This objective is just not that good. Why did they deem necessary to let players alternate the placement of the tokens?

My opponent was smart and simply placed them in a corner of the map and deployed in the opposite corner, rendering them useless

Considering it gives no victory tokens (unlike salvage run which lets the 2nd player place all the tokens), why did they give the 2nd player such a big disadvantage?

I would have went with a different restriction, like say, distance 5 between each token?

2 tokens is enough if you bring strategic. And the corners might come back to bite him if an mc30 or glad flanks. Dont take this if you dont bring strategic. Still would expect an errata since it is really weird.

I think the big advantage is the two that you place. I am not crazy about the objective, but can see it being very good for castling in the corner. Yes, the two your opponent placed are probably out of the way, but the ones you place should support your deployment and give you plenty of rerolls.

3 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

2 tokens is enough if you bring strategic. And the corners might come back to bite him if an mc30 or glad flanks. Dont take this if you dont bring strategic. Still would expect an errata since it is really weird.

ugh, I'm not a big fan of objectives that "almost" force you to bring strategic squadrons.

Better placement for his two is right on top of the two that you placed (first player places each of his beacons after the second player places one, after all). That way he is adding absolutely *nothing* to your coverage.

Granted, 'strategic' squadrons impact this a bit, but...I wouldn't mind this being errata'd myself, no. Like, not being able to place an objective token within range 1-3 of another objective token, obstacle, or map edge.

35 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

2 tokens is enough if you bring strategic. And the corners might come back to bite him if an mc30 or glad flanks. Dont take this if you dont bring strategic. Still would expect an errata since it is really weird.

Actually, it's the opposite. Thanks to strategic, first player can potentially reach them and move them to completely irrelevant parts of the board before player 2 even has the chance to move. Even if 2nd player places to move them into positiono, 2nd player can just then move up with strategic squadrons and move them out of position.

Sybreed is right. This objective just doesn't make sense. If all 4 tokens were placed by player 2, then 1st player would have a much more difficult time affecting the position and it would be a much more advantageous for them. We've already seen how multiple strategic squadrons can utterly nullify or even inverse a token-based mission like Fire Lanes, Minefields, or Intel Sweep. In all of those objectives, 2nd player places all tokens with minimal interference from 1st player. Letting player 2 nullify half the tokens without any strategic interference just gives all control to the first player.

15 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Actually, it's the opposite. Thanks to strategic, first player can potentially reach them and move them to completely irrelevant parts of the board before player 2 even has the chance to move. Even if 2nd player places to move them into positiono, 2nd player can just then move up with strategic squadrons and move them out of position.

Sybreed is right. This objective just doesn't make sense. If all 4 tokens were placed by player 2, then 1st player would have a much more difficult time affecting the position and it would be a much more advantageous for them. We've already seen how multiple strategic squadrons can utterly nullify or even inverse a token-based mission like Fire Lanes, Minefields, or Intel Sweep. In all of those objectives, 2nd player places all tokens with minimal interference from 1st player. Letting player 2 nullify half the tokens without any strategic interference just gives all control to the first player.

Thank you, it gives me the impression the devs didn't playtest this one enough and were afraid it being overpowered. I'm definitely scratching this one from my objective rotation for a while for something that will actually benefit being 2nd player.

1 hour ago, Xeletor said:

2 tokens is enough if you bring strategic. And the corners might come back to bite him if an mc30 or glad flanks. Dont take this if you dont bring strategic. Still would expect an errata since it is really weird.

It's not enough. Even one strategic squadron can effectively eliminate half of 2nd player's relevant tokens by moving them distance 3 out of position in one movement, before 2nd player even has a chance to activate.

This just seems like a Challenge to me.

Place them in a position where they can not be readily reached by Player 1 with their first activation...... Use your strategic to move them into position on your turn, or at least cover them. be canny with them.

I mean, you know the speed of the Squadrons. Take some time, grab a Range ruler, mark and measure out all the applicable distances:

Distance 3 from Table Edge. Distance 2. Distance 1. Distance 3. Distance 1. *

See how far that is, roughly, in comparison to say, the centerline of the table....

If your tokens are back that far, they're not going to be strategic'd away, and you can strategic them forward, while you hunt down the enemy Strategic Squadrons.


...

I mean, how do you think I worked out how to do the Nose Punch?

