Honestly, I think the game is in a pretty good spot, meta-wise, after that last FAQ and with the wave VII stuff we've seen so far. Some room for improvements - a few objectives could use tweaking (looking at the lists for regional events shows a rather embarrassing imbalance in the objectives brought), but overall we're in a pretty good spot.

That said...boy, a couple things bug me about the game, thematically.

1. Teleporting ships.
   SUPER annoying that the maneuver template doesn't matter for obstacles or collisions. It really takes a lot of the skill of maneuvering a fleet out of the picture, as you can just weave it back and forth, over or under things, until you end up in the perfect spot. Doubly-annoying? Can't take a good shot at that Demolisher, as it's obstructed behind two bumper-to-bumper Raiders, and then when it activates it teleports over to your side of the Raiders and drops a salvo into you. How?! Game mechanic -> theme fail ++.
   Seriously, would it have been so hard to just have ships step down the maneuver template to each notch, and any collision along the way is the point of collision they have to back away from?
   
2. Squadron suicide pacts.
   Okay, so it's a common enough mechanic in wargames (simulating historical aviation and ground combat) that larger units (platoons to squadrons), once engaged in a melee, are sort of 'stuck' together in battle. Commonly, until one or the other is destroyed or (if the game models it) has morale break and they retreat. So far, so good. HOWEVER, systems that do that also model the ability of said units TO leave the battle...at a cost. Often reflected/described as 'having some components of the unit sacrifice themselves to cover a retreat'. How this is handled varies by system, but as applicable to Armada, one of two methods seem simple enough:
   - 'Free attack'. Any squadron can move away while 'engaged', however if it does so, all enemy squadrons currently engaged with it get an immediate free attack against it. This attack is not an activation, and may be performed even if the squadron has already activated. It ignores counter and escort keywords, and defense tokens cannot be spent against it.
   - 'Automatic step loss'. Any squadron can move away while it is 'engaged', however if it does so, it immediately suffers damage equal to half its remaining hull points (round up), minimum 1.
   
3. Okay, seriously, where ARE all the fighters coming from?
   Only really a problem for the Empire, as most Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, but seriously - so many squadrons of TIE Interceptors flying with a handful of Arquitens? HOW?! And especially for adapting the game for campaign rules - *oof*, it'd be nice to have had some kind of stat on the ship cards for some of the 'fluff' elements. (Number of squadrons embarked, for example.)

4 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Honestly, I think the game is in a pretty good spot, meta-wise, after that last FAQ and with the wave VII stuff we've seen so far. Some room for improvements - a few objectives could use tweaking (looking at the lists for regional events shows a rather embarrassing imbalance in the objectives brought), but overall we're in a pretty good spot.

That said...boy, a couple things bug me about the game, thematically.

1. Teleporting ships.
   SUPER annoying that the maneuver template doesn't matter for obstacles or collisions. It really takes a lot of the skill of maneuvering a fleet out of the picture, as you can just weave it back and forth, over or under things, until you end up in the perfect spot. Doubly-annoying? Can't take a good shot at that Demolisher, as it's obstructed behind two bumper-to-bumper Raiders, and then when it activates it teleports over to your side of the Raiders and drops a salvo into you. How?! Game mechanic -> theme fail ++.
   Seriously, would it have been so hard to just have ships step down the maneuver template to each notch, and any collision along the way is the point of collision they have to back away from?
   
2. Squadron suicide pacts.
   Okay, so it's a common enough mechanic in wargames (simulating historical aviation and ground combat) that larger units (platoons to squadrons), once engaged in a melee, are sort of 'stuck' together in battle. Commonly, until one or the other is destroyed or (if the game models it) has morale break and they retreat. So far, so good. HOWEVER, systems that do that also model the ability of said units TO leave the battle...at a cost. Often reflected/described as 'having some components of the unit sacrifice themselves to cover a retreat'. How this is handled varies by system, but as applicable to Armada, one of two methods seem simple enough:
   - 'Free attack'. Any squadron can move away while 'engaged', however if it does so, all enemy squadrons currently engaged with it get an immediate free attack against it. This attack is not an activation, and may be performed even if the squadron has already activated. It ignores counter and escort keywords, and defense tokens cannot be spent against it.
   - 'Automatic step loss'. Any squadron can move away while it is 'engaged', however if it does so, it immediately suffers damage equal to half its remaining hull points (round up), minimum 1.
   
3. Okay, seriously, where ARE all the fighters coming from?
   Only really a problem for the Empire, as most Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, but seriously - so many squadrons of TIE Interceptors flying with a handful of Arquitens? HOW?! And especially for adapting the game for campaign rules - *oof*, it'd be nice to have had some kind of stat on the ship cards for some of the 'fluff' elements. (Number of squadrons embarked, for example.)

