14 hours ago, Church14 said:

The reason is that STAW is a mature game like XWMG. For both games, a lot of players have enough models to cover any fleet composition. Long term and competitive XWMG players don't need another B wing model. A cards only Bwing expansion could provide needed cards to boost a weak ship without adding a redundant model to their collection.

For a new player, you get shorted a model, but you get more variety for cheap.

Had the Chimaera been a card only pack for $30, all those players with 2 or 3 ISDs wouldn't need to buy one they'll never use just to get the new cards.

The cards shouls have come with the Carrack or Dreadnought expansion and i would be happy.

Attack Wing misses some ships too, the Ambassador for example.

16 hours ago, Grey Mage said:

Im a cook, and a father of three, disposable does not really describe any of my income.

A single $50 pack, sometime within a week to three months after release, isnt going to break my bank. I probably wont buy the wave all at once. If I want multiples I certainly wont, but I will buy them eventually.

I personally cant see 'but I dont have the money' as a workable argument for someone who already has many of the same model. If you felt you could buy 4 CR90s, why is 1 more a sudden burden? Especially in place of an entirely new ship that would have cost the same if not more?

It's not the matter of if you can or can't. Obviously the cost of the game is beyond some players. 1 ship like this isn't a big deal. I actually am a huge fan of the new ISD. You're thinking small scale when you are thinking 1 ship.

Lets say you have 2 of each small (3 of a couple that you run a lot of), 2 flots, 2 of each medium, 1 of each large (2 ISD), 2 of every fighter pack. That's already a fair amount of cash invested. That is a LOT of support to the company also. Lets say this scratches every itch you have. You never have an urge to field even 1 additional model of any ship or fighter. You happily buy new models at the same rate as they at variety and new options. Through wave 7 you're talking $1200 MSRP.

Now, with a brand new model, you get a lot of things. New gear, new cards, new cardboard, new model, new options.

But instead, FFG starts re-releasing old models with new cards/cardboard, and they have duplicated every ship. Keep in mind that you have no need to EVER field more of any model. But you want the new options, the new cards, the new cardboard...the cheap stuff. But you need to buy the new model. Now you have nearly $400 MSRP of unused models. You're cool with dropping an additional 1/3 of the cost of your current fleet for cards and cardboard and a bunch of plastic that never sees the table?

Keep in mind that FFG already established a great idea through the campaign. They could release the cards and cardboard through those and cover the same amount of ship changes through lets say 3 campaigns. Now you only need to drop $90 and you get additional content without getting lots of stuff you don't need/want. That's a $300 savings. For some, that doesn't matter. For many of us though, that's a notable chunk of change.

Heck, do both! Release the new repainted everything with new options, but also include those options in the campaign box. No harm, no foul and people can pick and choose as they see fit. I just don't want to be locked into hundreds of dollars for stuff I don't need just to stay competitive. That stinks of money grubbing power creep instead of fair and honest treatment of customers.

On 8/30/2017 at 11:32 AM, kmanweiss said:

It's not the matter of if you can or can't. Obviously the cost of the game is beyond some players. 1 ship like this isn't a big deal. I actually am a huge fan of the new ISD. You're thinking small scale when you are thinking 1 ship.

Lets say you have 2 of each small (3 of a couple that you run a lot of), 2 flots, 2 of each medium, 1 of each large (2 ISD), 2 of every fighter pack. That's already a fair amount of cash invested. That is a LOT of support to the company also. Lets say this scratches every itch you have. You never have an urge to field even 1 additional model of any ship or fighter. You happily buy new models at the same rate as they at variety and new options. Through wave 7 you're talking $1200 MSRP.

Now, with a brand new model, you get a lot of things. New gear, new cards, new cardboard, new model, new options.

But instead, FFG starts re-releasing old models with new cards/cardboard, and they have duplicated every ship. Keep in mind that you have no need to EVER field more of any model. But you want the new options, the new cards, the new cardboard...the cheap stuff. But you need to buy the new model. Now you have nearly $400 MSRP of unused models. You're cool with dropping an additional 1/3 of the cost of your current fleet for cards and cardboard and a bunch of plastic that never sees the table?

Keep in mind that FFG already established a great idea through the campaign. They could release the cards and cardboard through those and cover the same amount of ship changes through lets say 3 campaigns. Now you only need to drop $90 and you get additional content without getting lots of stuff you don't need/want. That's a $300 savings. For some, that doesn't matter. For many of us though, that's a notable chunk of change.

