Let me begin by saying I am a big fan of Armada, but not a Star Wars fan. For me the appeal of the game is in the mechanics, which I feel at their core are one of if not the best set of space combat rules made so far. Also I do tend to play 600pts and above games, which may be a factor in my thinking.

However, that being said there is one nagging doubt that I fear might ultimately be the games undoing in the foreseeable future. The sheer staggering amount of additional rules and abilities that are added with each wave.

These I fear are an issue for several reasons.

• It is hard to balance the cost of upgrade cards when they can be applied to such a large pool of ships, with some gaining more use out of the upgrade than others while all paying the same cost.
• It is getting hard to keep track of what is what now, most times when my opponents field multiple ships each sporting a lot of upgrade cards it because tiresome to remember what is what. This also goes both ways as I have witnessed opponents forgetting abilities they had which could have altered the course of the game.
• Upgrade cards combos are winning games, which to me feels a bit too much like a popular collectable card game, personally this cheapens the gaming experience.
• Not everything needs to have special rules to be perform a role, why can't the innate profile of the ship or squadron be useful enough. It is a common thing of Fantasy and Sci-Fi games, to weigh down units with a plethora of special rules. When a good stat line is sometimes all that is needed.
• It creates a special rule arms race, having a limited number of special rules is I think a far better alternative, than this escalation.
• When the game was launched there were I think 5 or 6 special rules for Squadrons, that number I think has doubled.
• It can be too much for someone who is new to the game, they may feel it daunting and too far behind a curve to get any enjoyment out of the game.
• Upgrade cards that increase stats are I feel fine as they are not a paragraph or more of text that need to be remembered, while providing a useful way to customise a ship.

If this trend continues, which from seeing how FFG have treated X-Wing, I fear we may encounter the same issues that game now faces.

When I field fleets, I tend to take as few upgrades as I can and no named squadrons, this does usually allow me to field more models on the table and it can win games. Maybe I am just getting tired of special rule bloated rules, does anyone else feel this is becoming an issue?

No. Light or no upgrades is viable, but so is heavy upgraded. Low squad, high squad. Ace or no ace. It all works.

But what I can agree to is that the game is becoming more complex, so for new players and more casual players, keeping track of your opponent's stuff can become a real challenge - and can theoretically cost you games if you overlook important combos.

I used to play WH40K.

So, no I don't think that there are too many special rules.

I can see the potential difficulty for new players coming in though.

I kinda fear rules bloat as well* and even some of the simple things added on in X-wing scares me. For the Tl;dr sorts: I think that it could potentially present a problem, but is not a problem yet under average circumstances.

It's not the general expanded rules that are causing me issues (Grav wells, Fleet command, Dust Clouds, etc), it's the keywords that have given me hesitation as we've seen their rapid expansion to almost 3X the original keyword pool by adding 2+ keywords per expansion, but the character specials have exploded, starting at 2, then 10, and now 33ish? Yes, I'm fully aware that they can be learned, and the current menagerie is manageable once you get a few games under your belt with each of the new items (I'll admit to forgetting Grit more than any other rule).

I would submit that it's very likely that part of Stony's problem is the 600+ point games with a lot of upgrades: when extra points are spent on more unique upgrades rather than more ships and squadrons, it can become sluggish. It creates a bigger pool that players can use to diversify the way they play, and some players work very upgrade heavy which complicates the interaction between ships. Then you have players who tend to 'group' ships, so you might have 4 CR90's, but they're all just about the same thing. Having played a 1,250 point game recently, it still isn't too bad if the ship combinations are straight forward, but even 500 points with heavy upgrades and lots of aces/uniques will be a slog. So, for players that like large games, the CC initial build system works deliciously well. I don't think that upgrade combos are winning games, though I would suggest a very select number of upgrades/titles have a disproportionate effect, but for the most part it's honing specializations that benefit the various playstyles of players.

Armada's pretty well balanced. Once you get comfortable and familiar with how a ship functions and a fleet interacts together, regardless of complexity, you can do well regardless of what it is. (I can't tell you the number of people who said that I was 'doing it wrong' by playing with a high speed Yavaris and a vet captain, starting with Wave 1). I don't feel there's an arms race; but I do think there's an excitement/paper tiger factor that tends to over-emphasize and exaggerate the effect of the 'killer combos'. Anyone remember the Devastator hype?

*(2nd E 40K/5E WFB vet 'till now... yeah, that's rules bloat)

It is a fine line to walk between simplicity and ease of access for newcomers - vs complexity and depth for veteran players.