One : they're flying through space, not on top of the ocean.

Two : Squadrons do not have to fight to the death, FFG already included ways to "rescue" your squadrons.

Three : Who is to say the Carrier didn't drop them off, then jump out to safety, planning to return and collect them once they received the all clear signal? or Didn't jump out because they wanted to kill/capture instead of scaring the small rebel fleet away?

I don't know if I'd implement these in my home games, but I appreciate where you're coming from. I like the fighter disengage most of all, except I think I would permit counter and defense tokens when being asked during disengagement.

19 minutes ago, FoaS said:

I don't know if I'd implement these in my home games, but I appreciate where you're coming from. I like the fighter disengage most of all, except I think I would permit counter and defense tokens when being asked during disengagement.

Honestly, I think if implemented here, the 'automatic step loss' might be better. I like the 'free attack' idea, thematically - as that's basically reflecting what is happening - but that's potentially adding a lot more die rolling and time to the squadron game, where 'automatic step loss' just lets you adjust a slider and move on.

Sooooooo, you want squadron disengagement, but dont value phantoms. (And clearly dont understand Intel)

I give up.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Sooooooo, you want squadron disengagement, but dont value phantoms. (And clearly dont understand Intel)

I give up.

Intel and Phantom both give you squadron disengagement at no penalty.

That's fine, and does exactly what they should do.

That doesn't mean a group of TIE Fighters, TIE Bombers, X-Wings and Y-Wings that get into a fight HAVE TO FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

That's completely a-thematic, and nearly every other wargame that has the concept of ZOCs allows for retreat once engaged by any unit, at a heavy cost.

It could be worse, trying to get small starfighters on the same scale as the massive star destroyers is a little tricky, but at least it isn't like below.

As for the hyperspace it would have been interesting but with the main focus on Capital ships in the initial development squadrons were sort of left to be one card units kind of like upgrades. It would be nice to have a Hyperspace trait which allows squadrons to deploy outside of a ship's deployment range, however it is a question on what squadrons. Sure mostly the rebels but that would be Awings and Bwings since X-wings and Y-wings (and E-wings) needed an astromech again with no squadron upgrades. Also Imperials really only have the TIE Advanced and maybe the TIE Phantom besides the shuttle. Well you have all the Rouge and Villians but it isn't like they need any more helpful traits.

12 hours ago, xanderf said:

1. Okay, seriously, where ARE all the fighters coming from?
   Only really a problem for the Empire, as most Rebel fighters have hyperdrives, but seriously - so many squadrons of TIE Interceptors flying with a handful of Arquitens? HOW?! And especially for adapting the game for campaign rules - *oof*, it'd be nice to have had some kind of stat on the ship cards for some of the 'fluff' elements. (Number of squadrons embarked, for example.)

We see a single Arquitens deploying Defenders, in Rebels Season 4 (though they have hyperdrives, and can sometimes deploy themselves - as shown in Season 3)

That said, sometimes the numbers are big enough that "carrier dropped in, deployed them, retreated" or "local planetary defence forces" might work better.

While I'm more of a "flavor doesn't equal rules" guy, I will say I thought it was a missed opportunity to not have a rule that you may only take squadrons equal to the total squad value of the ships.

52 minutes ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

While I'm more of a "flavor doesn't equal rules" guy, I will say I thought it was a missed opportunity to not have a rule that you may only take squadrons equal to the total squad value of the ships.

I looked out of curiousity, and all of my fleets for the past few months would've had no problem with this rule.

It might've done bad things to the pre-flotilla meta, though.

Point 1. For me, this is not a big issue, it's part of the game. The fact that we are playing in 2D what is supposed to be in 3D explained this.

Point 2. I like this idea of immediately suffers damage equal to half its remaining hull points (round up), minimum 1. . This way, this will prevent stronger fighter to always use this technique to disengage.

Point 3. The first time I saw the game, I firstly tought that squadron value on ship card was the number of squadron you could bring on the field with that ship. When I saw it was only for activation during the ship phase, I didn't like that idea at all. I just use to it because it was the rule... but always keep in mind that my first idea was maybe the best way to use it (in combination with activation).

1: does not bother me as someone else has said is explained we are simulating a 3d plane with a 2d one

2: I think if this idea was implamented the penalty would have to be high otherwise it would make boomer fleets overpowered, I really think the way the game sits right now is best for the health of the game, you have the ability to disingage but need the tools to do it either upgrades, Intel, phantoms, or by killing the fighters your engaged with. Also adding a disengament mechanic would make the game a lot more complicated for new players.

