I'm considering some parameters for a small-format game, suitable for either tighter quarters, or less time to play. If anyone has any thoughts, or can point me to a more widely-accepted standard, I'd be quite happy.

Fleet Limit: 200 points

• No Fleet Commanders
• No Unique Squadrons
• Maximum 75 points of Squadrons

Play Area: 3x3 mat

• Setup area is the entire map
• Deploy area is within 3 of the player edge
• Remove 2 asteroids from the game

I think otherwise, it will play as normal, with objectives and whatnot. Some objectives might be unbalanced with this setup, but that can be determined later.

So, any obvious weaknesses?

Remove titles from ships. Admo would be a pain to take down since it can require several ships to deal any hull damage. And Demo could end the game on round 2.

have you heard of this? its exactly what you're looking for it seems. upside it doesn't add or change any rules.

I have almost finished a review of how the objectives should be down sized. so far its a simple reduction of tokens or points when its a set amount, like intel sweep becomes 40 points or 38 points.

Also I'd say don't allow large base ships. It would be difficult for someone to take down an ISD with only 200 points.

30 minutes ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

Also I'd say don't allow large base ships. It would be difficult for someone to take down an ISD with only 200 points.

1 HH with Garel's Honour and a few bombers?

Look at the 150 pt, Race for the Base scenario posted by FFG before wave 3, I think. It should be a good starting point.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Remove titles from ships. Admo would be a pain to take down since it can require several ships to deal any hull damage. And Demo could end the game on round 2.

An excellent idea.

1 hour ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

Also I'd say don't allow large base ships. It would be difficult for someone to take down an ISD with only 200 points.

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, you are correct. On the other hand, that's half a fleet, and this game is tuned for multiple small attacks to be more dangerous than one large attack. I'll have to play it a few times to see.

1 hour ago, FrightfulCommand said:

have you heard of this? its exactly what you're looking for it seems.

Nice. I'll have to give it a read.

1 hour ago, FrightfulCommand said:

I have almost finished a review of how the objectives should be down sized. so far its a simple reduction of tokens or points when its a set amount, like intel sweep becomes 40 points or 38 points.

I suspect some of them will need more work than that. Ion Cannon, for example, becomes far more dangerous with half the playspace. Blockade run becomes almost trivial for the second player.

36 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Look at the 150 pt, Race for the Base scenario posted by FFG before wave 3, I think. It should be a good starting point.

This was in my mind while I was putting this together. I'm looking for something a little closer to a "standard" game; two players, direct confrontation.

We're going to try a different deployment zone at our weekly play night. Players must deploy in the band between range three and range five of the player board edge.

Of course this allows for some alpha-strike list building but we're putting the emphasis on being able to more quickly test standard builds. Hopefully we won't have to discourage people from bringing lists specifically designed to win with the adjusted deployment zones.

23 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

1 hour ago, FrightfulCommand said:

I have almost finished a review of how the objectives should be down sized. so far its a simple reduction of tokens or points when its a set amount, like intel sweep becomes 40 points or 38 points.

I suspect some of them will need more work than that. Ion Cannon, for example, becomes far more dangerous with half the playspace. Blockade run becomes almost trivial for the second player.

That's easy. So far I've found that all I needed to do is remove the smaller half of the tokens or points if they are a stated amount not based on how many you can get.

Planetary Ion Cannon and Hyperspace assault - Play with only 2 tokens. Very even for both players. 3 tokens is broken.
Blockade Run currently doesn't seem to really work. Though you can also make it that the touch-down zone is close-medium on the opponent side.
Dangerous Territory and Minefields - Self regulates due to dropping down to 4 obstacles.
Intel Sweep down to 40pts/keep larger half

While I do get the urge to suggest various changes, I think it's best to K.I.S.S. and the Task Force Armada looks very good and has already been play tested.

Yes, the new format will dramatically alter how some of objectives play but that's the whole point. You have 3 objectives and now you're likely to see people playing objectives they wouldn't have even considered for a normal tournament.

Sure, someone can take an ISD or MC80 and be the big fish in a little pond, but that could backfire depending on what the objectives are. That's a very all-or-nothing approach and something that players must take into consideration.

