very large games), and the flagship capable of taking more. The 'chess in space' games tend to give me more ships, more fighters, less time draining complications, and more general enjoyment. I'm not really a 'gamer', I'm a simulationist, I could care less about the numbers and more about the theme and how the game lets me roll dice and flip tokens to fight a battle in a way that makes it cinematic enough to derive a story from it. That's my greatest source of fun.

So, how to see if they'll give it another chance, have you considered a scenario game? Something that focuses on the points gained by one objective rather than just killing? Theme it around Endor, or escape from Hoth, something exciting and relatable like that. You can even play with multiple players to bring the scale up and have 2-3 good eggs and one unconvinced sort, so they're around a more positive group of familiar players rather than dwelling on the past (it makes it a passively positive environment, go for nuanced forms of behavior modification ). Go upgrade and hero light, give them only the most iconic titles/characters, and see if that's more their speed. That way you can ease in to the 'upgrade' game without overwhelming them with, oh, I dunno, 4 game breaky rebel titles in 400 points? I know, I know, you already said it was probably a mistake, I'm razzin ya mate!

Of course, it does bring up one little niggling issue I have with that particular gamer, " He had a Demolisher, as it was one of the cards he picked out of the list that he wanted to try because even he, with precisely 0 experience in the game, saw shooting after movement as a strong upgrade." He saw Demo did it, didn't make it a talking point, and actually took the blighter! Bad show!

It doesn't matter how good or experienced a wargamer is, or whether he wins or loses... it's always best with armada (and xwing) to play the first game with naked ships.

The basic explanation is, learn the rules, and understand every upgrade card is a new rule. Being frustrated by a deluge of new card rules when you are just learning the rules in the rulebook is far worse than frustration learning the rules included in the rulebook.

When I introduced a friend to this game, we played the first one out with zero upgrades and just the core set ships. Everyone had a good time, and the game flowed smoothly. We then used the same ships again, albeit with upgrades and named pilots for squadrons this time. There were many moments of salt (particularly when scatter or ECM was used), but he still understood it was part of the game mechanics.

We played again about a week later with more ships and higher points. He came to that game with a set plan for abusing broadsides and herding fighters. He'd figured out the basics from the first game, and the potential through upgrades from the second, and used it to improve his own experience.

I think the mistake in the OP was starting that introductory as a 400 point game with upgrades. It's overwhelming, even to a seasoned gamer. There's so much to remember and learn on your own side, you can't possibly remember and react to everything happening on the other side.

Maybe try again with 200 points of vanilla. No upgrades, no named squadrons. Then play again at 200 with upgrades, and explain that these upgrades aren't breaking the rules, they're creating an exception that you have to pay for.

OP, I'm going to ask you to check your defenitions. You say he's a good wargamer. What wargames does he like?

Based on his reply, I suspect he likes historical wargames. Napolionic, WW2, American Civil War, American Revolution. In these games, it is all about stratigy and tactics. There is no "deck building" aspect whatever. At best, there might be one or two "special" rules to cover the fact that the enemy has been without supplies for four days, or to cover an ambush scenerio. By these standards, Armada is hardly a wargame at all; it's a deckbuilder with ships.

You might try easing him into it, or simply accepting that this is not his game. I reccomend ignoring anyone claiming he's a "sore loser."

This really hits a chord with me as a long time "traditional" wargamer - playing both "hex and counter" and historical mins games (that is: NOT Flames of War but Chain of Command and NOT Wings of Glory but Bloody April 1917 etc) .. I like the wargaming aspects of Armada and the core rules are fantastic but i fear that it will soon become too cluttered in the meta-gaming aspects. I would hate it to become X-wing where the game can be lost when sitting home with the builder and where half the game is to find the best synergies between a crapload of upgrades and not about zipping about in starfighters. (yes i know.. A squadronless fleet versus 7 bombers is also lost before the game)..

Try playing a more narrative (and perhaps assymetric) scenario with predefined fleets and limited upgrades with him.. Og get him involved when Correlian Conflict comes out.

TL;DR is that he thought the Dials, maneuver tool, and rules of the game were laid out brilliantly, but was SUPER frustrated that every card text (Especially Dodonna's Pride and Tycho, in this instance) revolved around breaking these rules, "ruining" what would otherwise be an awesome game.

When we were finished he was incredibly frustrated and said that he was tired of companies that, "Won't simply develop a straight-forward war game, but the feel need to add these bull**** 'heroes' doing rule bending and game breaking stuff that just couldn't happen."

Personally?

You can't like the Rules of the Game unless you like all the rules of the Game.

What he wants, is Chess with Miniatures.

I really disagree here.. I love the game .. but i really hate some of the rules - such as collisions.. A gamesystem can (IMHO) be elegant, fun, playable and yet be marred by some clunky or stupid design decisions.. And also the game moves.. It will become more cluttered and clunky, and less clean with each wave .. I would hate it to become deckbuilding first and capital starship battles second... Like X-wing have become less and less a dogfight game and more deckbuilding..

X-wing is still very much about dogfighting. They've tried to re-emphasise that in the latest wave by focusing on ships with tricks to their arcs, rewarding flying and positioning with increased damage or utility. There's very little of the deckbuilding aspect to X-wing. It may seem that way with certain common builds requiring 6 or 7 upgrade cards (I'm looking at you, torp-scouts), but it's vastly more common to see just a couple of upgrades per ship. I see far more on Armada builds, to be honest.

It was mostly the truly arbitrary stuff like "every squadron has to engage... cept Tycho, cause he is Tycho" and "Dodonna's pride has magic ion cannons that cannot be stopped by shields."

Did he have this negative reaction to any of his own abilities or only to those in the list that beat him? If he didn't then it is probably a case of biased perceptions (no, I wouldn't use the sore looser term).

You mentioned that he was quick to realise the benefit of the Demolisher and thus included it in his list - the ability to fire after maneuvering defying one of the core principles of the game - but he did not complain about that one?

The game might not be one for him, but if I were to sell it to someone with the same objections, I would stress that the asymmetric upgrades are essential to the game design and that the abilities are thoroughly tested as a part of balancing it, and that they're there to add both theme and interesting choices; choices made while you toy around with different strategies and lists and choices you have to make when you face off against an opponent in spotting and adapting to their strengths and weaknesses. The latter, in particular, will be difficult when starting out, because there will be so many new variables to take in (why, as many have already suggested, it is a good idea to make an intro game light on special abilities), but over time as you get familiar with the basic gameplay you will learn to spot what makes your opponents' lists tick and it will be a rewarding experience trying to counter and out-fly them.

When i run an intro for new people i keep all the game breaking specials out, generic fighters, no titles and Admirals like Motti or Reekan who have passive abilities that newbies dont need to worry about.

Is it boring? no not really its more like a traditional wargame, but which wargame these days dont have units or special characters which break the rules?

.. but i really hate some of the rules - such as Ramming..

fixed that for ya. Ramming is a crutch. #shoulditchange

But it's a crutch that I love to use