Not "Is It Balanced?", or "Is It Balanced Right Now ?", but more... how is it supposed to be balanced? What is balanced? What are some of the design "rules" that it follows?

I'm honestly curious how many people have the same ideas about those ideas and questions, and whether people think the designers have some specific goals and guidelines in mind (again, not asking whether they're successful at meeting those goals right now ).

Are there supposed to be clear Rock, Paper, Scissors strategies?

Are releases intentionally designed to "shake things up", by giving new options to deal with older challenges?

Are stronger options given counters? Are weaker options given support? Is it a mix? Are neither considered?

Are waves designed to be "balanced" within themselves, or just to give new options?

What are the clearest distinguishing mechanical themes of the two factions? How closely do releases actually need to adhere to those themes?

How are squadrons balanced? Are they supposed to be a viable threat? Is defending against a squadron threat supposed to cost significantly less than fielding one? Are they supposed to be reliant on supporting ships, or augmented by them?

How are ships balanced? Are "activations" and "deployments" considered as elements of their design? Were they originally?

How are objectives balanced? How important are they supposed to be to the game? Are objectives designed with ships in mind? Are ships designed with objectives in mind?

Uh... I guess, essentially, I mean: Tell Me Literally Everything.

Whoops.

The fact that you can play Rebel vs Rebel or Imperial vs Imperial balances out the meta. So if Imperials are the meta and you build against Rebels you will lose to an Imperial list.

Well, I dont think I can answer all of your questions plus im hardly a pro but if a interested party asked me how the game is balanced here are the points I would make:

Overall the game is pretty well balanced. Starting with how the dice are designed. Red dice shoot further black dice hit more often and have higher damage potential and blue dice are in the middle and are very consistent. What this does is give ships specific ships roles. Ships with lots of red dice strike first, ships with black dice hit harder if they make it there.

Commands and how you have to plan them along with bigger ships needing to plan further in advanced compared to small ships help balance them out.

Factions, im not sure they have specific roles anymore but id say in general rebels have more long range firepower, extra shields with very flexible squadrons. Empire has more close range damage, higher hull and their squadrons are cheeper but fragile and have specific roles.

I would say new releases are definitly made with the intention of maintaining balance and shaking things up.

Squadrons can be a huge threat but arent required to win.

All this said its a minitures game designed by humans. And they have to factor in every point you made above, and try to keep the star wars theme and make it fun and actually release the product. So is it as balanced as chess or something? No, there are certain objectives better then others, some commanders feel weaker or stronger then others ect. However compared to other minature games its very solid. Typically the player with the best plan, and who can adjust to their opponant during the game seems to win.

Thats pretty much best I can do on a phone. Hope that answers some of your questions.

All of the above.

These are far from consistently true or universal, but painting with a VERY broad brush:

Imps have hull; Rebs have shields.

Imps have consistency; Rebs have potential.

Imp squadrons have speed; Rebs have staying power.

Imp squadrons have the ability to specialize; Rebs are versatile.

Imps have inter-squadron synergies; Rebs have individually strong squadrons.

Imps have individually strong ships; Rebs have inter-ship synergies.

And the game is FULL of soft RPS mechanics at all levels of... macro... ness. Or at least, many game mechanics can be expressed as RPS. Off the top of my head:

Carriers > Rogues > Squadronless > Carriers

Intel > Massed squadrons > Snipers/Ketsu > Intel

Dial fixing > Slicer Tools > Neither > Dial fixing

Evades > reds > blacks > evades

Accuracy tech > flotillas > unmodified dice > accuracy tech

Strategic > escorted, Intel'd bombers > Massed squadrons > strategic

The large number of different counter/counter-counter ecosystems are a significant part of what gives the game is depth. You will virtually always be facing both some advantage and some disadvantage, regardless of the list you're facing. The victor is the guy who better identifies and exploits his strengths with respect to his opponent's fleet while mitigating his own weaknesses. The game is balanced as long as none of those RPS mechanics gets so far out of balance as to overwhelm the others.

My impression is that while they are trying to make all ships and playstyles meaningful, they have a definite intent that both sides field 80 points plus of squadrons thus making a distinct mini game within the game....

3 hours ago, Greatfrito said:

Uh... I guess, essentially, I mean: Tell Me Literally Everything.

Whoops.

The answer you're looking for is "42".

I dont know the answer to all your questions, and Madaghmire certainly says most of the lengthy things I would add, and better then I could to boot, I think I would add the fact that the point structure is an incredible indicator of the balance.

If you put 400pts on a table against 400pts, no matter the content of those two fleets, no matter how un-optomized one or both of the fleets is, either player has a chance to win directly proportional to their understanding of the game and how to fly the ships that are sitting in front of them.

I think that is what I appreciate most about the balance here. One fleets 400pts does not feel strong compared to another fleets 400pts.

