There are a few problems with this campaign setup.

1. as written it seems to cater to elitism. Joe and, Bob have all the minis and can field the best meta fleets so they play most of the games and the rest sit-out.

2. the team has more control over your fleet then you do or you don't play.

3. not enough turns in a round for all the players to play.

4. RAW is very pron to turtling by a team that can gain the advantage quickly.

Overall I like alot of what I am see but the listed problem could make this less a store campaign game and more a gaming group meet-up

1) What is this supposed to mean? Bringing a good fleet is no different for a tournament or standard battle than for a campaign battle.

2) You play campaigns with people who don't let you play? This isn't an Armada problem.

3) This is a good question. We don't have all the rules yet. Hopefully there will be a mechanic to assign missions until everyone has a battle to fight. <crossing fingers>

4) Turtling is zero problem in any of the tournaments I've watched nor in my local casual meta. And there are easy ways to counter turtling. Again, not an issue with the Campaign rules.

1. you assume that all players in a local area have access to all the minis and cards. where some people like the game but don't have the money to field 3 GSV or 4 Neb's

2. I was not talking about me. I don't only think of myself but, in a game-store tournament environment players are out to win so less skilled player can sometimes be snubbed

3.

4. depends on the type of tournament. but from the design I was getting from the write-up sitting back and building resource points seem to be a viable tactic in this campaign

1. I don't assume anything. The problem of what to bring to a battle isn't specific to a campaign.

2. This question boils down to "what if people are jerks?" - which isn't the responsibility or fault of the campaign rules.

3. Profit!

4. This isn't a tournament, it's a campaign. And since your team must do an attack every turn you can't just sit back (or so it seems). Fact is, we really don't know all the rules so this is all premature.

My hope is that a single campaign will take weeks (or months) to resolve. It shouldn't be something that you can do in a single afternoon.

One other thing that was said at GenCon was that a Campaign could last 8-9 Campaign Rounds. So, it's probably not something you can finish in one day.

Maybe... but if in a 6-player campaign, you can have 3 simultaneous games, then couldn't it simply take the same length of a 3-round tournament effectively? That would be a MAJOR reason to bring 6 players together as opposed to simply have 3 separate campaigns of 2 players each - For those times when you guys all decide to do a day-long event.

And if you can't play your games simultaneously, then I honestly see zero reason to ever play with more than 2 people. I am never going to participate in a campaign where I have to sit and do nothing for 2 - 4 hours at a time.

Because 3 Simultanious games, in a 6 Player Campaign, is one Campaign Round, or One campaign Week.

And if the target is 8-9 Weeks for that many players, its not so much get it done in one Day, in one Tournament... Its more 8 WEEKS worth of Tournaments.

One other thing that was said at GenCon was that a Campaign could last 8-9 Campaign Rounds. So, it's probably not something you can finish in one day.

Maybe... but if in a 6-player campaign, you can have 3 simultaneous games, then couldn't it simply take the same length of a 3-round tournament effectively? That would be a MAJOR reason to bring 6 players together as opposed to simply have 3 separate campaigns of 2 players each - For those times when you guys all decide to do a day-long event.

And if you can't play your games simultaneously, then I honestly see zero reason to ever play with more than 2 people. I am never going to participate in a campaign where I have to sit and do nothing for 2 - 4 hours at a time.

My friends are looking at it in more of a league style. Do a video chat for the parts where everyone needs communicate together at the strategic level, and then play the resulting matches over a week or two individually.

Here's how it sounds to me like it will work. Let's say you have Rebel players A, B, and C, and Imperial players X, Y, and Z...

Rebels choose A to go attack, and Empire chooses X to defend. Then Empire chooses Y to attack, and Rebels choose B to defend. Then you can play two battles simultaneously: A vs. X, and B vs. Y. C and Z have to sit this one out.

After the battles, you do some upgrades and plan your next moves. Let's say the Empire just lost both battles. Because they have the least points, they decide the battle first. Are they going to send X or Y, who have significant damages? No, they'll probably choose to send Z, because they have a fresh fleet with no damage. Then the Rebels may choose to defend with C, since they also have a fresh fleet...or they may opt to go with a fleet with damage, because it has the best counters to Z. Hmm..decisions, decisions.

