22 hours ago, Green Knight said:

This is more me clarifying what I think the booklet says.

I'd actually like for bases to be really secret. I just haven't figured out a satisfying and simple rule yet ?

Any inherent issues with just allowing the rebel player to place 2 presence unrestricted? Basically meaning it could be outpost/outpost, outpost/base, or base/base. Keeps the alternation similar to what you suggested without telegraphing bases as much.

Ninja'd

22 hours ago, Cusm said:

One that I have thought about is maybe letting the team that is trailing be the one to announce an All Out Assault once the leader has X amount of VP from victory, or maybe to win the final point you must declare an All Out Assault. I would hate to play a campaign and never be able to have an AOA. I also hope in the future expansion we see 2v2 in regular campaign or as a special assault.

This is one I've been tempted to explore as well. In the two campaigns I am in, the leading force is not likely to declare the all-out assault. In one instance, the Empire is up 9 - 3 and there isn't much desire to potentially risk a loss with this lead. The Rebels facing a likely loss may consider pushing for the final assault as there would be a better chance of winning the campaign.

In the other campaign, the Rebels are up 9 - 7 and I can't see the rebels pushing an all-out here either given the status of their fleets. The Imperial fleets are a little heavier and can take more damage, so it is possible that they would consider risking the all-out.

Having said that, I'm not sure how this would impact prior round play styles if you provide the all-out assault option to the player behind. If you are ahead in CPs, would you intentionally work to take out opposing ships or turtle to keep yours unscarred?

I'm not following the problem in regards to winning/losing team able to declare the All Out Offensive. During the Strategy phase, as long as a team is within 4 of the winning VPs, they can call it, weather leading or trailing in VPs. Are we talking about being able to call it from any number of VPs?

Edit: I understand Cusm proposal now. Not sure why I was confused (^_^;

I agree, it would feel a little anti climactic to not end with the mega battle. Though, it would be good to understand why there is the rule that you can't declare it until you are at least 4 away from victory yourself. Is it to avoid a blowout fight that's just wasting everyone's time? I don't think so, as one side could be way ahead in VPs but all the fleets could be still roughly even. Maybe it's to avoid the situation where one side loses all the time but then just wins the final battle?

On 2/4/2017 at 11:55 AM, homedrone said:

I'm not following the problem in regards to winning/losing team able to declare the All Out Offensive. During the Strategy phase, as long as a team is within 4 of the winning VPs, they can call it, weather leading or trailing in VPs. Are we talking about being able to call it from any number of VPs?

Edit: I understand Cusm proposal now. Not sure why I was confused (^_^;

I agree, it would feel a little anti climactic to not end with the mega battle. Though, it would be good to understand why there is the rule that you can't declare it until you are at least 4 away from victory yourself. Is it to avoid a blowout fight that's just wasting everyone's time? I don't think so, as one side could be way ahead in VPs but all the fleets could be still roughly even. Maybe it's to avoid the situation where one side loses all the time but then just wins the final battle?

Maybe All Out Offensive should count as 4VP as defender and more (maybe 6) for the attacker. A way for the team behind to gain some ground and the person ahead could finish the campaign if they win; still using the 4 points away from victory rule.

I would like to see battles with 2v2 fleets, like maybe if a base is attacked a second or third time you can have 2 fleets each side. I am loving the campaign and there is so much potenetial to build and expand on it, I hope the designers are working on it.

If the Campaign Continues after the offensive.... It was hardly "All out".

I can think of a few small fixes to make it more interesting, without feeling the need to develope an entire framework.

Half resources, you get way too many, fleets max out fast. Repairs become trivial consequently.

Share a common Grand fleet and parcel it out every attack (surprises everywhere). Surprise is the fun of armada battles, not knowing what is coming.

Alter hyperlane so that Imperials don't get points unless they are in the rebel deployment zone.

As it stands, hitting base t1 is requisite for rebels to not drop behind fast (and I have no problem with these, base assaults are always unfavorable to the attacker). Fixed fleets means too much fixed engagements. Don't like it, not flexible enough, makes little sense.

I'd like to see fleet movement if playing fixed fleet, and proximity,etc. Build as bit more game to this one.

I'm also with Krisjan, not entirely sure squad play over 134 really works properly. It certainly gets a bit ridiculous at times.

Overall though, 6 player campaigns are a bit like herding cats. This thing is probably best run head to head flying 2 fleet each. The extra time and effort in no way justified the campaign overall, which was a thin excuse to fly some 500 pt fleets. We can do that already if we want.

