The objectives in Armada serve two purposes: they counter the first player advantage and are meant to give more tactical variation to the game. Unfortunatelly, because merely a hand full really fullfill the first task, one sees all too often the same ones at the gaming table and thereby the second task is forfeited either.

Hence, I started to house rule some the objectives in order to get them to work better. For some I have already ideas, for others I am still looking for your input. So, feel free to comment and to share your approach. But caveat! If you consider house rules a violation of the holy grail stop reading. Only frustration (for all involved) would follow from continuing being present in this thread.

What follows is my evaluation of all the objectives with some house ruling proposals. Each evaluation takes place in two categories (Balancing First Player Advantage and Tactical Depth) by assigning one of four possible ratings (perfect, good, limited, poor). The rating is then explained. Then, there comes the suggested house ruling. I am far from content with all of my prosposals. Only some of them I really like. Those have the label [satisfactory]. All the other ones I hope for your input. Sometimes I discuss further points in the final thoughts section.

There is one problem I also want to mention in advance. It is t he problem that some objectives work good against some fleets, but not good for some fleets. I mean thereby that it does not support a specific fleet type of the second player , but works well against some fleet types of the first player . However, because I can only compose my fleet, not the fleet of my enemy, such objectives become highly matchup dependent and are in themself therefore not ideal . I dub this problem the inversion problem . Some of my proposals (and of the original objectives) have this problem. Here work needs to be done.

I also need to say some words about the keyword strategic in order to make some of my proposals comprehensible. It is great to be second player and having strategic. Sometimes even too great: If I can move the VIP to my deployment zone and then run with a flotilla till there is no tomorrow, the tactical depth of the objective is most likely totally gone. Strategic is even greater with the right objectives, if you are first player and you have it – preferably a lot of it. Because you can) without any chance of the second player to prevent this) steal those precious tokens with your very first activation. Again this is too much matchup dependent in my view. With this in mind, we can start discussing the objectives.

Red objectives

Advanced Gunnery

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: limited to good

Explanation: This objective makes a big hitter a moving area of denial. However, it tends to horribly backfire, if the objective ship is destroyed.

House Rules: [Edit thanks to Green Knight: If an objective ship has the Gunnery Team upgrade, the abilities and restrictions of the upgrade card are completely ignored, i.e. the ability of the objective ships is not blocked by the Gunnery Team.] I have no solution here. The obvious choice would be to simply cut the rule that the objective ship counts double, but then the first player advantage becomes too big IMO, because he also has better shooting ship without any risks. I like the objective, but here some work needs to be done.

Blockade Run [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: perfect

Explanation: Turning the gaming table by 90° is great. A completely different game. However, the chances that this objective backfires are (first player advantage neglected) nearly as big as that it succeeds. The second player has merely the real advantage of placing the obstacles. That does not really balance the first player advantage at all. Hence the chances that it backfires because of the first player advantage are even higher than success. And I cannot really see a fleet type that turns these odds.

House Rules: My approach here is mainly to turn the tables: Use the original setup rules of this card. But the special rule should read like the following: The first player (!) assigns 1 objective token to each of his ship. The End of Game should read: The first player gains 1 victory token for each of his ships within the deployment zone of the second player. The second player gains 1 victory token for each ship of the second player that is not within his deployment zone (including the destroyed ones).

Final thoughts: Now, the first player has to break the blockade of the second player and merely has a limited corridor for doing so. Especially, fleets that can threaten a great area with a lot of dice (mostly fleets with large ships) will benefit from being second player here.

Close-Range Intel Scan [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: good

Tactical Depth: poor

Explanation: Considering my balancing judgement, a lot of people might differ here and rate it worse. Which means we have even a greater need for house ruling :-)

The tactical depth is the big problem here. There is nearly no difference to a game without objectives.

House Rules: I suggest a complete change of the objective and making it a close-range intel scan ideed. Neglect anything that is on the original card. It should read as follows instead: Setup: The second player marks one of his [Edit thanks to The Jabberwookie) non-flotilla ships as his objective ship.