This sounds like a ton of fun to me. You may not be able to play 3 simultaneous games on campaign day at the store, but that might be better...as a group you may decide to allow one of the other players to play an absent person's fleet. That gives you flexibility when real life gets in the way.

. Then you can play two battles simultaneously: A vs. X, and B vs. Y. C and Z have to sit this one out.

Why?

Why are they not an Attack Declaration and Defense Declaration themselves?

One other thing that was said at GenCon was that a Campaign could last 8-9 Campaign Rounds. So, it's probably not something you can finish in one day.

Maybe... but if in a 6-player campaign, you can have 3 simultaneous games, then couldn't it simply take the same length of a 3-round tournament effectively? That would be a MAJOR reason to bring 6 players together as opposed to simply have 3 separate campaigns of 2 players each - For those times when you guys all decide to do a day-long event.

And if you can't play your games simultaneously, then I honestly see zero reason to ever play with more than 2 people. I am never going to participate in a campaign where I have to sit and do nothing for 2 - 4 hours at a time.

Because 3 Simultanious games, in a 6 Player Campaign, is one Campaign Round, or One campaign Week.

And if the target is 8-9 Weeks for that many players, its not so much get it done in one Day, in one Tournament... Its more 8 WEEKS worth of Tournaments.

So in that case, it couldn't be..... because then you'd have 27 different missions, and it looks like there are only 25 - and I doubt you are expected to battle during every single system in a campaign, otherwise it would have much less replayability.

25 systems, 8 - 9 rounds. I'll round it down to 24 systems and 8 rounds, 24 /8 = 6, therefore, If one campaign round is only a single battle, and you can complete the campaign in 8 rounds, you'd only do 1/6th of the systems.

Basically, the information that I'm searching for, is the answer to this question : "What value does adding players above 2 actually bring to a campaign", or in other words, "Why would 6 of us want to play a 6-player campaign, as opposed to 3 separate 2-player campaigns". I just can't imagine anyone would volunteer to participate in a campaign that has them actively twiddling their thumbs for multiple hours in a row.

Or if it caps at 2 simultaneous battles, then why would anyone EVER consider a 6-player game? Do a 4 player campaign and a 2-player campaign instead. I ask these question because FFG sold Rebellion, saying it was a 2-4 player game, and anyone who has ever played it, knows full well it's ONLY a 2-player game. We need more information here.

Agreed, Dras.

It could very well be that the number of Attack/Defense declarations will match the number of players on each side.

One other thing that was said at GenCon was that a Campaign could last 8-9 Campaign Rounds. So, it's probably not something you can finish in one day.

Maybe... but if in a 6-player campaign, you can have 3 simultaneous games, then couldn't it simply take the same length of a 3-round tournament effectively? That would be a MAJOR reason to bring 6 players together as opposed to simply have 3 separate campaigns of 2 players each - For those times when you guys all decide to do a day-long event.

And if you can't play your games simultaneously, then I honestly see zero reason to ever play with more than 2 people. I am never going to participate in a campaign where I have to sit and do nothing for 2 - 4 hours at a time.

Because 3 Simultanious games, in a 6 Player Campaign, is one Campaign Round, or One campaign Week.

And if the target is 8-9 Weeks for that many players, its not so much get it done in one Day, in one Tournament... Its more 8 WEEKS worth of Tournaments.

So in that case, it couldn't be..... because then you'd have 27 different missions, and it looks like there are only 25 - and I doubt you are expected to battle during every single system in a campaign, otherwise it would have much less replayability.

25 systems, 8 - 9 rounds. I'll round it down to 24 systems and 8 rounds, 24 /8 = 6, therefore, If one campaign round is only a single battle, and you can complete the campaign in 8 rounds, you'd only do 1/6th of the systems.

Basically, the information that I'm searching for, is the answer to this question : "What value does adding players above 2 actually bring to a campaign", or in other words, "Why would 6 of us want to play a 6-player campaign, as opposed to 3 separate 2-player campaigns". I just can't imagine anyone would volunteer to participate in a campaign that has them actively twiddling their thumbs for multiple hours in a row.

But I don't understand why you think you'd be actively twiddling your thumbs for two hours...