Personally I think the upgrades are pointed high enough that as Green Knight mentioned - a naked or low upgrade list is still viable. This makes it accessible for newer players who can run a naked list that is easier to manage - perhaps not as specialised - but still capable of putting up a good fight becasue instead of 60pts of upgrades it has a whole extra ship on the table. But of course you do need to be mindful of other players upgrades - the first time you drive a Star Destroyer into range of 2x Yavaris'd B-wings without fighter cover is a moment you will never forget!

Personally I like the way Armada is going as while there may be a plethora of upgrades price/practicality generally restricts any given list to a manageable number that can be explained at the start of the game to a player who may be unfamiliar with them. Whenever I play a wargame in a competitive environment - for e.g. Flames of War - I always check that my opponent is familiar with my special rules, especially the big ones "so do you know what Quality of Qauntity does?". The same holds true for Armada - I don't know anybody who would get satisfaction from smashing a newbie with the Demolisher title without giving them at least a cursory heads up. I want to win by out thinking and outflying my opponent - not knowing the upgrade cards better! (although knowing the upgrade cards inside out certainly helps with this!)

I used to play WH40K.

So, no I don't think that there are too many special rules.

I can see the potential difficulty for new players coming in though.

Same here.

40k has more rules per faction than Armada does as a whole. And the way their rules are written are so interweaved you HAVE to know all of them. Not a game went by in the 7 years i played that i didnt ref the rules atleast once a game. Ranging from a situation i had no idea how it worked to "what was that thing's attack value...?"

I play Battletech too. Armada is ****ing tame compared.

Come on - everyone still remembers the armour penetration of a Krak Missle in 2nd Ed. was D10+D6+8!! Those were the good old days - with vehicle datafaxes!!! I love it how they are essentially coming back en vogue with unit cards in many games now Battletech's major mistake wasn't the complexity - but using a 2D6 dice mechanic that required you to roll 2D6 for every **** SRM missle you fired... If it had just been a D12 then you could have picked up a handfull of D12s and saved yourself vast amounts of hassle!! It just takes soooo long rolling out each 2D6 one at a time :/

I'll agree that the plethora of upgrades and special rules, etc. are tough to keep track of in one's mind. I say that as someone who has been around from the start, but has only invested in, and played, for the Empire.

(IMHO) that makes the game more one of tactical minutae than strategic maneuvering, but, it's still my favorite game.

I've also played 40K from second edition and still play the current edition from time to time. Yes the current iteration of 40K has some would say a fatal level of rules bloat. However that nor previous rule heavy games excuses what we are seeing in Armada, where the rules are creating a sluggish gaming experience, and one which can put new players off.

I feel this could have been easily avoided. Instead of upgrade cards for various parts of a ship, each ship should have the 2 variants, and come with 6 or so titles that players can choose to add one of to a ship. This along with named admirals, and named squadron pilots I feel would have been a far better option, it would allow customization, and avoided potential rules bloat, while also doing away with the annoyance of certain upgrade cards only being available to purchase through certain factions.

I worry about rules bloat too; I think X-Wing is close to reaching a tipping point with the condition cards and such. It's not a massive issue compared to the tabletop miniature war games we've all cited, but as a system that was initially so appealing because of its simplicity, it's turned me off a bit and I think it puts odd newer players for sure.

Armada is more complicated to begin with but I think they've kept the rules streamlined up to now.

I think a bigger problem with FFG games is balancing points values later down the line. For most tabletop games it's easier because they can be adjusted in the next book or errata, but in FFG's systems when the points are on the cards it's a problem, especially when a vocal section of the community complaint about 'having' to buy expansions to get said cards.

Come on - everyone still remembers the armour penetration of a Krak Missle in 2nd Ed. was D10+D6+8!! Those were the good old days - with vehicle datafaxes!!! I love it how they are essentially coming back en vogue with unit cards in many games now Battletech's major mistake wasn't the complexity - but using a 2D6 dice mechanic that required you to roll 2D6 for every **** SRM missle you fired... If it had just been a D12 then you could have picked up a handfull of D12s and saved yourself vast amounts of hassle!! It just takes soooo long rolling out each 2D6 one at a time :/

Lascannon 3D6 + 9!