Changing the format is good as it keeps things fresh, which will be good for everyone and now even your experienced players are having to re-evaluate things and come up with different strategies. People will be playing different lists and using different missions. This looks fun for both newbies and veterans.

I'd recommend making the setup area beyond 3 from the player edges and beyond 1 from the sides. This way you prevent players from placing objective tokens so close to the edge that you can't get to them without moving off the board.

The real question regarding these matchups is: What do you do when you have a non-standard deployment setup, such as Blockade Run or Fleet Ambush?

I like this, a smaller fleet action say a task force. Doing fleet actions that don't require the full commitment of the fleet?

As for objectives they would need to be scaled back or new ones entirely.

On a related note, has anyone tried playing with the Armada Furball rules? 400pt game on a 3x3 space? Feels like it would be a pretty messy, fast game. Would probably see some interesting lists come out of it too.

3 hours ago, Sirdrasco said:

I like this, a smaller fleet action say a task force. Doing fleet actions that don't require the full commitment of the fleet?

As for objectives they would need to be scaled back or new ones entirely.

It is called Taskforce Armada though. =(

6 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

400pt game on a 3x3 space? Feels like it would be a pretty messy, fast game.

Most of my normal games pretty much end up like this!

12 minutes ago, Kendraam said:

Most of my normal games pretty much end up like this!

Yep. A solid 2/3 or more of my games can be safely played on a 3x3. The only reason the extra space is there is to let flotillas run away. Anything involving actual combat, be it ships or squads, can be done entirely on a 3x3 with minimal outcome to the game. Honestly, it would change very little (squadron play would need to be reworked, but that's because squadrons are bonkers unbalanced since wave 2).

Meh. Here's everyone going, woot, smaller faster games! And I'm like, I wanna do 700-800 point games all the time.....

24 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Meh. Here's everyone going, woot, smaller faster games! And I'm like, I wanna do 700-800 point games all the time.....

1500... 4000... LET'S DO IT!

Played 1500 before, had a blast. Took about five hours, but I think the sweet spot is at 800. Wouldn't have any problems going 2000 plus. When I played 40k and warhammer, I used to do 4000-6000 games in a regular way. I'm crazy like that, hehe.

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

Most of my normal games pretty much end up like this!

So do mine. Don't see the point of making it a new format. We use the other mat as to hold all our supplies.

1 hour ago, Visovics said:

1500... 4000... LET'S DO IT!

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

Played 1500 before, had a blast. Took about five hours, but I think the sweet spot is at 800. Wouldn't have any problems going 2000 plus. When I played 40k and warhammer, I used to do 4000-6000 games in a regular way. I'm crazy like that, hehe.

I'll Vassal you, if you want. . .

1 hour ago, ForceGhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I'll Vassal you, if you want. . .

I don't Vasal, altough I'm considering it. It's just not the same, plus I want to play with my beautiful models.

1 minute ago, Darth Lupine said:

I don't Vasal, altough I'm considering it. It's just not the same, plus I want to play with my beautiful models.

I agree that it's not the same - it doesn't compare. But when you can't get 6000 point games in physically, or have nobody to play with, or for a host of other reasons, it is useful to fill that gap.

5 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

Meh. Here's everyone going, woot, smaller faster games! And I'm like, I wanna do 700-800 point games all the time.....

I've got an idea for a massive, multi-player fleet battle, similar to the CC Final Confrontation, but drawing from the Commands and Colors Epic system. In theory, it scales to any even-number of players from 6 upwards.

As a FWIW, up in the Twin Cities out of the mothership we've been doing 200pt small format tournaments for awhile now. They are great fun and generally follow along with your thoughts.

What Ian generally does tho is we don't do objectives, instead there is a special objective of the night. Some nights no large ships, the squadron point limit bounces around, 50 .. 100 along those lines. No admiral is an important concept as it's just too many points to pull into this size of game.

On the ship titles. we've never had one where it wasn't allowed but generally you just don't see people use them that much due to the point cost. With a 200 point budget, 10 pts for Demo is A LOT.

You might consider joining Twin Cities Armada just to see the past events and special rules for the small format tournaments. Be worth your time!