Goodness Steven, if you want to gush about CC, then you should do it in my thread. Now you have created a second thread that discusses the same thing. What type of precedent does that set? Now we might see the same topic discussed more than once. This has never happened before and should be avoided.

It was a blast watching y'all play this weekend!

So many jokes have gone over so many peoples heads in this thread.

I've never seen this many misses since my last game with Luke.

There. I said it. I loved it to pieces. I've played a LOT of various campaign systems in my day, and this is hands down the best.

The theme works well, but the balance is excellent- that's always the crux. Dang, it's just awesome.

Sorry for the useless gushing post.

I'm not sure I'd call it the best CAMPAIGN SYSTEM I've ever seen - from an 'operational' perspective (which is about the scale it is working at), it's missing a lot of things we'd normally expect in such a system. Notably - the need to spread forces out to detect the enemy. IE., all battles aren't automatically paired at close-ish-to-even matches.

OTOH, it sure looks solid as an Armada 'mission generator', bringing in some of the asymmetrical nature of true operational-scale campaign...but only just dipping its toes into that. Enough for flavor, but not enough so that the resulting matches don't come out "fun for both sides".

So...it definitely appears an impressive effort. Not quite a "perfect (operational) campaign" system...but probably the best balance between that and "a game that is fun enough people actually play it".

I think a lot of the choices made here were to keep all players interested and able to participate. In a lot of campaign systems, things can snowball to the point where one side can never catch up after a couple of serious loses. The hard caps on maximum number of bases/only getting to 500 points keeps it so that the player that is doing well feels comfortable and rewarded while the player that might've made a few errors which led to being behind is at a disadvantage but not an insurmountable one. Even someone that lost every game and has no chance of catching up can scrap his or her fleet and start fresh without a lot of upgrades but having something that contributes to the giant end battle.

So maybe they could've made it more asymmetrical or done other things better, but honestly it feels so right as is that it is hard to complain.

I don't have the expansion (yet). It was always number one on my buy list for this wave, but after seeing you guys play it this weekend, I cannot get my hands on it soon enough. The way the whole system seems to work is fantastic. Seeing the way fleets slowly build is so interesting. Those first matches with only the one upgrade made for completely different battles then we are used to, and it is great.

Cannot wait to play this myself.

I'm so glad the campaign came out. It turned a good9od tournry game and Armada into a great game. I'm still planning on attending tourneys but this will be my main go-to Armada gameplay.

There. I said it. I loved it to pieces. I've played a LOT of various campaign systems in my day, and this is hands down the best.

The theme works well, but the balance is excellent- that's always the crux. Dang, it's just awesome.

Sorry for the useless gushing post.

I'm not sure I'd call it the best CAMPAIGN SYSTEM I've ever seen - from an 'operational' perspective (which is about the scale it is working at), it's missing a lot of things we'd normally expect in such a system. Notably - the need to spread forces out to detect the enemy. IE., all battles aren't automatically paired at close-ish-to-even matches.

OTOH, it sure looks solid as an Armada 'mission generator', bringing in some of the asymmetrical nature of true operational-scale campaign...but only just dipping its toes into that. Enough for flavor, but not enough so that the resulting matches don't come out "fun for both sides".

So...it definitely appears an impressive effort. Not quite a "perfect (operational) campaign" system...but probably the best balance between that and "a game that is fun enough people actually play it".

Right. I didn't say the most accurate or intricate campaign system I said it's the best- and my criteria are playability, theme, and balance. It captures those things while still making it fantastic!

After some considered thought it would be cool to see Armada as a whole move in this direction. What do I mean? Instead of tournament kits put out by FFG I would like to see Campaign Kits for Armada instead. (Or along with tournament kits.) Maybe not full length Campaigns but more streamlined ones that can be played over a shorter period than the months long one that CC looks like it can be. (Unless you're some really crazy YouTubers that want to do it in one weekend like madmen.)

Am I crazy for thinking this is a possible format where you have team victory rewards instead of a single player?

Beatty, I am right there with you. I think that if they went the campaign route and had big publicity for campaign events in stores it could do a lot for the game. Right now people don't do a lot of Armada in stores and instead play at home. The fix is not tourneys (long games mean a longer tourney than Xwing), but store campaigns.

This is not to say that they should kill tourneys, but that campaign feels like the thing that could build armada.

Here, it just seems like the people who played at home, took the campaign home, and are still playing in their own little insular groups.

Tournaments (specifically the Regional we just had) seem to be the only way to get them out of their basements to play with people they don't normally....

I see Tournaments having a place.

Neither is a replacement for the other.

There. I said it. I loved it to pieces. I've played a LOT of various campaign systems in my day, and this is hands down the best.

The theme works well, but the balance is excellent- that's always the crux. Dang, it's just awesome.

Sorry for the useless gushing post.