* (Deployment Zone, Distance 2 of Ship, Distance 1 FC/FCT Move. Distance 3 Speed. Distance 1 to reach Token.

The only way this can be modified further, that I can see, for a single activation, is if the enemy has "All Fighters Follow Me", and either has Garm Bel Iblis, or is willing to discard that card first Turn... In which case, let them.)

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

ugh, I'm not a big fan of objectives that "almost" force you to bring strategic squadrons.

I mean, that's your right to feel as you want, but this is far from a new thing. Catering to your particular fleet build is kind of the whole shtick behind objectives, isn't it?

PS and SP almost force you to bring squadrons. AG almost forces you to bring a big, survivable heavy hitter without Gunnery Teams. Blockade Run almost forces you to run fast ships, and OS almost forces you to bring an MSU.

You always have the choice not to bring a given objective. If you hate bringing Strategic, just don't bring Strategic-centric objectives. Simple.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

I mean, that's your right to feel as you want, but this is far from a new thing. Catering to your particular fleet build is kind of the whole shtick behind objectives, isn't it?

PS and SP almost force you to bring squadrons. AG almost forces you to bring a big, survivable heavy hitter without Gunnery Teams. Blockade Run almost forces you to run fast ships, and OS almost forces you to bring an MSU.

You always have the choice not to bring a given objective. If you hate bringing Strategic, just don't bring Strategic-centric objectives. Simple.

it's just that when you look at wave 5, you realize that we got a lot of objectives that make strategic an almost necessary gimmick:

Targeting beacon

jamming barrier

capture the vip to an extent

Planetary Ion Cannon

Salvage Run

Sensor net

Targeting beacon, unlike the others, is just always mediocre, even with strategic. But you can be **** sure that I'll skip these objectives as much as possible if I don't have 1 strategic squadron yself

2 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

it's just that when you look at wave 5, you realize that we got a lot of objectives that make strategic an almost necessary gimmick:

Targeting beacon

jamming barrier

capture the vip to an extent

Planetary Ion Cannon

Salvage Run

Sensor net

Targeting beacon, unlike the others, is just always mediocre, even with strategic. But you can be **** sure that I'll skip these objectives as much as possible if I don't have 1 strategic squadron yself

Solid point.

Definitely agree that TB is pretty crap atm. Still trying to find a fleet to break it that's not 1) better at a different red, or 2) awful at everything else.

31 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Solid point.

Definitely agree that TB is pretty crap atm. Still trying to find a fleet to break it that's not 1) better at a different red, or 2) awful at everything else.

it's an objective that won't blow up in your face... but it also won't do much for you ahah

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

This just seems like a Challenge to me.

Place them in a position where they can be readily reached by Player 1 with their first activation...... Use your strategic to move them into position on your turn, or at least cover them. be canny with them.

I mean, you know the speed of the Squadrons. Take some time, grab a Range ruler, mark and measure out all the applicable distances:

Distance 3 from Table Edge. Distance 2. Distance 1. Distance 3. Distance 1.

See how far that is, roughly, in comparison to say, the centerline of the table....

If your tokens are back that far, they're not going to be strategic'd away, and you can strategic them forward, while you hunt down the enemy Strategic Squadrons.


...

I mean, how do you think I worked out how to do the Nose Punch?

I don't have an issue with this, and yes you can try settin some measurements up and maybe it'll even help.

My concern is far more that if the intended goal was to only let player 2 benefit and player 1 gets no benefit, why not just give player 2 two tokens and ignore the others? 1st player has absolutely no incentive to concern themselves with placement because they can either deploy well away from them or deploy next to them and immediately leave them ina position where they will never expect to return.

11 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I don't have an issue with this, and yes you can try settin some measurements up and maybe it'll even help.

My concern is far more that if the intended goal was to only let player 2 benefit and player 1 gets no benefit, why not just give player 2 two tokens and ignore the others? 1st player has absolutely no incentive to concern themselves with placement because they can either deploy well away from them or deploy next to them and immediately leave them ina position where they will never expect to return.

My Honest Opinion?

(Well, Honest by virtue of the fact that I'm in a crappy mood)

With the level of absolutely disgraceful ****ups in the Corellian Conflict Box already, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a set of typos, and you were supposed to set all 4 as Second player, they just forgot to remove it after removing whatever limited reduced benefit player 1 got.