I'd say it is quite balanced, as player skill is a higher determiner of the winner than RPS in any sense. Bombers can and do best anti air, ships can best bombers, AA can best ships, small ships can down goliath, etc. All these match ups are skewed, but each can go either way depending on the helmsman.

Pair that with a solid point system with virtually no auto includes (TRC might be one, xi7 is pretty close imo) and you get a very good amount of variety. Net listing just doesn't seem to happen, and it certainly won't win you any games. Your style and approach are very much a part of what lists will work for you.

Now losing the game on deployment... That's a very really thing. Takes some good thought.

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

Now losing the game on deployment... That's a very really thing. Takes some good thought.

I don't think this is a problem , personally. This pops up in salty battle reports from time to time, and my response is always the same.

Deployment is part of the game . An important part of the game. You can't just show up and plop some ships down on the board wherever without consideration for where your adversary is or what he might be planning, and expect to do well. If you botch the opening moves of the game, it's entirely reasonable to expect to face an uphill battle to come back from your mistakes.

6 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

I dont know the answer to all your questions, and Madaghmire certainly says most of the lengthy things I would add

Wait, what did Madaghmire say to you. Because that clown didn't say a thing to me

9 hours ago, Greatfrito said:

Not "Is It Balanced?", or "Is It Balanced Right Now ?", but more... how is it supposed to be balanced? What is balanced? What are some of the design "rules" that it follows?

I'm honestly curious how many people have the same ideas about those ideas and questions, and whether people think the designers have some specific goals and guidelines in mind (again, not asking whether they're successful at meeting those goals right now ).

Are there supposed to be clear Rock, Paper, Scissors strategies?

Are releases intentionally designed to "shake things up", by giving new options to deal with older challenges?

Are stronger options given counters? Are weaker options given support? Is it a mix? Are neither considered?

Are waves designed to be "balanced" within themselves, or just to give new options?

What are the clearest distinguishing mechanical themes of the two factions? How closely do releases actually need to adhere to those themes?

How are squadrons balanced? Are they supposed to be a viable threat? Is defending against a squadron threat supposed to cost significantly less than fielding one? Are they supposed to be reliant on supporting ships, or augmented by them?

How are ships balanced? Are "activations" and "deployments" considered as elements of their design? Were they originally?

How are objectives balanced? How important are they supposed to be to the game? Are objectives designed with ships in mind? Are ships designed with objectives in mind?

Uh... I guess, essentially, I mean: Tell Me Literally Everything.

Whoops.

For what its worth here are my thoughts:

No. Rock Paper scissors always exists in gaming in some degree or another. It is not that egregious in Armada as the game has a late of depth to it and someone can beat rock with scissors if they can out pilot and out play rock. Its harder to do this in other games were hard counters exist .

Releases are designed to shake things up. You see this with other tabletop minis games. If they didn't shake things up people wouldn't buy them. What works well for FFG is the upgrade system. Buying a ship for just the upgrades is generally worth it. At the very least you get a new admiral which changes fleet design drastically.

Yes. I feel reinforced blast doors is a hard counter to triple tap demolisher. There are other counters like Snipe on squadrons or even flechette torpedoes. Upgrades like With new upgrades new possibilities show up for older ships. You are starting to see more VSDs hitting lists again.

I do not think so. If you play all arqs + fighters vs all peltas vs fighters I think the arqs win pretty handily. I think releases are balanced within their faction and are designed to offer new game play experiences and options during fleet construction.

Rebels - Guerrilla fighters strong squadrons. Nimble, death from 1000 cuts. Combine arms approach.
Imperials - Aggressive, expendable squadrons, Big volleys slow and menacing (looking at you ISD) stand alone ships with little fleet synergies.

they do not need to be played this way. Imperials have some great Ace synergy and can play Arq swarm and run what feels like a rebel list where the rebels now have cheap squadron swarms and a jouster ship. I do feel that Imps excel in their design style as rebels excel in theirs. Honestly if you design fleets around what you saw in the movies for each faction it sort of feels right.

Imperial squadrons have specific battlefield roles. Rebel squadrons seem to be more all comers. Rebel squadrons are generally more expensive as well. If you can defend against a squadron threat for less than the threat itself then that threat isn't being played optimally. Squadrons should be augmented by ships if you are aggressing with them. boosted comms flight controllers bomber command centers are all great. its like remora sharks. The squadrons can help defend ships from parasites but the ships also offer squadrons protection. Squadrons are always a threat to other squadrons and ships. 1 blue dice still has a 50% chance to damage a ship with its bombardment.

Ships are balanced as some do similar things but they excel in other places. Rebel ships feel more specialized in their roles which feels very rebellion. Imperial ships have some overshadowing going on especially between the VSD and ISD but that's just game lore. They are balanced via upgrades and points obviously but also in subtle ways like maneuverability and such. I think the ISD counting for upwards of 3 activations makes sense. its a big ship there are more crew to organize. It will be slower to react. Its like the troll in Fellowship of the Ring. you can't let it hit you and you can't get in front of it. Bringing smaller ships means you can out maneuver it but are also at risk if it does hit you.