I'm not sure I'd call it the best CAMPAIGN SYSTEM I've ever seen - from an 'operational' perspective (which is about the scale it is working at), it's missing a lot of things we'd normally expect in such a system. Notably - the need to spread forces out to detect the enemy. IE., all battles aren't automatically paired at close-ish-to-even matches.

OTOH, it sure looks solid as an Armada 'mission generator', bringing in some of the asymmetrical nature of true operational-scale campaign...but only just dipping its toes into that. Enough for flavor, but not enough so that the resulting matches don't come out "fun for both sides".

So...it definitely appears an impressive effort. Not quite a "perfect (operational) campaign" system...but probably the best balance between that and "a game that is fun enough people actually play it".

What is the best campaign system for a tabletop battles game you've seen? (Not a rhetorical question.)

I'm still entirely giddy about this, and I'm also thinking about all sorts of possibilities that might be added onto this base set of rules to make it all greater/grander still. But at the end of the day, it's purpose is to make games of Armada more fun to give each match greater stakes than the winning or losing of a single match or tournament points. In order to accomplish that, as you imply, the greatest weight for the outcome of the campaign must be on the matches of Armada, rather than any grand admiral's capacity to be a better accountant than the other (even if it is more realistic that way).

But, as you know, I'm all ears for ways in which to deepen the game even further. I think it might be done with some interesting variations on the basic rules of the Corellian Conflict. Ultimately, the challenge is not about the ingenuity of the rule set, but in convincing the right number of people that it's worth playing.

It really does sound good. Sadly, I can't even get ONE person to play with. Let alone 5 more.

Honestly, it also seems like a problem of time commitment. Very few poeple who aren't career wargamers even want to learn how to play a game that takes 2hours, 1 hours to set up, and due to scarcity of people, usually another hour to travel to get together. And that's assuming no interruptions.

Oh and losing a lot.

(Unless you're some really crazy YouTubers that want to do it in one weekend like madmen.)

What evidence do you have that players would even do this? Come on dude....

Nah cant be bothered.

With tourneys being reduced to two games i think a weekly campaign eould work. We did run a tournament over three weeks and someone who only made 2/3 games came second!

The Campaign system has brought my group out of our houses and into the game store.

We don't have enough space in any of our houses for 3 games at once. So we're going to do the campaign at Nerdstock (our FLGS) where we can play all 3 battles at once.

Here's hoping we see more campaigns in the future!

We're into Round 2 in our local campaign and having a blast. The games have a different feel to them with more things to think about. The new objectives that are specific to the campaign have been really fun to play around with.

(Unless you're some really crazy YouTubers that want to do it in one weekend like madmen.)

What evidence do you have that players would even do this? Come on dude....

Nah cant be bothered.

That would be kinda cool. I'd consider doing that, when I'm not taking classes that is :-)

If FFG wants to save this game btw I saw a list of top 200

Table Top games not long ago imperial assault in top 10 x wing in top 30 Armada below 150 that explains why you new stuff for IA and XW releases a lot more than Armada releases. FFG can just say mulligan here is rules set 2.0

Do you happen to have a link to this list? Or by what metric "top" means? Asking for a friend.

Do you happen to have a link to this list? Or by what metric "top" means? Asking for a friend.

Might I suggest that he was told by...well, you know.

If FFG wants to save this game btw I saw a list of top 200

Table Top games not long ago imperial assault in top 10 x wing in top 30 Armada below 150 that explains why you new stuff for IA and XW releases a lot more than Armada releases. FFG can just say mulligan here is rules set 2.0

Trolls everywhere I look!

Oh wait, it's just the one.

Move along.

I have seen a lot of miniature game campaign systems in the past, both official and player made and to be just outright frank every single one I have ever played in sucked and it sucked big and usually right out of the gate. My confidence in the Armada CC was not particularly high, I was excited of course but kind of prepared for disappointment. My group just started and after the first round of the strategy phase and our first battle of the war, I have to say that, so far I'm pretty impressed with it, so for me its the first of its kind. A campaign mode that doesn't suck.

There is a good atmosphere around the system thematically, it really feels like a proper war. Battles matter a great deal but win or lose there is more at stake then any single combat which I think is a really great environment for Armada to be in. I like the fact that there is a build up to a big moment. I mean I can't really judge it on personally experience beyond this limited exposure but so far so good.

Not really it seems like a step into the right direction but also a hail Mary to save dying interest in the game.

Not really it seems like a step into the right direction but also a hail Mary to save dying interest in the game.

Your kidding right? Armada is peeking, its stronger right now then it has ever been. CC wasn't a hail mary, it was a cherry on top.

WWPDSteven - really enjoyed watching the games. Watched a few straight through and bits and pieces of others.

Looking to start my own campaign soon... one thing I thought seemed a little weird was the "one upgrade" rule for the first game, and then unlimited upgrades immediately after that. Like the first game round seemed kinda novel, with ships with just a small upgrade, and then BOOM christmas tree ISD-II in round 2. I was thinking of limiting upgrades to one new upgrade per ship per game round. Do you think that would work, or was it fine as is?