Come on - everyone still remembers the armour penetration of a Krak Missle in 2nd Ed. was D10+D6+8!! Those were the good old days - with vehicle datafaxes!!! I love it how they are essentially coming back en vogue with unit cards in many games now Battletech's major mistake wasn't the complexity - but using a 2D6 dice mechanic that required you to roll 2D6 for every **** SRM missle you fired... If it had just been a D12 then you could have picked up a handfull of D12s and saved yourself vast amounts of hassle!! It just takes soooo long rolling out each 2D6 one at a time :/

Lascannon 3D6 + 9!

Which isn't rules bloat.

From what I can remember of 2nd edition armour penetration was strength plus D6 plus wound dice of weapon. It was a core rule that followed a very simple set of rules.

Bolter was 4 plus D6 as it had no wound dice.

Nice and simple.

I showed my 22 year old son the game when Wave 2 hit. I just dived in with everything and tried to teach him. Failed. He didn't get it and was overwhelmed.

I really wanted to have him in our Corellian Conflict Campaign, and so I tried it again many months later with Wave 5.

This time I played a few games with absolutely no upgrades. Just ships and non-unique squads. He got it right away and was excited. He actually did very well. After the second game he was ready. He wanted to dive in because he understood the mechanics. The upgrade cards just tweak the understood rules of the game (of course they do it A LOT).

Now he has built his CC fleet and we are both excited (even though he is rebel scum)

I think this is no different from MTG with every set released, which is like 2 a year now? That's about 600 cards with new mechanics. From playing that, I learned it is not important to understand everything that can go into a deck, and it is not important to understand everything in your opponents deck. You could win a game in under 10 turns, so that's 43 cards not needed and essentially unknown. I played EDH, so that's 100 cards, no duplicates except lands, and literally thousands of cards to pick from. So I get the overwhelming part.

I apply this same concept to Armada. You can't field all the aces and mechanics in one game. Typically fighters are run in groups of the same class. Like multiple Y-Wings, Ties, Tie/B etc. The exception is Rieekan and his ball of aces. So you should only worry about what is actually on the table, and never build a fleet around what an opponent can do. Set hard limits for yourself. 4 ships, 8 squads, 1 support ship, 1 carrier, 2 battle ships. And then you can narrow down what you want to put in the list. You have to stick with a list for a while to get enough games in so you understand what is wrong with it, and I think this is where people fail. They make a list, it loses, so they dump it.

Practice. Tweak. Optimize.

This is how NC prepared for regionals. We kept playing the same list, with small changes to see how it worked. I played a dual Vic fireball for 7 weeks straight, playing at least 1 game a week against someone, and playing 1 against myself with an opposing hard counter list. I'm sure that is a bit extreme for a lot of people, but the concept is the same. Grab ships that you are excited or curious about and throw them on the table. Don't worry how "good" that first list is. You cannot make the perfect list without actually playing games. Also realize some lists have hard counters. A list that is simply going to win 9 out of 10 times.

In regards to disliking special rules, I'm not sure what to say. I think most games with annual releases have new mechanics that keep the game from getting boring. Strategic is easily the most interesting mechanic since Intel. Armada is not a simple game. Surely not as difficult as 40K, but harder than X-Wing.

I showed my 22 year old son the game when Wave 2 hit. I just dived in with everything and tried to teach him. Failed. He didn't get it and was overwhelmed.

I really wanted to have him in our Corellian Conflict Campaign, and so I tried it again many months later with Wave 5.

This time I played a few games with absolutely no upgrades. Just ships and non-unique squads. He got it right away and was excited. He actually did very well. After the second game he was ready. He wanted to dive in because he understood the mechanics. The upgrade cards just tweak the understood rules of the game (of course they do it A LOT).

Now he has built his CC fleet and we are both excited (even though he is rebel scum)

This is why it's stressed repetitively to play the Learning Scenario in it's entirety. If you layer on additional information over multiple games, it's a cake walk. It's also a concept that should be applied across all the waves (as one progresses).

Yeah 40k rules are completely insane so Armada is fine. Just like Sygentix said, actually have someone play the learning scenario. Its simple and easy to get the concept. Then they can start tinkering with upgrades and such

I think this is no different from MTG with every set released, which is like 2 a year now? That's about 600 cards with new mechanics. From playing that, I learned it is not important to understand everything that can go into a deck, and it is not important to understand everything in your opponents deck. You could win a game in under 10 turns, so that's 43 cards not needed and essentially unknown. I played EDH, so that's 100 cards, no duplicates except lands, and literally thousands of cards to pick from. So I get the overwhelming part.