I mean. Come on. Armed Station. That one is game-ruining.

But, when I'm in a better mood, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt (continually). like I did with the Forum today. Because on no less than 3 occasions I answered (or corrected) Rules queries with "Check the FAQ." because the answers were there... But I still do it. Benefit of the Doubt...

... That, and there's like, 4 topics I havn't posted in, because it would be the third time this week the question's been asked and answered...

One of them was still on the same page!

26 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My Honest Opinion?

(Well, Honest by virtue of the fact that I'm in a crappy mood)

With the level of absolutely disgraceful ****ups in the Corellian Conflict Box already, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a set of typos, and you were supposed to set all 4 as Second player, they just forgot to remove it after removing whatever limited reduced benefit player 1 got.

I mean. Come on. Armed Station. That one is game-ruining.

But, when I'm in a better mood, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt (continually). like I did with the Forum today. Because on no less than 3 occasions I answered (or corrected) Rules queries with "Check the FAQ." because the answers were there... But I still do it. Benefit of the Doubt...

... That, and there's like, 4 topics I havn't posted in, because it would be the third time this week the question's been asked and answered...

One of them was still on the same page!

I missed the party on armed station, what's up with that one?

Its Armaments are Swapped.

It has a single Blue listed as Battery, whereas it has Red Red Blue Blue listed as Anti Squadron....

RED RED BLUE BLUE. ANTI-SQUADRON. ON A THING THAT HAS A 360 ARC OF FIRE.

WHICH MEANS IT WOULD FIRE AT EVERY SQUADRON IN RANGE, EVERY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Its Armaments are Swapped.

It has a single Blue listed as Battery, whereas it has Red Red Blue Blue listed as Anti Squadron....

RED RED BLUE BLUE. ANTI-SQUADRON. ON A THING THAT HAS A 360 ARC OF FIRE.

WHICH MEANS IT WOULD FIRE AT EVERY SQUADRON IN RANGE, EVERY TIME, ALL THE TIME.

wow huh... that's pretty terrible xD

Hmm i had heard the cries of dismay over armed station, but had not heard yet that the firepower was swapped. Thanks for the info, dras

Just now, idiewell said:

Hmm i had heard the cries of dismay over armed station, but had not heard yet that the firepower was swapped. Thanks for the info, dras

It was part of the advice given by Michael Gernes just recently at FFG headquarters.

But that's all it is.

Advice

Until such time as its Official Errata in the FAQ.

I think we're lucky that someone asked this directly and posted it anywhere, because frankly there was zero reason not to pick that until it was answered. "Let's make a big bubble of squadron death on the table. Good luck bringing those squadrons in to protect you now."

if they errata the armed station, can they errata everything else that's wrong with the game?

Like Ion cannon upgrades costing way too much?

Point defense reroute?

Please?

For one, Ion Cannon Upgrades are appropriately costed. Their effects are rightfully devastating when used properly. For the longest time, I felt like I was the only one who did so.

And if we use other FFG games as an example, they will only errata points costs when it is grossly a game defining moment (such as the price of Royal Guards, Officers and Rebel Sabateurs in IA)...

Armada is readily the most balanced. There are things that aren't great... But sometimes you pay a tax to get a use.

7 hours ago, Sybreed said:

This objective is just not that good. Why did they deem necessary to let players alternate the placement of the tokens?

My opponent was smart and simply placed them in a corner of the map and deployed in the opposite corner, rendering them useless

Considering it gives no victory tokens (unlike salvage run which lets the 2nd player place all the tokens), why did they give the 2nd player such a big disadvantage?

I would have went with a different restriction, like say, distance 5 between each token?

It's a fairly poor objective. Don't bring it.

Also, strategic, your opponent's strategic, can screw you over in so many ways on those token objectives.

Not just this one. All of them.

I was so hoping the new objectives would breathe some life into the game, but no. Strategic killed must of them - and some of the old ones.

Don't get me wrong. Strategic is cool - but it also creates a situation where you almost have to bring it to the table.

There are some great strategic yelloe objectives.

There are some great strategic blue objectives.

There is a rubbish strategic red ibjective. And this makes sense. You either need to build another facet to your fleet or take targeting scramblers.

How many times have you built fleets that have two strong ibjectives and struggle with the third? Its an intentional design decision.