6 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

And that kind of dynamic is already included in the base game, the base game is already X-Wing as good as it gets.

Just to be clear - your argument is that a single T-65 (or T-70) X-Wing vs two TIE Fighters (/ln or /fo) is X-Wing as good as it gets? Because, if so...yeah, I've got nothing. I'd disagree pretty strongly on that, but certainly I can see that this would be a matter of opinion.

My point about the core sets was that (IMHO, of course) you really can buy just the Armada Core Set, and you've got a solidly representation of the full game. Sure, adding more to it adds options - same as X-Wing - but I'd have no problem plopping down the Armada core set with someone and knocking out a game, any time. It really IS as good as the at-least-one-copy-of-everything-full-game-experience.

To me, that stands in pretty stark contrast to X-Wing.

Now, if your goal is "which game can you spend the least in and win regional-or-higher-tournaments"....pfew, wow, I've got no idea, there. Armada may still eek ahead, but I'd imagine only by virtue of merely HAVING half as many waves as X-Wing, and 'upgrades' that are only available in random kits not having as oversized an impact as they do in X-Wing (where half of them are basically 'patches'). It's as likely X-Wing could be cheaper, I'm legit not sure, but 'competitive' play is always going to be something different.

For just the (literally, one copy of) core set? Or even, 'core set plus 3 or 4 expansions'? You're getting miles more variety of gameplay for your money in Armada. (And, seriously, I like both games A LOT)

8 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Meanwhile, a mirror match of Soontir, Vader and Vessery plays each time differently. ;-) The movement system is what makes X-Wing dynamic. Making an unexpected turn, boosting afterwards past some asteroids, making that move just barely, and landing completely out of arc from the opposing flight … that kind of dynamic.

And that kind of dynamic is already included in the base game, the base game is already X-Wing as good as it gets. PWT actually lessen the game more than they increase the fun and while for competitive play you need to spend about $200 that is still rather cheap. X-Wing itself is super cheap and the only reason why competitive lists are expensive is the upgrade cards, which means it becomes even cheaper for casual play which basically just requires a few ships for a 100 point list and is already a blast (X-Wing word 2016 winner and runner ups combined price for models: ~80) , for less than the base game in armada cost. Armada interests me little, I will not claim to know the prices exactly, but it seems like armada is roughly twice as expensive from lists and ship requirements to get similar levels to x-wing. Sounds like a rather significant price difference to me. especially as you can call x-wing cheap without a second thought. But feel free to correct me on the armada pricing.

I'd agree Armada has a steeper buy in price but that's because the game is on an epic scale. Everything is Armada is more. More depth, more time, more space, more models, more objectives. I love X-Wing's comparative simplicity and speed and I like to alternate between the two. People who want more - including variable arcs (and that might not be you) - maybe should be looking at Armada to get that.

6 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Just to be clear - your argument is that a single T-65 (or T-70) X-Wing vs two TIE Fighters (/ln or /fo) is X-Wing as good as it gets? Because, if so...yeah, I've got nothing. I'd disagree pretty strongly on that, but certainly I can see that this would be a matter of opinion.

Well, than let's agree to disagree, because that is indeed my point, especially with the TFA core set, as boost is a really nice little mechanic. Anything else added to x-wing either adds just complexities (list building, complex effect chains) or variety (I love my old man rau) , that helps certainly to keep the game interesting, but does not change the core of the game why it is fun.

More, more, more does not make a better game, and armada looks like more than even the bloated X-Wing epic.

Besides, flightpath was already a success before X-Wing, right? Wings of Glory, Wings of War, etc

On 08/02/2017 at 5:03 AM, Dr Zoidberg said:

How did they not expect a miniatures game based on one of the most popular sci-fi franchises of all time to be incredibly popular? Particularly when you make it a game with gorgeous pre-painted minis; relatively low entry price; and easy to learn game mechanics.

Oh, they wouldn't have made it if they didn't think it'd sell.

What they didn't expect was a 40K competitor.

4 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

More, more, more does not make a better game, and armada looks like more than even the bloated X-Wing epic.

O maaaan don't start on epic I love epic

On 8.2.2017 at 6:07 AM, Punning Pundit said:

The thing to think about is that simplicity is its own goal. While I do think they should have done a bit more with dice variation and should have doubled the points on just about every card, those are _simple_ changes. Arc sizes are _complex_ changes.

For instance: every new player has to be told that the standard firing arc is 80°. Most all new players believe that it's 90°. I bet one person is going to learn this fact by reading this comment.

Imagine having to learn that some ships have an 80° arc, some 90°, some 45°, etc. Imagine having to not just learn all the dials, but also all the _firing arcs_. You'd have to not just learn how to visualize where your ships will get to, but also what they will be pointing at, in a much more complex way.

The _idea_ of what you're proposing is interesting. I think the Hound's tooth is a good model for how it might be accomplished. But those kind of arc shenanigans will always be a one off, and not a core mechanic.

*slowly raises hand, feeling really stupid now*

This has been discussed before. I think it's important to point out what a firing arc actually represents, considering that a fighter craft's weaponry are fixed and locked forward. The Firing arc represents a ship's ability to yaw or pitch slightly to align a target and then return to its original heading. From a strictly physical point of view, it would make sense for more maneuverable ships like Interceptors to have wider arcs than more clunky ones like Y-wings. I went to a convention panel with Jay Little, the original designer, and he discussed just that. Different sized firing arcs were tested in a few forms, as were other physical simulations of dogfighting like multiple tiers of "altitude." From a game balance point of view, such things are easy to implement but difficult to cost and can impact gameplay in wildly variant ways. The fact that the game already plays so fast compared to most and fact that positioning is so important just lead to these concepts being eliminated for streamlining. The game is probably better off for it.

7 hours ago, xanderf said:

"Boring to watch" is true, which kept me out for a while. PLAYING it, though...I dunno, it's weird. I'm very conscious of when 75 minutes of X-Wing are up and the next round will be starting shortly...I play Armada for what feels like 60 minutes, look at the clock and HOLY CRAP 3 HOURS ARE GONE. It's...I dunno. So much more complex and richer than the time just FLIES by. (But, yeah, I can see why watching it would be something like waiting for paint to dry, when X-Wing is totally the opposite)

Any game I'm not playing is boring to watch for me. And yes, that includes the Super Bowl