I apply this same concept to Armada. You can't field all the aces and mechanics in one game. Typically fighters are run in groups of the same class. Like multiple Y-Wings, Ties, Tie/B etc. The exception is Rieekan and his ball of aces. So you should only worry about what is actually on the table, and never build a fleet around what an opponent can do. Set hard limits for yourself. 4 ships, 8 squads, 1 support ship, 1 carrier, 2 battle ships. And then you can narrow down what you want to put in the list. You have to stick with a list for a while to get enough games in so you understand what is wrong with it, and I think this is where people fail. They make a list, it loses, so they dump it.

Practice. Tweak. Optimize.

This is how NC prepared for regionals. We kept playing the same list, with small changes to see how it worked. I played a dual Vic fireball for 7 weeks straight, playing at least 1 game a week against someone, and playing 1 against myself with an opposing hard counter list. I'm sure that is a bit extreme for a lot of people, but the concept is the same. Grab ships that you are excited or curious about and throw them on the table. Don't worry how "good" that first list is. You cannot make the perfect list without actually playing games. Also realize some lists have hard counters. A list that is simply going to win 9 out of 10 times.

In regards to disliking special rules, I'm not sure what to say. I think most games with annual releases have new mechanics that keep the game from getting boring. Strategic is easily the most interesting mechanic since Intel. Armada is not a simple game. Surely not as difficult as 40K, but harder than X-Wing.

Thoroughly agree. Played MTG back in school during 4th edition....tried to get a few packs for nostalgia, was thoroughly lost in the sauce.

The rules are fine and are actually pretty like compared to many other miniature games out there. Heroclix anyone? Like many, the problem is remembering or keeping track of all the card in a game. It's worse when you play multiple games. Infinity, Malifaux, Osprey, FFG, various historicals, geeeezzzzzz.

Speaking of Battletech, remember the card game?

I wish there was more of a focus on variants of ships with different stat lines over the current focus on special rules. Prime example is the assault frigate, I've never faced or seen fielded the "A" variant. Instead of only two variants per ship why not have 4 or more?

That being said, I really like the current game. But, how long until there are so many special rules that it puts off new players? Games can succeed with lots of special rules, Inifnity comes to mind. A very fun game with an obscene amount of special rules. But Infinity suffers from new players being overwhelmed by all of the special rules.

When I look at xwing I have no desire to get into the game because of the large number of expansions I would need to get if I wanted access to the large number of special rule cards.

No game is perfect. Every game has quirks or rules people would like to change and at the end of the day you can't please everyone. Armada isn't perfect, but its pretty dang good.

I wish there was more of a focus on variants of ships with different stat lines over the current focus on special rules. Prime example is the assault frigate, I've never faced or seen fielded the "A" variant. Instead of only two variants per ship why not have 4 or more?

That being said, I really like the current game. But, how long until there are so many special rules that it puts off new players? Games can succeed with lots of special rules, Inifnity comes to mind. A very fun game with an obscene amount of special rules. But Infinity suffers from new players being overwhelmed by all of the special rules.

When I look at xwing I have no desire to get into the game because of the large number of expansions I would need to get if I wanted access to the large number of special rule cards.

No game is perfect. Every game has quirks or rules people would like to change and at the end of the day you can't please everyone. Armada isn't perfect, but its pretty dang good.

This is the reason I got into Armada instead of X-Wing. Armada was new. Not a lot to learn. X-Wing was established and I didn't want to deal with all the stuff and upgrades and rules.

You all making me feel old. I started playing 40k when it was Rogue Trader, and Fantasy in 2nd edition. Used to be a GW Outrider....lol.

Compared to that, Armada is light on rules.

I agree with the majority. Yes, Armada is getting "more" complicated with each wave and could be intimidating to the casual beginning player.

However, as the experienced gamer, you have an obligation to help them out. Play the intro adventure with them. Work with them on the mechanics of what their ships can do, even offer strategies they can best use to their fleet. Show them your upgrade cards and explain what each one does and what each keyword does. Do this, and i predict within a short period of time, most casual/beginning gamers will catch on quickly and enjoy the game.

Yeah. Another 40k Rogue Trader here. And truthfully looking across several fictional and historical table top games, Armada is still very much on the stream lined side. I mean if anyone's played victory at sea or starfleet battles, Armada is very lean.

While I like BF Gothic, Armada is still running neck and neck with War at Sea as the sweet spot as an approachable yet tactically challenging game

Not trying to be rude, but no one is disputing the rule difference between 40k and Armada. But stating that is like telling new players they should struggle to learn the game because there are harder ones out there.

Any tips on helping new players build lists and play the game?