Id like to see an option to change you objectives. 6 or 7 turns in playing the same objectives can be abit boring. I know u can use skilled spacers, but i see that as more of a temporary tactical change than a strategic one. Maybe a rule where you can change one of you objectives for a point cost or maybe allowing a change of up to 3 objectives over the course of the campaign. 1 per turn or all at once but not more than 3.

A change we are considering for our next campaign is a starting fleet point cost of 300 pts (like original Armada). This is to make the climb of fleet improvement to 500 pts more of a grind.

Also what are peoples thoughts on more than 6 people playing? Like 4v4? One thing noticed about 3v3 was that it started to create some repetative game play. Once a certain fleet was known to be good against an enemy fleet setting up to play against that fleet multiple times with same objective was boring and moral disrupting. Thoughts are that adding 2 more players will add to diversity of engagements. Another thought was to have each admiral have two different fleets to play, and being able to choose between the 2 of them for each engagement.

Quote

### PLACE BASES ###
Stickers are placed in the following order:

IMP: Corellia
IMP P1: Base
REB P1: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost
IMP P2: Base
REB P2: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost
IMP P3: Base
REB P3: 2 Presence, 1 each of Base and Outpost

NOTE: This is the order that makes the most sense, both in terms of starting balance and most varied starting scenarios.

Id suggest just the 2 presence, and then once all stickers are placed they take a moment to decide which 2 or 3 are which.

18 minutes ago, Grey Mage said:

Id suggest just the 2 presence, and then once all stickers are placed they take a moment to decide which 2 or 3 are which.

Agree. That's what we did.

6 hours ago, Kanawolf said:

A change we are considering for our next campaign is a starting fleet point cost of 300 pts (like original Armada). This is to make the climb of fleet improvement to 500 pts more of a grind.

The only thing that would worry me, on this, is how it interacts with the "Retire a Fleet, get a new one." system

Because as it is, I had to retire my fleet (the only thing remaining after a bad battle was a scarred MC80)... And of course, that meant a new 400pt Fleet, with only 1 upgrade each... But its still hell and vicious going up against a full out 500pt Fleet at that point, when y ou have nothing to counter, and only limited means to run away...

The Rhymerball caught me and trashed me on turn 2. There's no Hyperspacing out at that point.

Skilled Spacers: Can be used once per battle. If used, retreat one ship to hyperspace as soon as you reveal your command dial [finished its activation?]

My opponent and I agreed that for squadrons, you just look at what you're about to place on the table. If fighters are more than a third of your fleet, someone's got to chill in the hangar (unless a ship getting perma-killed is the cause, of course). We've also instituted a disband rule specifically so we won't have to sit there trying to get units killed just to replace them. In retrospect, I don't know why I pushed that so hard since all I wanted was the option to trade some TIE Fighters out for Defenders once I get my ships and squadrons filled out. Wouldn't exactly be hard to lose those TIEs the old fashioned way. Oh well, still a good rule.

Regarding the AOA, we just agreed to do one after the campaign has a winner if we didn't do one already. I think the agreement was to just treat ships as having whatever scars and veterancy they had before the last round of fighting, since we expect to have our full 500 by that time and the scars will make things more interesting. This largely prevents the need for house rules about the AOA, but I do like the idea that it doesn't necessarily end the campaign but does provide a huge boost to the winner.

We also decided to add two new 400 point fleets on turn five, built using the rules used at the start of the campaign. I'm not sure why it was suggested but since there was a mutual agreement that the new fleets would fight each other I was up for it. We've yet to actually reach that point; turn two just ended and we've yet to declare attacks for turn three. I like the fact that even after I've hit full capacity with my other fleets, I'll have some incentive to increase my resource income so I can bring the third fleet up to strength more quickly.

What rules are people using for winning conditions for battles? The core rules or tournament rules?

On 2/3/2017 at 9:58 AM, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

Can I suggest one caviat to the retiring rules: A fleet admiral that had their fleet retired is now an officer upgrade of 1/4th their cost. Their effect applies only to the ship they are equipped to.

You lost your fleet! High command believes a demotion is in order, captain.

Entirely unbalanced.

Dodonna becomes a 5pt officer that does the exact same thing as his 20pt commander card. So basically, you're allowing one Rebel Fleet to have two commander bonuses for +5 points.