Special Rule: When the second player attacks with his objective ship, he might decide to cancel all attack dice of one attack before rolling dice. Instead he can place a victory token on one ship card of an enemy ship in close range of the attacking hull zone. General Rieekan's ability cannot be used on the objective ship of the second player.

End of the Game: The second player adds the ship value of each ship card (excluding upgrades) that has at least one victory marker on it to his total points. The fleet point cost of a destroyed objective ship is doubled. Do not double the cost of its upgrades.

Final thoughts: The idea here is to make the objective ship running across the map in order to „scan“ as many enemy ships as possible without being destroyed itself. Obviously, this is an objective for fleets with fast an maneuverable ships.

Most Wanted

Balancing First Player Advantage: good

Tactical Depth: limited to good

Explanation: Since the dawn of the flotillas one of the most picked objectives. It works nicely against fleets with large ships, but not so nicely against MSU. It has some tactical depth considering that the players need to be more cautious with their objective ships.

House Rules: Flotillas cannot be chosen as objective ships.

Final thoughts: It is so boring to see all those Most wanted Flotillas! However, this drops the balancing aspect from good to even limited. Here I have no idea how to create and interesting and balanced objective. Please help!

Opening Salvo

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited to good

Tactical Depth: poor

Explanation: The rating of the balancing aspect is quite siutational here. Of course, MSU screams for this objective. If my opponent has a lot fewer ships than me, the rating could even be interchanged for perfect. However, as soon as my opponent has even more ships (that can attack other ships) than I have, it starts to backfire. In addition the tactical depth is quite poor.

House Rules: No idea. Need help! :-)

Precision Strike

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: poor

Explanation: This objective is most often seen with bomber heavy fleets. However, it tends to backfire against last-first fleets with APT. The tactical depth is also quite shallow.

House Rules: Again no idea. Please help!

Station Assault

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: The first player needs nearly no effort to destroy one station and therefore reach point even. With some effort he can even manage this objective to hideously backfire.

House Rules: Merely the second player can gain points due to this objective.

Final thoughts: I am still not convinced, if this is the proper solution...

Targeting Beacons

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: limited

Explanation: There is a bit of avoiding the tokens involved for the first player, however, why the h***l is the first player allowed to place two of these tokens?

House Rules: The follwing changes should be applied: Setup: The second player places all 4 tokens. The section Special rule should read: When a ship of the first player ends its movement in distance 2 of at least one of the objective tokens, the second player might choose and spend one of its defense tokens. The first player cannot move these tokens due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game.

Final thoughts: This would make it an objective like Planetary Ion Cannon and Minefields, i.e. creating an area of denial. I like it more than the original one, but still I am not convinced.

Yellow objectives

Capture the VIP [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: This is a nice one. The main problem is that the 50 points is a bit meager. Also strategic might ruin it.

House Rules: Increase objective points to 75. Add the following special rule: The strategic key word cannot be used in a way that the token is placed within distance 5 of the player edges. The first player cannot move these tokens due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game. The first player cannot move tokens due to the strategic key word during his first activation of the second game round either.

Contested Outpost [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited to good

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Also a good one with the right fleet. I would merely power it up a little bit

House Rules: The second player can use the station to discard damage cards and recover hull points.

Fighter Ambush [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Another nice one that screams for multiple relays. Early fighter fight. Yeah! However, what did they think of giving the second player such a deployment drawback

House Rules: The setup rules need to be twisted a little bit. Both players set aside their squadrons. Ships are deployed normally. Then the first player deploys all his squadrons within range 2 of his ships. Then the second player deploys his squadrons as printed on the objective card.

Fire Lanes [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited to good

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Here I have nearly no complaints. Merely the initially mentioned problems of strategic nees to be addressed.

House Rules: The first player cannot move these tokens due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game. The strategic key word cannot be used by any player in in order to place a token within distance 5 of the player edges.