ALSO, you seem to be under the assumption that you fight for a Place once and then its done... Perhaps there are rules there for constantly fighting over a system... In which case, every location on the map itself has replayability...

I mean, 3x2 Player Campaign vs 1x6 Player campaign... The Difference is variety of opponents, for one... Inherently, playing against only one other player for any length of time is going to get a little same-ey... Having that variety of opponent is going to be important.

Secondly, campaigns are inherently a social creature. I can play anything alone, but playing with friends is better.

Thirdly, I see three phases mentioned, and I'll flavour it with my setup:

First is Planning.

The whole group gets together and in 10 minutes work out a quick plan of battle - WHO is attacking WHO... EVERYONE WILL BE ALLOCATED A GAME AT THIS POINT.

Then everyone GOES AND PLAYS THEIR GAMES. That's Phase 2. Battle.

THEN everyone comes BACK TOGETHER and goes through the Management Phase......

Its been 3 Hours. a campaign Week has Passed.

BOOYAH! Now we look to see if we've got another 3 Hours today to Run another campaign Week, or do we Reconvene in a Fortnight to do it again, and just let the rest of the League Day be Fun random pickup games?

But I don't understand why you think you'd be actively twiddling your thumbs for two hours...

ALSO, you seem to be under the assumption that you fight for a Place once and then its done... Perhaps there are rules there for constantly fighting over a system... In which case, every location on the map itself has replayability...

They do explicitly mention that if you take an opponent's system you can destroy their base. Which presumably means you can build your own there. Which means the opponent could take it back and destroy it. Etc etc etc.

One other thing that was said at GenCon was that a Campaign could last 8-9 Campaign Rounds. So, it's probably not something you can finish in one day.

Maybe... but if in a 6-player campaign, you can have 3 simultaneous games, then couldn't it simply take the same length of a 3-round tournament effectively? That would be a MAJOR reason to bring 6 players together as opposed to simply have 3 separate campaigns of 2 players each - For those times when you guys all decide to do a day-long event.

And if you can't play your games simultaneously, then I honestly see zero reason to ever play with more than 2 people. I am never going to participate in a campaign where I have to sit and do nothing for 2 - 4 hours at a time.

My friends are looking at it in more of a league style. Do a video chat for the parts where everyone needs communicate together at the strategic level, and then play the resulting matches over a week or two individually.

This was kind of how I imagined it going as well, if they couldn't be played simultaneously, which is obviously the preferred way.

I get the feeling that the "campaign" thing may be a new concept to some players. Which is cool.

Campaigns, as a general rule, tend to be fought for an extended period of time. Fortunes (and locations) trade hands as each side vies for supremacy. The process can take a long, wonderful time to finish.

From what they said in the article, it looks like you accumulate "campaign points" toward a victory. The speed with which points can be won will ultimately determine how long they intend a campaign to be played.

But I don't understand why you think you'd be actively twiddling your thumbs for two hours...

ALSO, you seem to be under the assumption that you fight for a Place once and then its done... Perhaps there are rules there for constantly fighting over a system... In which case, every location on the map itself has replayability...

Fair point.

But as to the twiddling of thumbs - that's just an option. I mean I suppose you could go play Pokémon GO or something, there's no rule that says you have to twiddle your thumbs. You could play Hearthstone. You could read a book. You could go running and then go to Tropical Smoothie and get a Peanut Butter Banana smoothie with no Sugar, because the fruit is still sweet and all that extra sugar only makes you tired. This way you have plenty of energy left to go back to the gym later that day and do a few more sets because you are in overdrive mode now doing 2-a-days and trying like hell to loose weight now before the holidays hit - because you know full well that on Thanksgiving you are gonna eat way more pie than you have any right to.... but I digress....

My point is, if the campaign doesn't have simultaneous play, then it would be awful, because the other people would be better served running their OWN campaign, as opposed to simply watching YOUR battle to see what happens. Armada games tend to take a long time, and nobody is gonna want to just sit this one out...

Here's how it sounds to me like it will work. Let's say you have Rebel players A, B, and C, and Imperial players X, Y, and Z...