Heck, do both! Release the new repainted everything with new options, but also include those options in the campaign box. No harm, no foul and people can pick and choose as they see fit. I just don't want to be locked into hundreds of dollars for stuff I don't need just to stay competitive. That stinks of money grubbing power creep instead of fair and honest treatment of customers.

Sounds like you have a problem with what *might* happen instead of with what *is* happening.

And thats not FFGs problem, thats you borrowing trouble from the multiverse.

Shut up and take my money

After perusing the previous posts here, it appears that what we wish to have is a new campaign box with wave one revisited included (wow, what an awkward sentence). I think it would be an excellent idea. Update a whole wave of ships in one fell swoop.

If the Chimera is a Repaint than then the Liberty is a Re-mold.

So I am perfectly fine with this. The rebels have 2 MC-80 expansions and the Imperials now have 2 ISD expansions. If this was a repaint expansion it would be for a ship that is not performing well. Come to think of it I don't know how repaints will work in armada as they have larger models and the release is not as frequent as X-wing. Either way this works fine.

Personally i dont think that there is any harm in this. I dont see this as a ' isd blows make it better', but more of a 'isd is awesome and comes in many flavors'. I think that was the point to this, you cant have a ship competing with the isd for roles it should be doing.

Could we see something like this again? Yes and the imps will most likely be the recipiant. Not because ffg is lazy but becasue they have to do 'what do you think of this desing' alot more for imps than rebs (who has the most ship variety in the OT). Thats a rough spot to be in.

On 9.9.2017 at 10:35 PM, Grey Mage said:

Sounds like you have a problem with what *might* happen instead of with what *is* happening.

And thats not FFGs problem, thats you borrowing trouble from the multiverse.

Without using the solution of the multiverse, as X-Wing players remove the issue completely with using proxies and include all necessary game informations on their squad builder printouts, which btw reduce setup time a lot as well.

Which would leave tournaments with a small paywall, but this paywall is not community proofed as borrowing cards is a common tourney practise. Gives new players actually easy access to cards which the veterans might want, so they have an easier time to contribute to the community themselves ... which is good as they are the ones who need to borrow cards most from other players.

Ooo, here we go. Assuming there is a Resistance/First Order release (say the Resurgent class and whatever the Raddus is), follow that up with a campaign featuring refits for that time period. We know Home One and its class of ships are still in service for the Republic/Resistance. The same goes for ISDs. That could potentially be expanded to include TIE/FOs, TIE/SFs and T-70/85 X-Wing variants. There's soooo much we can do with campaign packs.

(SPOILERS) I haven't seen Rebels, but I was reading about Phoenix Home, and the Pelta-Class that we have gets destroyed, so they capture a Quasar-Fire and make it the new Phoenix Home. I don't know if they repaint it, but it would be cool if we at least get the option to run it as a Rebel ship. It would most likely have the same stats as an Imperial Quasar-Fire, but with Fleet Support upgrades, which are awesome.

I also wouldn't mind a new Corellian Corvette modelled after the Sundered Heart from Empire at War. They could make it the missile-firing (black dice), anti-squadron alternative to the CR-90. It would essentially fill the role of the DP20, because that thing uuugleee.

Sundered Heart DP20 Frigate

On ‎09‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 3:35 PM, Grey Mage said:

Sounds like you have a problem with what *might* happen instead of with what *is* happening.

And thats not FFGs problem, thats you borrowing trouble from the multiverse.

I do have a problem with what *might* happen. And I don't have a problem with what *has* happened so far. But if you look at their history with X-wing, they paywall the **** out of stuff.

Power creep phases certain ships out of play. They re-release ships people already have enough of to fix issues. Sometimes they stick that stuff in the epic expansions. I'm concerned that they might start pulling the same junk with Armada. Why the heck is it so wrong to be concerned about the direction that a game is heading? Campaigns are a great way to issue updates without being super expensive.

It's not like this is the first every repaint product FFG has done. If so, then yeah, I'd be yelling into a void about kids and lawns and stuff, but FFG has a track record that we can look at.

1 minute ago, kmanweiss said:

I do have a problem with what *might* happen. And I don't have a problem with what *has* happened so far. But if you look at their history with X-wing, they paywall the **** out of stuff.

