Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?

Walex Blissex too and can Scarred squadrons just move onto a space station to repair themselves on turn 1?

I assume as the campaign has resource points and repair yards that these Scar effects are not able to be mitigated until you spend the resources to remove them. Even if you could remove the effects like this it still would be a scarred ship so would be gone from the campaign if it dies in again in a scenario.

Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?

Moar questions for the FAQ

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

We had the Hyperspace Jump mechanic be "in order to jump into Hyperspace, you must spend one navigate token and one navigate command simultaneously." It allowed Tractor Beams to help prevent jumping away.

This is very cool.

But it begs the question - why didn't Raymus Antilles get away from Darth Vader at the start of Star Wars? Not even tractor beams could stop him from jumping to hyperspace!

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

We had the Hyperspace Jump mechanic be "in order to jump into Hyperspace, you must spend one navigate token and one navigate command simultaneously." It allowed Tractor Beams to help prevent jumping away.

This is very cool.

But it begs the question - why didn't Raymus Antilles get away from Darth Vader at the start of Star Wars? Not even tractor beams could stop him from jumping to hyperspace!

Slicer tools

When trying to design my own campaign one of the first inclusions was a mechanism for jumping to light speed.

I worked it out as having to activate, do nothing, declare you are jumping to light speed with the ship and then spending the entire round at speed zero. Optionally adding in that you have to be at least at distance 5 of an edge and I guess now, also, you can't do it if an interdictor is in the enemy fleet.

Also, I did not see anywhere where we start with any particular number of points. I think it would be coolest if you start with limited points per fleet and have to build up gradually.

We had the Hyperspace Jump mechanic be "in order to jump into Hyperspace, you must spend one navigate token and one navigate command simultaneously." It allowed Tractor Beams to help prevent jumping away.

This is very cool.

But it begs the question - why didn't Raymus Antilles get away from Darth Vader at the start of Star Wars? Not even tractor beams could stop him from jumping to hyperspace!

Slicer tools

No fleet support slot on the Devastator!

What we need are some crit cards for "Damaged Hyperdrive".

Edit: Did notice that "Life Support Failure" would make jumping to hyperspace impossible if you need a maneuver token.

Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?

Moar questions for the FAQ

What do we know?

We have been told that you Discard the Token at the Start of the Game.

Ergo, you have Discarded the Token.

Ergo, Tagge will let you bring it back in Turn 3, as it is a Discarded Token.

If it is truly "Discarded at the start of the game", then it does not need an FAQ.

Because its Discarded, and Tagge lets you recover Discarded.

Simple.

Its just Recover from Discarded...

Its not "Discarded because it was used", because if that was the Case, Tagge wouldn't let you recover things from Suppressor.

Or Intel Officer.

So, just accept it, and move along.

I wonder if this will make people use engineering teams more now that FFG is still throwing them at us.

Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?

Moar questions for the FAQ

What do we know?

We have been told that you Discard the Token at the Start of the Game.

Ergo, you have Discarded the Token.

Ergo, Tagge will let you bring it back in Turn 3, as it is a Discarded Token.

If it is truly "Discarded at the start of the game", then it does not need an FAQ.

Because its Discarded, and Tagge lets you recover Discarded.

Simple.

Its just Recover from Discarded...

Its not "Discarded because it was used", because if that was the Case, Tagge wouldn't let you recover things from Suppressor.

Or Intel Officer.

So, just accept it, and move along.

Of course, we don't have the CC rulebook, just a couple articles describing gameplay, and it's not like FFG's article writers have that great of a track record when it comes to getting things accurate anyway.

When we have the rules, then we'll be able to answer this question. All it would take is a line or two saying that scarred ships may not recover the token they discarded at the beginning of the match and that Squadrons may not recover that 1 pt of damage. If they don't have that clause, then you of course are correct- they must be able to recover those things as normal.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

Can Tagge bring back a token discarded via scar?

Moar questions for the FAQ

What do we know?

We have been told that you Discard the Token at the Start of the Game.

Ergo, you have Discarded the Token.

Ergo, Tagge will let you bring it back in Turn 3, as it is a Discarded Token.

If it is truly "Discarded at the start of the game", then it does not need an FAQ.

Because its Discarded, and Tagge lets you recover Discarded.

Simple.

Its just Recover from Discarded...

Its not "Discarded because it was used", because if that was the Case, Tagge wouldn't let you recover things from Suppressor.

Or Intel Officer.

So, just accept it, and move along.

Of course, we don't have the CC rulebook, just a couple articles describing gameplay, and it's not like FFG's article writers have that great of a track record when it comes to getting things accurate anyway.