3: I could see this add all the squadron values of your ships together and that is as many non rouge squadron your fleet can support. This however I think the game dose itself as it's just good fleet building advice squadrons that are activated by a ship are the best squadrons in the game, and in general if someone brings more squadrons than they can activate it is generally a sign of an inexperience player ( this excludes rouge squadrons, and I have seen players take a few extra fighters generaly two to supplement a fighter screen so that when a few of the 'main' fighter group dies they jump in to take there place.) Anyway this has gone on much to long but I really can't remember the last time I saw a fleet that if I added up it's total Squadron value could not active all it's non-rouge squadrons so this is not an issue to me.

1: does not bother me as someone else has said is explained we are simulating a 3d plane with a 2d one

2: I think if this idea was implamented the penalty would have to be high otherwise it would make boomer fleets overpowered, I really think the way the game sits right now is best for the health of the game, you have the ability to disingage but need the tools to do it either upgrades, Intel, phantoms, or by killing the fighters your engaged with. And adding a disengage mechanic would also sleep in the learning curve for new players.

3: I could see this add all the squadron values of your ships together and that is as many non rouge squadron your fleet can support. This however I think the game dose itself as it's just good fleet building advice squadrons that are activated by a ship are the best squadrons in the game. In general I find the people that bring more Fighters than they can activate it's a sign of an inexperienced player except in a few cases (like taking two extra fighters in a small fighter screen to supplement to other Fighters when they die, or when the extra squadrons are rogue) in short I just can't remember the last time I could add the total Squadron ability of a fleet that could still not activate all of the squadrons that it brought so this is a non-issue for me.

5 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

While I'm more of a "flavor doesn't equal rules" guy, I will say I thought it was a missed opportunity to not have a rule that you may only take squadrons equal to the total squad value of the ships.

or a "hyperspace" trait to ignore all that. But in order to keep it from being a Rebels Always Squadron Game you would have to increase all Imperial squadron values by 1.

Yes, because combo stacked Imperial Alpha Strikes need to be even BIGGER... ?

Point1: Like everyone else has said 2D representation of 3D space

Point 2: Ways to break engagement already exist in abundance - Intel, Cloak, Chiraneau, Grit, so many people forget Grit. I have had to remind so many people that Steele has Git.

Point 3: When I first looked at Armada I thought your number of squads was limited to your squadron command and if there is ever a version 2.0 I would like to see that. Squadron values would have to be adjusted for both factions and a Hyperdrive keyword added to a lot of mostly Rebel fighters.

12 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Yes, because combo stacked Imperial Alpha Strikes need to be even BIGGER... ?

Yes they do. I'm so glad we agree

7 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

Point1: Like everyone else has said 2D representation of 3D space

Point 2: Ways to break engagement already exist in abundance - Intel, Cloak, Chiraneau, Grit, so many people forget Grit. I have had to remind so many people that Steele has Git.

Point 3: When I first looked at Armada I thought your number of squads was limited to your squadron command and if there is ever a version 2.0 I would like to see that. Squadron values would have to be adjusted for both factions and a Hyperdrive keyword added to a lot of mostly Rebel fighters.

Yes they do. I'm so glad we agree

**** you, Waffle Man ?

On 10/28/2017 at 9:34 AM, svelok said:

I looked out of curiousity, and all of my fleets for the past few months would've had no problem with this rule.

It might've done bad things to the pre-flotilla meta, though.

Yeah, I don't think it would have affected enough stuff to make it a valuable rule. I like list building limitations so anything that stalls out lists that are just "fit as many X as possible" are always good for me.

On 27/10/2017 at 11:58 PM, xanderf said:

1. Squadron suicide pacts.
   Okay, so it's a common enough mechanic in wargames (simulating historical aviation and ground combat) that larger units (platoons to squadrons), once engaged in a melee, are sort of 'stuck' together in battle. Commonly, until one or the other is destroyed or (if the game models it) has morale break and they retreat. So far, so good. HOWEVER, systems that do that also model the ability of said units TO leave the battle...at a cost. Often reflected/described as 'having some components of the unit sacrifice themselves to cover a retreat'. How this is handled varies by system, but as applicable to Armada, one of two methods seem simple enough:
   - 'Free attack'. Any squadron can move away while 'engaged', however if it does so, all enemy squadrons currently engaged with it get an immediate free attack against it. This attack is not an activation, and may be performed even if the squadron has already activated. It ignores counter and escort keywords, and defense tokens cannot be spent against it.
   - 'Automatic step loss'. Any squadron can move away while it is 'engaged', however if it does so, it immediately suffers damage equal to half its remaining hull points (round up), minimum 1.