On 2/15/2017 at 2:24 AM, Kanawolf said:

Id like to see an option to change you objectives. 6 or 7 turns in playing the same objectives can be abit boring. I know u can use skilled spacers, but i see that as more of a temporary tactical change than a strategic one. Maybe a rule where you can change one of you objectives for a point cost or maybe allowing a change of up to 3 objectives over the course of the campaign. 1 per turn or all at once but not more than 3.

A change we are considering for our next campaign is a starting fleet point cost of 300 pts (like original Armada). This is to make the climb of fleet improvement to 500 pts more of a grind.

Also what are peoples thoughts on more than 6 people playing? Like 4v4? One thing noticed about 3v3 was that it started to create some repetative game play. Once a certain fleet was known to be good against an enemy fleet setting up to play against that fleet multiple times with same objective was boring and moral disrupting. Thoughts are that adding 2 more players will add to diversity of engagements. Another thought was to have each admiral have two different fleets to play, and being able to choose between the 2 of them for each engagement.

I have thought of these same ones.

We have had so few objectives used vs the special ones I think maybe treat the regular objectives as unique one time use to you, so you use 'Contested Outpost'; it must be replaced before the next round. I really think the 300pt starting is a better way to start. We had 2 groups wanting to play, but the second group could never get everyone together so we had 2-3 people that did not get to play. I think the resources would become an issue but it would be cool. It would also be cool, especially with more players, to have battles that featured 2v2 with a special assault type objective.

I love this campaign and I hope FFG is listening to us and expand on it and improve but more importantly, gives us MORE!!!

4 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Entirely unbalanced.

Dodonna becomes a 5pt officer that does the exact same thing as his 20pt commander card. So basically, you're allowing one Rebel Fleet to have two commander bonuses for +5 points.

It is only for the ship he's on. But I agree it's a bit unbalanced. Ackbar with Sato is painful.

On 2/4/2017 at 0:55 PM, homedrone said:

I agree, it would feel a little anti climactic to not end with the mega battle. Though, it would be good to understand why there is the rule that you can't declare it until you are at least 4 away from victory yourself. Is it to avoid a blowout fight that's just wasting everyone's time? I don't think so, as one side could be way ahead in VPs but all the fleets could be still roughly even. Maybe it's to avoid the situation where one side loses all the time but then just wins the final battle?

The only strategic reason to launch an All Out Offensive is you're trailing behind the other team but still close enough to declare an All Out Offensive. Otherwise, the team in the lead should just round off the last few points and not risk losing the final battle.

I've been following a few campaigns, and most seem to get called when one team is running away with it. My most recent 6-Player campaign finished at 12-3 for the Imps. The few "All Out Offensives" I've seen so far have been groups playing it just because they wanted to play the Big Battle, and not because it's come up organically as a sound decision as part of the campaign.

Probably for the best, though, as very few groups would have a table large enough for the 6 Player all out assault (to say nothing of the difficulty of getting six people together at the same time for a 6-8 hour day of Armada).

9 minutes ago, draco193 said:

It is only for the ship he's on. But I agree it's a bit unbalanced. Ackbar with Sato is painful.

I don't understand? Dodonna's ability works as long as he is alive, and regardless of how/where the opposing ship takes the face-up damage (even an enemy ship across the board hitting an asteroid triggers Dodonna). So you'd have to suggest some pretty heavy errata to have his ability mitigated in some way, since he is the only Admiral that doesn't affect friendly ships/squadrons but rather opposing ships. Unless you have in mind something like Dodonna Officer only allows face-up damage dealt by his ship's attacks to trigger the draw-four-choose-one situation, but that is a complete rewrite of Dodonna's ability (since he works with Fighters, asteroids, etc.).

2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I don't understand? Dodonna's ability works as long as he is alive, and regardless of how/where the opposing ship takes the face-up damage (even an enemy ship across the board hitting an asteroid triggers Dodonna). So you'd have to suggest some pretty heavy errata to have his ability mitigated in some way, since he is the only Admiral that doesn't affect friendly ships/squadrons but rather opposing ships.

Ah, I see. I just read it as since Dodonna was only affecting his equipped ship, he would only apply to effects where that ship caused a face up damage card. I just read in my own errata for it.

23 minutes ago, Cusm said:

I have thought of these same ones.

We have had so few objectives used vs the special ones I think maybe treat the regular objectives as unique one time use to you, so you use 'Contested Outpost'; it must be replaced before the next round. I really think the 300pt starting is a better way to start. We had 2 groups wanting to play, but the second group could never get everyone together so we had 2-3 people that did not get to play. I think the resources would become an issue but it would be cool. It would also be cool, especially with more players, to have battles that featured 2v2 with a special assault type objective.