Fleet Ambush [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: perfect

Explanation: A lot of laughter has this objective got and rightfully so. Its idea is brilliant, the execution … well, Demolisher will execute the second player's ships.

House Rules: [Edit thanks to stonestokes: On the first player's odd deployments, starting with the first deployment, the second player chooses one of the second player's ships. The first player must deploy that ship within the ambush zone.]

Hyperspace Assault

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Also a quite fleet dependent objective, however one that gives the game a nice twist. Loosing the deployment is no fun for the second player.

House Rules: [Edit thanks to stonestokes: The second player may make one of his ship deployments into hyperspace by setting aside a small or medium ship during its deployment instead of placing it in the deployment zone. If he does so, he may subsequently deploy a number of squadrons equal to that ship's squadron value into hyperspace on their deployments as well.]The strategic key word cannot be used by the first player in in order to place a token within distance 5 of the player edges. If the the first player moves a tokens via the strategic keyword he can merely move it in range 1 of its current position.

Jamming Barrier [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: perfect

Explanation: The barrier has the potential to change the game completely – and is normally totally useless.

House Rules: Special rules: At the start of any game round after the first one, the second player may move each token within distance 2 of its current position. If the the first player moves a token via the strategic keyword he can merely move it in range 1 of its current position.

Planetary Ion Cannon

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Another nice one, but could be a bit stronger for the second player.

House Rules: The second player places 4 tokens (not three), but he can merely shoot at ships in distance 2 of a token. The first player cannot move these tokens due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game.

Blue Objectives

Dangerous Territory

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: limited

Explanation: It is not the worst objective, but it does not really offer an impressive twist to the game. The second player normally gets 45 points, the first must choose to eat some damage and getting 30 points or neglecting the points for no damage and the second player being able to get another 30 points.

House Rules: Totally ignore the entire text on the card. Instead it should read the following way: Setup: The second player places all obstacles. Add 2 Nebulas and 3 additional asteroid fields. There cannot be mora than 2 copies of each asteroid field. When one of the second player's ships overlap an asteroid field or debris field, that obstacle has no effect for that ship. The second player's ships cannot ignore nebulas. Obstacles do not block line of sight for the second player.

Final thoughts: Unfortunatlely, this proposal seems to suffer from the inversion problem.

Intel Sweep

Balancing First Player Advantage: very situational

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Again a nice objective, but one that needs some work. Especially since strategic has landed this objective has become a problem. If the second player has strategic and the first one does not, it is simply 75 points for the second player. If the first player has strategic he has a big advantage, because he has the very first activation of the game.

House Rules: The first player cannot move these tokens due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game. The strategic key word cannot be used by any player in in order to place a token within distance 5 of the player edges.

Final thoughts: I am not sure whether this proposal still balances the first player advantage.

Minefields

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: limited

Explanation: Another objective that I love, but which needs a lot of work. Normally, the first player simply avoids the mine field. Boring.

House Rules: I have no idea. Help!

Navigational Hazards

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: The advantage for the second player is quite limited and unfortunatelly the matchup is way to decisive here. The inversion problem can be seen.

House Rules: After obstacles have been moved, the second player may choose one obstacle and move it again within range 2 of its current position.

Final thoughts: Still , I fear we have the inversion problem here.

Salvage Run

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited to good

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Again strategic can be a bit of a problem.

House Rules: Tokens cannot be moved due to the strategic key word in the first round of the game. The first player cannot move tokens due to the strategic key word during his first activation of the second game round either. After placing the station the second player places two obstacles of his choice (according to the restrictons printed on the objective card). Then starting with the first player they alternate placing the remaining obstacles, starting with the first player, at distance 1-5 of the the station.

Final thoughts: I am not sure whether limiting strategic does not reduce the second player advantage too much.

Sensor Net

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited to good

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: This one has written inversion problem all over it.

House Rules: I have no idea. Please help!