Rebels choose A to go attack, and Empire chooses X to defend. Then Empire chooses Y to attack, and Rebels choose B to defend. Then you can play two battles simultaneously: A vs. X, and B vs. Y. C and Z have to sit this one out.

After the battles, you do some upgrades and plan your next moves. Let's say the Empire just lost both battles. Because they have the least points, they decide the battle first. Are they going to send X or Y, who have significant damages? No, they'll probably choose to send Z, because they have a fresh fleet with no damage. Then the Rebels may choose to defend with C, since they also have a fresh fleet...or they may opt to go with a fleet with damage, because it has the best counters to Z. Hmm..decisions, decisions.

This sounds like a ton of fun to me. You may not be able to play 3 simultaneous games on campaign day at the store, but that might be better...as a group you may decide to allow one of the other players to play an absent person's fleet. That gives you flexibility when real life gets in the way.

After reading the article, I do not understand where people are getting that a round is limited to 2 engagements. It sounds like part of the benefit of strategic initiative is being able to declare 2 assaults on a turn, so it would go rebel A declares, Imperials chose defenders, Imperials X declares assault, Rebels defend, Rebels C declare assault.

Otherwise the statement "Once per campaign turn, your team may declare that one of your assaults is a Special Assault, and it's then fought according to one of the campaign's two faction-specific objectives:" wouldn't make sense, because you could only declare one assault.

I think it is much more likely that more than 1 assault per turn is possible, and all this worry about someone sitting out is completely unfounded.

After reading the article, I do not understand where people are getting that a round is limited to 2 engagements. It sounds like part of the benefit of strategic initiative is being able to declare 2 assaults on a turn, so it would go rebel A declares, Imperials chose defenders, Imperials X declares assault, Rebels defend, Rebels C declare assault.

Otherwise the statement "Once per campaign turn, your team may declare that one of your assaults is a Special Assault, and it's then fought according to one of the campaign's two faction-specific objectives:" wouldn't make sense, because you could only declare one assault.

I think it is much more likely that more than 1 assault per turn is possible, and all this worry about someone sitting out is completely unfounded.

It also makes sense that 3 battles are fought per turn since the side that is behind on campaign points gets to declare 2 attacks each turn this way, giving them a chance to catch up on those campaign points.

But I don't understand why you think you'd be actively twiddling your thumbs for two hours...

ALSO, you seem to be under the assumption that you fight for a Place once and then its done... Perhaps there are rules there for constantly fighting over a system... In which case, every location on the map itself has replayability...

Fair point.

But as to the twiddling of thumbs - that's just an option. I mean I suppose you could go play Pokémon GO or something, there's no rule that says you have to twiddle your thumbs. You could play Hearthstone. You could read a book. You could go running and then go to Tropical Smoothie and get a Peanut Butter Banana smoothie with no Sugar, because the fruit is still sweet and all that extra sugar only makes you tired. This way you have plenty of energy left to go back to the gym later that day and do a few more sets because you are in overdrive mode now doing 2-a-days and trying like hell to loose weight now before the holidays hit - because you know full well that on Thanksgiving you are gonna eat way more pie than you have any right to.... but I digress....

My point is, if the campaign doesn't have simultaneous play, then it would be awful, because the other people would be better served running their OWN campaign, as opposed to simply watching YOUR battle to see what happens. Armada games tend to take a long time, and nobody is gonna want to just sit this one out...

And I see no reason as to why it wouldn't, based on the number of players.

To assume otherwise wouldn't... be a campaign, really.

After reading the article, I do not understand where people are getting that a round is limited to 2 engagements.

Just from these two sentences:

Starting with the Rebel team, or the team with the fewest campaign points, each team can declare one assault, designating a player to lead the strike force and targeting a specific location on the map. Then, the other team must choose a player to defend against the assault before they can declare their own assault and force you to assign a defender.

That's the only reason, and I would personally be fine with it because I have a feeling I can't get 6 players together on the same day over an extended period of time, and it gives your most damaged fleet time to recover.

But then there's this:

Once per campaign turn, your team may declare that one of your assaults is a Special Assault...

Which makes me think each team can do more than one assault...so I guess we'll wait and see. You guys are probably right.