When we have the rules, then we'll be able to answer this question. All it would take is a line or two saying that scarred ships may not recover the token they discarded at the beginning of the match and that Squadrons may not recover that 1 pt of damage. If they don't have that clause, then you of course are correct- they must be able to recover those things as normal.

Exactly

Either it will, or it will have a Clause that will say it wont. If it doesn't have a Clause to say it won't, then Hey, look at that, it will!

BOOM. Done. Answered. No FAQ needed.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

What about ships that survived a battle (Not destroyed) but had significant damage?

I hope that there will be a mechanic that will reward a player for inflicting damage on enemy ships and squadrons, so the effort is not completely wasted.

Say a ISD that has 8 damage cards, where two is face up, when the battle ends.

To avoid going into the next battle with those damage cards, the Imperial player has to use 1x Refit point to remove one facedown damage card and 2x refit points to remove a faceup damage card.

Then say he only has 40 refit points, to repair his ISD and Un-scar his destroyed Demolisher with upgrades (75pts)

This would put him in a dilemma, as he only has enough refit points to unscar the Demolisher and remove one or two damage cards on his ISD.

Or he can remove all damage cards with 10 Refit points but then be unable to un-scar his Demolisher.

Like wise I hope that squadrons that survive, but which have lost at least half of their health points, must pay mandetory one refit point to get to full strength.

Say you have 4x Awings which has 1 or 2 health points left when the battle ends, then you are forced to spend 4 Refit points to get them up to strength.

But those 4 points turns out to make the difference between un-scarring a ship or squadron that was destroyed.

Any how, the above or something similar, is something I truely like to have in the rules, as it seems to me a bit unfair that any ship or squadron that survives, can be brought back to full health for free, for the next campaign round, regardless of the damage they have suffered.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

Simple solution is to do what many video games do: Have a "support cost" mechanic. EG sure you have an income of x but maintaining those 3 huge fleets costs .9x, your opponent just got his face fed to him for the last 2 turns and his income of y is only being used at a rate of .2y because of all them DEAD SHIPS even if x>y you can balance it so generally .1x < .8y allowing a diminished player to rebuild.

At the same time it has to be balanced so there is actually a significant benefit to not dying while still allowing for a "comeback mechanic" I think the game will benefit from the already fairly balanced nature of Armada in that while there will be some tablings I'm sure matches will fall around a bell-curve (like most tournaments)

What about ships that survived a battle (Not destroyed) but had significant damage?

I hope that there will be a mechanic that will reward a player for inflicting damage on enemy ships and squadrons, so the effort is not completely wasted.

Say a ISD that has 8 damage cards, where two is face up, when the battle ends.

To avoid going into the next battle with those damage cards, the Imperial player has to use 1x Refit point to remove one facedown damage card and 2x refit points to remove a faceup damage card.

Then say he only has 40 refit points, to repair his ISD and Un-scar his destroyed Demolisher with upgrades (75pts)

This would put him in a dilemma, as he only has enough refit points to unscar the Demolisher and remove one or two damage cards on his ISD.

Or he can remove all damage cards with 10 Refit points but then be unable to un-scar his Demolisher.

Like wise I hope that squadrons that survive, but which have lost at least half of their health points, must pay mandetory one refit point to get to full strength.

Say you have 4x Awings which has 1 or 2 health points left when the battle ends, then you are forced to spend 4 Refit points to get them up to strength.

But those 4 points turns out to make the difference between un-scarring a ship or squadron that was destroyed.

Any how, the above or something similar, is something I truely like to have in the rules, as it seems to me a bit unfair that any ship or squadron that survives, can be brought back to full health for free, for the next campaign round, regardless of the damage they have suffered.

And at the end of the day if there is no such rule, you can always home-brew one in. Naturally, something like this increases the value of APTs. Even if you lose the battle a couple of APT raiders can hit and run littering ships with double arc crit storms not caring if they win the battle so long as they drop crits

Given enough In-game Rounds, most ships can fix themselves to full....

But I think the scarred mechanic is to represent ships that are essentially crippled hulks burning uncontrollably at the end of the game - or in game terms, destroyed...

If it doesn't get to that state, its just a matter of time to repair, and there is just enough to do it between campaign battles.....

But to actually repair something that's essentially a hulk, that takes resources...

Its abstract enough for me.

I fail to see how FFG is expecting to square the circle: having a meaningful impact of the strategic situation on tactical battle and preventing a snowball effect.

What - you want it to be even odds for the final battle even after the rebels have been hounded from system to system across the sector? Where's the drama in that, and why bother play the preceeding rounds?