Solar Corona

Balancing First Player Advantage: good

Tactical Depth: limited

Explanation: One of the few objectives that has a really solid second player advantage (due to the deployment disaster of the first player). However, the tactical depth of the corona is quite limited. Normally, the first player bites the bullet and simply flies like there is no corona.

House Rules: Again no idea, but at least this one is an objective I can live with.

Superior Positions

Balancing First Player Advantage: good to perfect

Tactical Depth: poor

Explanation: Maybe the best balanced objective in the game – and because of that nearly never picked. However, I cannot see any tactical depth here.

House Rules: Same as Solar Corona.

8 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

Red objectives

Advanced Gunnery

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: limited to good

Explanation: This objective makes a big hitter a moving area of denial. However, it tends to horribly backfire, if the objective ship is destroyed.

House Rules: I have no solution here. The obvious choice would be to simply cut the rule that the objective ship counts double, but then the first player advantage becomes too big IMO, because he also has better shooting ship without any risks. I like the objective, but here some work needs to be done.

Errata, rewording. Remove the "cannot". Now can be used with GT ships. It still has the same potentially HUGE drawback, but no longer is Ackbar MC80H1 the only ship that can conceivably take it.

And/or, make objective ships score just 1.5 time, not double.

1 minute ago, Green Knight said:

Errata, rewording. Remove the "cannot". Now can be used with GT ships. It still has the same potentially HUGE drawback, but no longer is Ackbar MC80H1 the only ship that can conceivably take it.

And/or, make objective ships score just 1.5 time, not double.

That is an important point. Yes, unfortunatelly one sees this objective nearly only with MC80H1 (and maybe the BlueTooth Avenger).

BTW, I will keep the OP updated to reflect the input of the community.

2 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

That is an important point. Yes, unfortunatelly one sees this objective nearly only with MC80H1 (and maybe the BlueTooth Avenger).

BTW, I will keep the OP updated to reflect the input of the community.

Think you messed that up and edited Blockade Run.

You might want to prevent letting someone use a Tua/ECM flotilla for CRIS. It’s dirt cheap and as hard to kill as any Rieekan ship.

I think the problem is strategic exists and trying to limit it in specific objectives feels like a nightmare of subjectivity. As first player if I’ve brought strategic units, I’ve paid a significant number of points to have an advantage in token objectives, ruling I can’t use that at various times seems unfair and prone to getting it wrong.

I think you’ve actually got a sensible solution to strategic in several of your suggestions by not allowing strategic to move tokens to within 1-5 of a player’s edge. I’d suggest erattaing strategic to add the phrase ‘you may not use this to place an objective token within distance 1-5 of a table edge’, which would also prevent them getting slung out to the side and into irrelevancy. Making that change should sort out a lot of the issues with the token based objectives and keep them alive in the main area of the board so having an impact on the game.

Opening salvo’s fix is to remove the getting half points for any ships with one or more damage cards on as it kills it for tournament play and also stops anything but MSU lists taking it.

11 minutes ago, Dr alex said:

I think the problem is strategic exists and trying to limit it in specific objectives feels like a nightmare of subjectivity. As first player if I’ve brought strategic units, I’ve paid a significant number of points to have an advantage in token objectives, ruling I can’t use that at various times seems unfair and prone to getting it wrong.

I think you’ve actually got a sensible solution to strategic in several of your suggestions by not allowing strategic to move tokens to within 1-5 of a player’s edge. I’d suggest erattaing strategic to add the phrase ‘you may not use this to place an objective token within distance 1-5 of a table edge’, which would also prevent them getting slung out to the side and into irrelevancy. Making that change should sort out a lot of the issues with the token based objectives and keep them alive in the main area of the board so having an impact on the game.

Opening salvo’s fix is to remove the getting half points for any ships with one or more damage cards on as it kills it for tournament play and also stops anything but MSU lists taking it.

What the good doctor says.

You might as well ban strategic if it can't actually be used.

Missed opportunity:

Title: (Long and Strong)

Don’t be a d*ck, let opponent pick it up and play from there.