I really think that engagement rule is already covering this.

Squadron cannot freely escape from combat avoiding destruction so they cannot. Heavy means you can outmaneuver them and escape or follow your attack run. Grit represent special skill or courage to ignore the threat. Allowing squadron to escape no matter the cost, you are giving them the strategic view of the battle that only commanders and officers are supposed to have from their relatively safe position on a ship instead of involved in a dogfight. Intel represent a source of a better knowledge of the squadron battle, allowing squadron leaders to take those decisions.

Without Intel or grit a squadron leader cannot calculate the loss properly and will never take that risk. Even if they received the order from a ship the more probable answer would be just "we cannot!" what reinforces the leadership and skill of officers like Chirpy whose orders cannot be ignored cause his reputation or whatever.

Between all the lore things covered by rule mechanics I think this is one of the lest problematic. Indeed IMHO I would say is even exquisite the way devs did it. But it is just what I think.

On 10/28/2017 at 8:41 AM, ricefrisbeetreats said:

While I'm more of a "flavor doesn't equal rules" guy, I will say I thought it was a missed opportunity to not have a rule that you may only take squadrons equal to the total squad value of the ships.

I agree with this. I also wish Rapid Launch Bays were built into the core rules, rather than an upgrade. Fighters must be deployed by a ship and cannot be deployed during Deployment. You designate which squads belong to which ships and can only have squads up to your squad value. Use a squad command and drop them.

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree with this. I also wish Rapid Launch Bays were built into the core rules, rather than an upgrade. Fighters must be deployed by a ship and cannot be deployed during Deployment. You designate which squads belong to which ships and can only have squads up to your squad value. Use a squad command and drop them.

There should also be a set of "base defense" objectives then that let you deploy squads as we do now, to cover the moments where squadrons would already be launched from their carriers.

Though I too agree that squadron total should be the cumulative squadron value up to 134 points, so 2 ISD IIs could bring 8 squads worth up to 134 points

On 10/28/2017 at 6:13 AM, Marinealver said:

Dude... that Y-wing pilot must be ******** his pants lmao

47 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree with this. I also wish Rapid Launch Bays were built into the core rules, rather than an upgrade. Fighters must be deployed by a ship and cannot be deployed during Deployment. You designate which squads belong to which ships and can only have squads up to your squad value. Use a squad command and drop them.

Yes but I remember in the Early Days when other people and I raised this issue and we got shut down for suggesting it.

How times have changed.

And then we got RLBs.

On 10/28/2017 at 7:41 AM, ricefrisbeetreats said:

While I'm more of a "flavor doesn't equal rules" guy, I will say I thought it was a missed opportunity to not have a rule that you may only take squadrons equal to the total squad value of the ships.

We actually house ruled in our CC campaign that if you hyperspaced out if you no longer had enough squad value to pick up fighters they were destroyed if they canonically didn't have hyper drives.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree with this. I also wish Rapid Launch Bays were built into the core rules, rather than an upgrade. Fighters must be deployed by a ship and cannot be deployed during Deployment.

You sorta already have a bit of that, in the way squadrons have to deploy near a ship. It makes logical sense that ship was carrying them. (And Fighter Ambush to represent squadrons jumping in [rebels] or lying in wait [either]).

Obviously, that is stretched beyond logic when 10 stands of TIEs (each representing however many actual fighters) deploy off one Gozanti. But if you restrict that behavior, you probably cause really awful second-order effects to deployment in general, and make it much harder to play with ships that are deeply concerned about where they get put down relative to the enemy (so in particular, ships like the VSD or Liberty). You don't want to force people bring 4 flotillas just to ensure their VSD doesn't end up pointing the wrong direction and doing nothing all day, as that's no fun. There's way more list options if they can accomplish the same thing via 8 cheap TIEs instead.

I whole-heartedly endorse playing with such a home rule for thematic purposes! But, it would cause more harm than good if applied as a core game rule.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

You designate which squads belong to which ships and can only have squads up to your squad value. Use a squad command and drop them.

This amplifies the same thoughts, you're restricting deployment really hard. If I have to tell you which ship my B-Wings are in, and then set that ship down before deploying any squadrons, it becomes very easy for you to out-deploy me. Conversely, having them RLB-ed inside all my ships means you can't alpha strike ever, but being so spread out will make it hard to justify taking bombers in the first place (they can't focus down one ship, and you can't cover them with intel/escort efficiently).

Again - by all means, I imagine playing something like a custom CC campaign using this stuff as house rules, for a change of pace, would be a blast.