Power creep phases certain ships out of play. They re-release ships people already have enough of to fix issues. Sometimes they stick that stuff in the epic expansions. I'm concerned that they might start pulling the same junk with Armada. Why the heck is it so wrong to be concerned about the direction that a game is heading? Campaigns are a great way to issue updates without being super expensive.

It's not like this is the first every repaint product FFG has done. If so, then yeah, I'd be yelling into a void about kids and lawns and stuff, but FFG has a track record that we can look at.

Of course.

But if nothing else, the designers of the games are different.

The Method of Design is Different.

The Feedback generation method is different.

The Producer is Different.

The Design Philosophy is Different

The Release Schedule is Different.

The Game Concept is Different.

Given that, effectively, everything bar the company involved is different, it just becomes difficult to believe a precedence set in one game system will apply to another. Not saying it doesn't, not saying it won't, but it becomes difficult for people to see - and when it appears that you see a negative when someone else sees a positive in the same design area - you get conflict of emotions.

You've got a right to be concerned about it, for sure. But you yourself has stated that the solution to the problem (ie, your preferred solution) was indeed, something without precedence in any other game system (campaign packs).

So isn't it a positive that they have done that here, against precedence? And that perhaps, there should be at least a little benefit of the doubt, because precedence - with their own Armada Track Record - doesn't seem to be something they're adhering to fairly rigidly.

1 hour ago, kmanweiss said:

I do have a problem with what *might* happen. And I don't have a problem with what *has* happened so far. But if you look at their history with X-wing, they paywall the **** out of stuff.

Power creep phases certain ships out of play. They re-release ships people already have enough of to fix issues. Sometimes they stick that stuff in the epic expansions. I'm concerned that they might start pulling the same junk with Armada. Why the heck is it so wrong to be concerned about the direction that a game is heading? Campaigns are a great way to issue updates without being super expensive.

It's not like this is the first every repaint product FFG has done. If so, then yeah, I'd be yelling into a void about kids and lawns and stuff, but FFG has a track record that we can look at.

Their track record with Armada has been amazing, and I think we should look at that first.

Same company, same IP, but vastly different everywhere else. Dras covered that better than I could have.

One of the *biggest* problems Ive had bringing over X-wing players into Armada is they want to fly capital ships the way they do star fighters- mathed out maneuvers they can do in their heads to the nth degree 3 turns out. Armada is a different game, it takes a different approach, and frankly theyve learned alot by the *failures* of X-wing.

I dont think repacks are going to be common- theyre not even common in X-wing- because not only is the release schedule smaller, longer, its also more robust. They have done a better job with future proofing this game, and the ships are staying relevant longer. In X-wing half of each wave seems to be sent to the discard bin.... not so here. Theres also the difference in how collections work- in X-wing I frequently see people getting 2, 3, even a dozen of the same ship so they can have access to the 'op netlist' for this or that season, or epic, or because they need 4 of this upgrade card. Thats not something I see being *needed* in Armada. Yes, there are completionists who love to do so, but you dont have to in order to bring effective tournament-oriented forces.

So when you dont already have 12 of the thing, but rather 1 or 2, getting another one that fills out your potential maximum for reasonable play isnt an onerous burden, its not 'useless plastic', its just a capstone piece to ones collection- as it should be for something special like the Chimera.

Im not opposed to campaign packs, and frankly I loved the dirth of new fighters we got with our first one, but I refuse to believe the sky is falling because FF is giving us another product that looks to be above our normal high standards for quality upgrade cards and inter-faction ship balance..

As much as Thrawn & the Chimera was very welcome, I also did kind of think 'oh another ISD'. I was hoping for either something from the expanded universe or a fresh design from FFG, like they did with the raider.

29 minutes ago, ISD Avenger said:

As much as Thrawn & the Chimera was very welcome, I also did kind of think 'oh another ISD'. I was hoping for either something from the expanded universe or a fresh design from FFG, like they did with the raider.

I like the Raider. I think FFG did a good job. I would enjoy seeing them take a swing at designing a small Mon Cal cruiser. Barring that, a smaller pirate/smuggler design.

I'll just say that X-wing has gotten quite a few repaint releases for ships. And they were almost all well received. Most of the repaints gave the repainted ships a much needed boost. I concede that Armada ships cost more than X-wing ones, but I really feel like we will see more repaints in the future.