1 hour ago, Dr alex said:

I think the problem is strategic exists and trying to limit it in specific objectives feels like a nightmare of subjectivity. As first player if I’ve brought strategic units, I’ve paid a significant number of points to have an advantage in token objectives, ruling I can’t use that at various times seems unfair and prone to getting it wrong.

I think you’ve actually got a sensible solution to strategic in several of your suggestions by not allowing strategic to move tokens to within 1-5 of a player’s edge. I’d suggest erattaing strategic to add the phrase ‘you may not use this to place an objective token within distance 1-5 of a table edge’, which would also prevent them getting slung out to the side and into irrelevancy. Making that change should sort out a lot of the issues with the token based objectives and keep them alive in the main area of the board so having an impact on the game.

Opening salvo’s fix is to remove the getting half points for any ships with one or more damage cards on as it kills it for tournament play and also stops anything but MSU lists taking it.

Maybe I am overreacting. However, if you agree with the distance 5 ruling, it is difficult not to limit the first player use of strategic. Because the distance 5 rule makes it in return in some cases already more difficult for the second player.

1 hour ago, Darth Veggie said:

Maybe I am overreacting. However, if you agree with the distance 5 ruling, it is difficult not to limit the first player use of strategic. Because the distance 5 rule makes it in return in some cases already more difficult for the second player.

I don’t think I’ve ever thought strategic for player one is unfair on player two, if you have taken an objective with tokens you should expect that strategic can mess with it. The ones which are just poor objectives get worse but the ones which favour player two don’t have this problem. My problem with strategic is people taking player two and sitting at speed 1 with an MC80 going across their deployment zone milking fire ones tokens while daring people to come into it’s broadside.

I particualry don’t like the no player one turn one though because it is inelegant and confusing, which means it is not a good solution.

Not within 5 of an edge limits strategic shenanigans to a 4’ by 1’ gap in the middle of the table, that’s Room to play tricks and get an advantage for either side but not enough to stop the opponent being able to compete with anything, which is good

7 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

Hyperspace Assault

Balancing First Player Advantage: limited

Tactical Depth: good

Explanation: Also a quite fleet dependent objective, however one that gives the game a nice twist. Loosing the deployment is no fun for the second player.

House Rules: The second player can pass once during the deployment, even twice, if he has set aside at least two squadrons. The strategic key word cannot be used by the first player in in order to place a token within distance 5 of the player edges. If the the first player moves a tokens via the strategic keyword he can merely move it in range 1 of its current position.

Here is how I wish it had been worded...

Setup: The second player may make one of his ship deployments into hyperspace by setting aside a small or medium ship during its deployment instead of placing it in the deployment zone. If he does so, he may subsequently deploy a number of squadrons equal to that ship's squadron value into hyperspace on their deployments as well. ...

Or something to that effect.

On 1/9/2018 at 6:35 AM, Darth Veggie said:

Fleet Ambush [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: perfect

Explanation: A lot of laughter has this objective got and rightfully so. Its idea is brilliant, the execution … well, Demolisher will execute the second player's ships.

House Rules: The first player sets aside half his ships (rounded up). He first deploys them in the ambush zone. Now, deployment proceeds normal rules with the second player deploying first (ships are deployed in the deployment zones, squadrons within range 2 of already deployed friendly ships – even those in the ambush zone). Special rule: During the first turn the second player can choose to activate one ship before the first player activates his first ship.

Here is another possible solution to the backfire potential of this objective:

Setup: On the first player's odd deployments, starting with the first deployment, the second player chooses one of the first player's ships. The first player must deploy that ship within the ambush zone. ...

This would feel much more like an ambush if you got to tell me to place my flotillas up front away from my heavies.

Main issue is the objectives as they are are not particularly good at conveying story (though some have some nice flavor) because they are so abstracted. Nor are they balanced between themselves, there are some that are just plain awful. Then to mention that the majority of them favor mass squadron lists, with or without strategic (mass squadrons kill light screen strategic lists). Rocks favor mass squadrons.