If it allows every player to play a battle simultaneously, then I'm all for it. That would both be fun, social, and provide true value of adding players. It would make sense to actively TRY to get 6 players to do a campaign, because you will be able to cover more systems in a shorter time-frame that way, (Assuming you want to complete it a little faster), and I'll be thrilled!

There are a ton of multiplayer games out there that don't really "Feel" like they are truly multiplayer. I'm usually very happy to play games where each extra player adds depth and complexity, rather than simply an extra chair.

If it allows every player to play a battle simultaneously, then I'm all for it. That would both be fun, social, and provide true value of adding players. It would make sense to actively TRY to get 6 players to do a campaign, because you will be able to cover more systems in a shorter time-frame that way, (Assuming you want to complete it a little faster), and I'll be thrilled!

There are a ton of multiplayer games out there that don't really "Feel" like they are truly multiplayer. I'm usually very happy to play games where each extra player adds depth and complexity, rather than simply an extra chair.

I mean, we have our disagreements mate, but I don't see how, based on the article presented here and previously, that you'd make the assumption you could not do things simultaniously... Because that seems like it would have to be a massive, core, limiting factor to the Campaign itself, that would have to be FRONT AND CENTRE.......

I would bet Painting Credit on it.

So do you think it would be:

A declares attack, X declares defense = match 1

Y declares attack, B declares defense = match 2

C declares attack, Z declares defense = match 3

FIGHT! 3 games played at once (or over whatever period you decide).

So the team that's behind in campaign points gets more opportunities to set where the battles will take place. I can dig it.

I bet on the sentences I quoted where it says the Rebels choose "ONE" assault, an editor decided to remove the sentence that said "and if there are more battles to conduct, the final player on the Rebel team gets to choose the final location!" Too long, and this is not a rules document so who cares! Backspace backspace backspace...

It'll be simultaneous.

I mean come on, what can be more fun than knowing that you need to score big in a match up that you didnt want because your mate Ricky managed to royally muck up his easy match up and get tabled in three turns!

If it allows every player to play a battle simultaneously, then I'm all for it. That would both be fun, social, and provide true value of adding players. It would make sense to actively TRY to get 6 players to do a campaign, because you will be able to cover more systems in a shorter time-frame that way, (Assuming you want to complete it a little faster), and I'll be thrilled!

There are a ton of multiplayer games out there that don't really "Feel" like they are truly multiplayer. I'm usually very happy to play games where each extra player adds depth and complexity, rather than simply an extra chair.

I mean, we have our disagreements mate, but I don't see how, based on the article presented here and previously, that you'd make the assumption you could not do things simultaniously... Because that seems like it would have to be a massive, core, limiting factor to the Campaign itself, that would have to be FRONT AND CENTRE.......

I would bet Painting Credit on it.

I thought that could be a possibility based on my first reading of this:

Starting with the Rebel team, or the team with the fewest campaign points, each team can declare one assault

I think a few others considered this as well - because it sounds like the rebels would get only ONE assault, "From a certain point of view" to quote obi wan. However, now it seems that you continue the process for each pair of players in the campaign.

Do you see why I was originally concerned though? A simple mis-reading.

DAMMIT RICKY!

It'll be simultaneous.

I mean come on, what can be more fun than knowing that you need to score big in a match up that you didnt want because your mate Ricky managed to royally muck up his easy match up and get tabled in three turns!

Do you see why I was originally concerned though? A simple mis-reading.

Only when its specifically spelled out like that.

Perhaps its just the different way we read or something... I took that line, and the fact did not register there, because when I read "designate one of their assaults as a Special Assault" I knew it was further context to it.

I know my brain works differently than most, its what makes me good in the Rules Forum... So perhaps thats just what it is here...

If it allows every player to play a battle simultaneously, then I'm all for it.

What is making you think that isn't the case?

The ONLY time it seems to me that a player will have to sit out a round is if the teams are not even, 2vs1 or 3vs2. Otherwise each player will play (at least 1) battle each round.

It's all good.

I'll admit I was also partially drawing my own conclusion based on Rebellion's advertisements of a 4-player game, which is really only a 2 player game. And it's a great game too.... one of the best - but it's not a 4 player game. Technically, Chess can be a 32 player game if everyone is only allowed to control a single piece.