Objectives are balanced simply in that they give a better benefit to the second player. This adds more layers to list building and tactics. I do feel blue objectives feel lacking compared to red and yellow. The ones that provide points for doing things are however clearly stronger. At least in a tournament setting.

Just my thoughts. Hope this helps a little.

Short answer to your question:

really good.

The balance in Armada is coming far more from skill and the right setup. And way more than in any other game I know. The dice can decide the game, but normally they don’t. They only decide how high the MOV is, not who is winning (normally).
It is a combination of the right fleet, the right mission, and the knowledge to use them in the right way. And with the right tactic every fleet is able to stand ground against any other fleet (some better some worse).

Two players can use the same fleet, and play them total different and still can come to the same result.
But with the wrong tactic, you will have no chance at all. No matter against what fleet you are playing.

A little story about the balance. When my opponent once picked superior positions without any squadrons, i knew it will be an easy game (and it was). It was a bad decission to pick this mission. he had to place all ships first, and i could pick my targets and gain alot of bonus points with the squadrons. Basicly he lost when he placed the fleet.
The fleets were both ok and balanced. It was just the mission pick of the player that ruined it.

But there is only one problem in Armada (at least for tournaments). It is not enough that you win. You need to win with a high MOV. This is my only negativ part of the game. Because winning or winning high is luck based.
And as second part, sometimes you have no time or chance to adampt to the tactic of the opponent. 6 Rounds are not long. If your tactic and the opponent tactic don't fit so well togehter, it can end really bad. If he want to avoid an open battle, and you want to do it slowly, it can be that there is no fight at all. Or not enough fight to win high.
But this is not such a big part about the balance.

3 hours ago, Darthain said:

Now losing the game on deployment... That's a very really thing. Takes some good thought.

This is probably the thing I think about the most after I make a fleet i really like. How will I deploy if we play X Y Z. How will they deploy.

Deployment is such an integral part of the game. Not thinking about deployment and how you will unpack your fleet is just as bad as YOLO'ing your objectives.

My regionals list of 4 arqs and an Interdictor was solid. It was a good list. I deployed it like **** and lost 3 games because of it. All 3 games were closer than the score showed when you look at how many HP each ship had left. I see games end 6/5 7/4 because engagement doesn't start until turn 4 or 5 when if the aggressor would have deployed 3-6" closer to the middle of the table engagement starts on turn 3 in their favor.

played the double ISD list in wave 3 i sat in my corner and lurched across the battlefield. not engaging until turn 4 or 5 and then getting a split as it was not enough to kill a fleet. each game i move closer and closer to middle deployment, maybe 2 inches at a time until i found that sweet spot. it takes a lot of games to practice that but if you can deploy at a range and in a way where you are getting off the first salvos early in the game I can tell you, you will most likely see better scores.

set up a table and just maneuver it out and see where you end up and when you can engage. this is why i love armada because the more work you put in between games the more success you will have.

The Rebs use magic and the Imperials have...no magic.

Ta-da! Balance.

Just now, RedPriest said:

The Rebs use magic and the Imperials have...no magic.

Ta-da! Balance.

Wait wait wait! Whoa whoa whoa!

This is clear and dangerous Rebel propaganda! The Emperor uses "LOTS o' Magic" to pop all dem rebel ships.

(Main reason Demo shoots after the move..."MAGIC".)

1 hour ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Wait, what did Madaghmire say to you. Because that clown didn't say a thing to me

As much as I appreciate the kind words from Broba, I'm not sure either. I think maybe he meant Ard's post? I'll take having Ard's words mistaken for mine as a compliment. Unless maybe he's talking about something I said in a different thread? I do say a lot of things.

cool thing about Armada, relative to X-wing (another ffg property), is that there are more things to balance around

i.e

-widely varying die pools (further subdivided based on hull zone and range)

-varying navigational charts with different top speeds and degrees of turns available

-varying defense token spread and with various defense tokens

-the entire squadron thing

in addition to the normal upgrade slot combinations etc.

whereas X-wing's very simplistic stats can lead to ships which are strictly mathematically superior to one another (x7 defender being the current reigning kind), Armada can balance a wide variety of ships based on gameplay scenarios rather than simple absolutes

as an obvious example, the ISD loses more than half its effectiveness when not using its front hull zone at optimal ranges. It becomes, for the points spend, an utter piece of crap at that point. Get it to work, however, and it becomes bonkers and capable of obliterating swathes of ships

for more modest and consistent ships, such as the Arty, it's balanced around playing so that your opponent does not get to unload ridiculous numbers of dice in your face

Armada is balanced by Ben.