Call it 'snowballing' or having a 'slippery slope'. - of course a campaign should have some mechanic that lets victories in preceding games have positive impacts on subsequent games. Otherwise, it's just a narrative veneer (which is also fine, but not as dramatic). The big question is: how fast does it snowball, or how slippery are the slopes? At that point, we hope that there will be some Goldilocks medium of not to much and not too little.

Also, there seem to be different choices - as the attacking team, do you go more for the points or do you go more for the resources. If you go fr the points you certainly add directly to your bottom line, but the resources are investments, which allow you to hopefully do better in later rounds. So, the campaign has its own internal questions of risk/reward.

Those questions help keep it opaque how slippery the slope (or rapid the snowballing) becomes, and how much chance the losing player has to recoup his losses in subsequent games. It's that opacity which keeps it exciting IMO.

The problem with snowballing is if one team totally dominates the other then the end battle would be a joke. Where would the motivation for winning exist for the other player if they've been so defeated? What happens if you run out of ships?

I play a lot of X-Com iron man mode, so what i'm curious to what victory in this campaign actually means? Does the campaign continue no matter how beleaguered one side seems to be? That would make sense as I would imagine the Rebel Alliance and Imperials would push more resources into the sector but what really is at stake?

This isnt criticism at the campaign, i'm excited to be sure, i'm just curious.

Its a bit of a misnomer comparison, though...

A Cooperative Friendly Campaign...

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

Yea that sounds like XCom

Given enough In-game Rounds, most ships can fix themselves to full....

But I think the scarred mechanic is to represent ships that are essentially crippled hulks burning uncontrollably at the end of the game - or in game terms, destroyed...

If it doesn't get to that state, its just a matter of time to repair, and there is just enough to do it between campaign battles.....

But to actually repair something that's essentially a hulk, that takes resources...

Its abstract enough for me.

This was my thought. Injured Crew? Take a dip in bacta. One tank shouldn't strain the resources allotted to a commander tasked with overseeing the entire Corellian sector.

And so on.

I think for 3 fleets each side/ 6 players you just have 1 in reserve to rebuild after losses. but then go houserule it and make it so if both teams agree the battle can be 2 vs 2 if the circumstances allow it.

Its a bit of a misnomer comparison, though...

A Cooperative Friendly Campaign...

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

I suppose what i'm trying to determine is this campaign system supposed to just be a framework for stringing numerous matches together in a single story with a layer of campaign strategy on top? Something slightly more serious then casual matches and to get players invested in the game.

Or is the strategy involved on the campaign level going to have a much larger impact on how the game turns out. For example are we going to have to learn how to play the campaign map more in depth. Much in the way Xcom plays. There are the battles you play out that impact the game's campaign, but what you do in the campaign is what determines if you win the game or not.

What I want to know is will your actions on the campaign level of the game, the map and determining planets to strike and what not, have any serious impact on the way the campaign turns out or do these actions only serve to spice up the fleet battles? Are there serious long term consequences to making a bad decision on the larger campaign scale that could cost you the game mid way though?

I'm not sure if i'm communicating my point effectively.

Its a bit of a misnomer comparison, though...

A Cooperative Friendly Campaign...

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

I suppose what i'm trying to determine is this campaign system supposed to just be a framework for stringing numerous matches together in a single story with a layer of campaign strategy on top? Something slightly more serious then casual matches and to get players invested in the game.

Or is the strategy involved on the campaign level going to have a much larger impact on how the game turns out. For example are we going to have to learn how to play the campaign map more in depth. Much in the way Xcom plays. There are the battles you play out that impact the game's campaign, but what you do in the campaign is what determines if you win the game or not.

What I want to know is will your actions on the campaign level of the game, the map and determining planets to strike and what not, have any serious impact on the way the campaign turns out or do these actions only serve to spice up the fleet battles? Are there serious long term consequences to making a bad decision on the larger campaign scale that could cost you the game mid way though?

I'm not sure if i'm communicating my point effectively.

The Point of the Corellian Conflict is to Play Armada.

Decisions you make will have an effect on the game, and the games will be flavoured because of the Campaign structure around it. But you're still playing Armada.

The Decisions you make at the campaign level are going to have a difference as to who wins the campaign... And it may be entirely possible, if well managed, to Lose a big chunk of the Armada Games and still come out in front - as long as you are winning the ones that really, really matter...

Its not so much a Second Game, as to just a way to manage and modify the Armada games that are encapsulated within it...

Versus a game that is Deliberately Built to Cheat to Screw you Over, and then into the Dirt, and then Keep Screwing.....

Yea that sounds like XCom

"Oh, you have a squad full of Colonels? Not anymore, you don't."

Although, I am guilty of sending out rooks to sacrifice for my squadsight sniper.