Date?
From out of nowhere... Wave VII!
10 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:Date?
We don't have an exact one yet, but it's slated for Q4 2017
1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:Date?
Sure, what do you fancy? Italian?
dang, I'd kill for some italian food right now.
14 hours ago, geek19 said:How to fight against squadrons: http://cannotgetyourshipout.blogspot.com/search/label/squadrons encyclopedia
Thanks, I know how to fight against squadrons, but I prefer capital ship combat. Just looks better.
1 hour ago, HERO said:Thanks, I know how to fight against squadrons, but I prefer capital ship combat. Just looks better.
The snarky reply aside (looking at you geek19 
), I never get this one - I don't understand those people who say that the game is better without squadrons. Nowhere in the Star Wars universe have we ever seen a space battle that involves capital ships but not fighters. Plus, without the squadrons, this might as well just be X-wing with slightly bigger ships; its the interplay between the capital ships and the fighters that makes Armada such a unique and exciting game.
Don't get me wrong, there have been points when squadrons were arguably overpowered (Rhymer / Rieekan zombie fighters / potentially Sloane, but I'm not fighting that one here), but you're always limited on numbers, and they have retrospectively nerfed those abilities, making the squadron game far more balanced. Without squadrons as an integral aspect of the game, Armada wouldn't be as thematic, and would be far less fun.
32 minutes ago, ceejlekabeejle said:The snarky reply aside (looking at you geek19
Don't get me wrong, there have been points when squadrons were arguably overpowered (Rhymer / Rieekan zombie fighters / potentially Sloane, but I'm not fighting that one here), but you're always limited on numbers, and they have retrospectively nerfed those abilities, making the squadron game far more balanced. Without squadrons as an integral aspect of the game, Armada wouldn't be as thematic, and would be far less fun.
@geek19, i think the blog index was appreciated, however, looking at it a third time, since i saw it a long time ago, it doesn't help the main squadron problem. massed multirole bombers Rebel. The tie fighter example seemed inconcievable, why did i even care to take a small force vs mass ties, they couldn't before sloane even touch my ships. Where people were losing entire medium ships and 2 small ships in a single turn of squadron strike. Also, it is a reach, because I think you tried to be very helpful, or least personally advertising, but that type of repsonse constantly starts to sound like "git gud".
--
There's already a lot to do with ships, craeting new movement patterns (a la mass raiders, or guppy train, or 2 Home one) is fun. There's double arcing to master, theres a massive complicated rule set to master. I will agree, having squadrons makes the game much more interesting, but interplay during previous waves was ridiculous: there was none, it was mostly, either you took a 90+ squadron force, or you lost 2 small ships to bomber strikes you couldnt easily counterplay each turn. The game didn't really have much overlap. Flak wasn't useful enough, especially if you could easily wipe a large ship down to 25% of its health in one go. Also, a lot of old Xwing players might honestly be fed up with squadrons and little ships and just want to play large ships. Apparently according to the forum, that might be tantamount to suggesting incest.
Sure flak + squadrons is counterplay, but at the old Rieekan level you needed about 90+ squadrons to not feed them as free points eventually. 2. With rieekan, there was no ship counterplay, you couldn't alpha strike out the carriers and survive the bombing, it was at best mutual destruction, not counterplay. Dice modification and Rieekan got nerfed drastically, Sloane is an option now. Alpha striking the carriers and kiling off squadrons vs Rieekan is a thing now.
Edited by Blail Blerg34 minutes ago, ceejlekabeejle said:The snarky reply aside (looking at you geek19
Don't get me wrong, there have been points when squadrons were arguably overpowered (Rhymer / Rieekan zombie fighters / potentially Sloane, but I'm not fighting that one here), but you're always limited on numbers, and they have retrospectively nerfed those abilities, making the squadron game far more balanced. Without squadrons as an integral aspect of the game, Armada wouldn't be as thematic, and would be far less fun.
That wasn't my intent actually. It's not that I don't value squadrons or the fact they are an integral part of the universe and the game, but I prefer the game more when it's more about capital ship warfare. In fact, 500 points of ships with 150 points of squadrons is more of the balance I would like to see on the table, But that's another thread.
8 hours ago, HERO said:That wasn't my intent actually. It's not that I don't value squadrons or the fact they are an integral part of the universe and the game, but I prefer the game more when it's more about capital ship warfare. In fact, 500 points of ships with 150 points of squadrons is more of the balance I would like to see on the table, But that's another thread.
Fair enough. My comments clearly don't apply to you then - your issue is balance rather than their presence at all. But still, it's an opinion I see expressed quite often, and which just baffles me.
Something we have yet to really speculate on as of yet are the generic titles that seem to be part of the Chimera expansion. I am hoping that they are much like the "taskforce" titles we have seen with the Hammerheads, to really provide a palpable incentive to run multiple ISDs in a list. Mechanically, I would like them to further the theme of activation efficiency that Thrawn seems to be setting, perhaps something like;
"At the end of this ship's activation, it gains a command token matching the command dial revealed this turn"
Being an end-of-activation ability, it would require forethought and setup to use effectively whilst providing the activation efficiency that big ship fleets find so very attractive.
8 hours ago, ceejlekabeejle said:Fair enough. My comments clearly don't apply to you then - your issue is balance rather than their presence at all. But still, it's an opinion I see expressed quite often, and which just baffles me.
My issue isn't balance either, it's simply a preference of scale. I would like to see more points allotted for capital ships vs. squadrons 
18 hours ago, Diabloelmo said:Something we have yet to really speculate on as of yet are the generic titles that seem to be part of the Chimera expansion. I am hoping that they are much like the "taskforce" titles we have seen with the Hammerheads, to really provide a palpable incentive to run multiple ISDs in a list. Mechanically, I would like them to further the theme of activation efficiency that Thrawn seems to be setting, perhaps something like;
"At the end of this ship's activation, it gains a command token matching the command dial revealed this turn"
Being an end-of-activation ability, it would require forethought and setup to use effectively whilst providing the activation efficiency that big ship fleets find so very attractive.
Cost: 0
Title. Imperial Star Destroyer Only.
This card has a variable negative point cost.
The cost of this card is reduced by 5 points for each Imperial Star Destroyer with this title equipped.
3 hours ago, xanderf said:Cost: 0
Title. Imperial Star Destroyer Only.
This card has a variable negative point cost.
The cost of this card is reduced by 5 points for each Imperial Star Destroyer with this title equipped.
Giving a triple-ISD list a free 45 points seems, uh, flippin' insane
If we are looking at points-reduction mechanics, I would lean towards something that we have seen in X-Wing multiple times - lowering the cost of, or the ability to take one or more free, upgrades. Assuming they are task-force titles and not standalone generics, I would in this case expect it to read something along the lines of:
"If there are one or more other copies of this card assigned to a friendly ship, you may take an upgrade card costing 5 or fewer fleet points without paying the fleet point cost"
I'm sure the templating on that is probably horrendous, but the gist of it is there. It keeps the maximum amount of free points to a rather more reasonable 15, and ties it up in upgrades fitted to the ships using the title.
18 hours ago, HERO said:My issue isn't balance either, it's simply a preference of scale. I would like to see more points allotted for capital ships vs. squadrons
Well we'll have to agree to disagree there. I don't think Armada would be the same if there wasn't the option for a fighter heavy build. In a game about capital ship warfare, it seems right that one tactic should be carrier-based and squadron focused, especially when every film or TV show always features lots of fighters alongside the big guns.
Squadrons are never going to make up more than a third of a fleet's points, and they rarely do anyway. Properly balanced in terms of squadrons' attacking capability, I think that's the right proportion.