I like the idea of trying to improve them, but I think generally, they need to be re-released as a whole. I also wish they were somehow more thematic or story telling.

8 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

Blockade Run [satisfactory]

Balancing First Player Advantage: poor

Tactical Depth: perfect

Explanation: Turning the gaming table by 90° is great. A completely different game. However, the chances that this objective backfires are (first player advantage neglected) nearly as big as that it succeeds. The second player has merely the real advantage of placing the obstacles. That does not really balance the first player advantage at all. Hence the chances that it backfires because of the first player advantage are even higher than success. And I cannot really see a fleet type that turns these odds.

House Rules: My approach here is mainly to turn the tables: Use the original setup rules of this card. But the special rule should read like the following: The first player (!) assigns 1 objective token to each of his ship. The End of Game should read: The first player gains 1 victory token for each of his ships within the deployment zone of the second player. The second player gains 1 victory token for each ship of the second player that is not within his deployment zone (including the destroyed ones).

Final thoughts: Now, the first player has to break the blockade of the second player and merely has a limited corridor for doing so. Especially, fleets that can threaten a great area with a lot of dice (mostly fleets with large ships) will benefit from being second player here.

How about this instead.

Add to Deployment: "The first player must deploy all their ships and squadrons before the second player."

Introduce this change: "End of Game: The second player gains two victory tokens for each objective ship within the first player's deployment zone."

On 9.1.2018 at 10:18 PM, Dr alex said:

I don’t think I’ve ever thought strategic for player one is unfair on player two, if you have taken an objective with tokens you should expect that strategic can mess with it. The ones which are just poor objectives get worse but the ones which favour player two don’t have this problem. My problem with strategic is people taking player two and sitting at speed 1 with an MC80 going across their deployment zone milking fire ones tokens while daring people to come into it’s broadside.

I particualry don’t like the no player one turn one though because it is inelegant and confusing, which means it is not a good solution.

Not within 5 of an edge limits strategic shenanigans to a 4’ by 1’ gap in the middle of the table, that’s Room to play tricks and get an advantage for either side but not enough to stop the opponent being able to compete with anything, which is good

I agree about the inelegance. And I also agree that it is not a good solution. However, I think it is a better solution than the original rules.

Again I think that it would be a severe drawback to the second player, if you have merely the not-within-5-of-an-edge rule. This rule is maninly a disadvantage to the second player: If the first player has strategic he moves the tokens from the second player edges to his edges and thereby makes second player biased objectives first player biased (in addition to the general first player bias to the game). If the second player has strategic he moves the tokens from the play area to his deployment zone and makes the objectives thereby safe for him (and boring). Hence, the not-within-5-of-an-edge rule takes the strategic advantage merely from the second player and needs therfore something (better a lot of things) that counters that.

On 9.1.2018 at 10:48 PM, stonestokes said:

Here is how I wish it had been worded...

Setup: The second player may make one of his ship deployments into hyperspace by setting aside a small or medium ship during its deployment instead of placing it in the deployment zone. If he does so, he may subsequently deploy a number of squadrons equal to that ship's squadron value into hyperspace on their deployments as well. ...

Or something to that effect.

That I like more than my wording. I will include it in the OP. Thanks!

On 9.1.2018 at 10:53 PM, stonestokes said:

Here is another possible solution to the backfire potential of this objective:

Setup: On the first player's odd deployments, starting with the first deployment, the second player chooses one of the second player's ships. The first player must deploy that ship within the ambush zone. ...

This would feel much more like an ambush if you got to tell me to place my flotillas up front away from my heavies.

Same as above. Thanks again!

On 9.1.2018 at 11:43 PM, RobertK said:

How about this instead.

Add to Deployment: "The first player must deploy all their ships and squadrons before the second player."

Introduce this change: "End of Game: The second player gains two victory tokens for each objective ship within the first player's deployment zone."

I still like the proposal in the OP more, because this one is still troubled by the inversion problem (see OP).