I live this campaign and I hope FFG is listening to us and expand on it and improve but more importantly, gives us MORE!!!

In reality is comes down to a lot of Base Defense and Special Assaults, so it's even more narrow than that.

12 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The only strategic reason to launch an All Out Offensive is you're trailing behind the other team but still close enough to declare an All Out Offensive. Otherwise, the team in the lead should just round off the last few points and not risk losing the final battle.

I've been following a few campaigns, and most seem to get called when one team is running away with it. My most recent 6-Player campaign finished at 12-3 for the Imps. The few "All Out Offensives" I've seen so far have been groups playing it just because they wanted to play the Big Battle, and not because it's come up organically as a sound decision as part of the campaign.

Probably for the best, though, as very few groups would have a table large enough for the 6 Player all out assault (to say nothing of the difficulty of getting six people together at the same time for a 6-8 hour day of Armada).

With the latest email concerning +VP, our campaign is 8-3 Imperials. We have one fleet that is around 440 points, the others are 500, the Rebels are all at 500. We imperials have no reason to play AOO, but we all want to. I think in campaigns flavor is as important as winning. Who wants to play this campaign and not have an all out battle? How many people have played epic 500+ Armada games on their own? I still think AOO should be able to be declared by the trailing player once the 3 points from victory is achieved, since it is their last ditch effort.

15 minutes ago, draco193 said:

Ah, I see. I just read it as since Dodonna was only affecting his equipped ship, he would only apply to effects where that ship caused a face up damage card. I just read in my own errata for it.

Way too cheap for only 5 points. Him with APT, sweet scumbag! Maybe you could do half points for half effect. I really like the idea, but it would just require a large errata and I think you would have to do it individually rather than one broad brush stroke.

We launched our campaign at 300 points. Oddly enough, The reasons I originally decided to start at a lower point value haven't turned out to be the real value of beginning at 300 instead of 400.

Why start at 300? The best reason is that a wide open 200 points allows your fleet enough room to become something radically different from what it started as on turn 1.

With only 100 points, your fleet can't fundamentally change as the campaign progresses. This can lead to stale engagements and/or feeling bored with your list. You can add perhaps 1 decent ship, a flotilla or more squadrons, and then fill out the rest with upgrade cards. But at its core your fleet stays the same.

Two hundred points gives you a lot of space to flesh-out your list. Do you want to add a second ISD, MC80 or transform your fleet into a CR90 ram-fest? How about a 100-point bomber force when you had no squadrons before? If you're patient enough and want to play the long game, save up your points and surprise your enemy! This makes long-term planning and the economic side of the campaign much more important.

I was worried about rebuilt fleets being too weak, so I came up with this fleet-construction system to maintain the 100-point gap between new fleets and existing ones set by the campaign rules:

1. Fleets start the campaign at 300 points, with 1 upgrade card allowed per ship and up to 100 points in squadrons.

2. Fleets are capped at a maximum of 400 points on turn 2, with 2 upgrade cards allowed per ship and up to 134 points in squadrons. Rebuilt fleets start at 300 points and a limit of 1 upgrade card per ship.

3. Fleets are capped at a maximum of 500 points on turn 3, with any number of upgrade cards allowed per ship and up to 167 points in squadrons. Rebuilt fleets start at 400 points and a limit of 1 upgrade card per ship

[Note: I can see an argument for turn-3 rebuilds getting only 350 points and turn-4 rebuilds getting 400, but I didn't want to make retiring your fleet overly punitive. You're already losing every unique in your fleet, your first choice of Commander and are limited to 1 upgrade card per ship. While it's unlikely a player's fleet will hit 500 points at the start of turn 3, it is technically possible. Having a 150-point deficit between 2 fleets would be entirely unfair.]

4. Squadron point limits are based on the maximum fleet points allowed for that turn, not on individual fleet sizes. For example, on turn 2 a fleet may have up to 134 points in squadrons even if its total value is less than 400 points.

@Green Knight are you going to alter your scoring to reflect the updated information? That it is 1 pt + planet for CP each battle.

5 hours ago, Cusm said:

Way too cheap for only 5 points. Him with APT, sweet scumbag! Maybe you could do half points for half effect. I really like the idea, but it would just require a large errata and I think you would have to do it individually rather than one broad brush stroke.

It's a house rule. Use common sense about the intent.