Apropos of nothing, but playing a bunch of X-Wing lately - which I like quite a bit less than Armada, but it's more popular and quicker to teach, so there ya go - it did occur to me there are a couple things it does that I wish we had in Armada.

• Maneuvering over obstacles in this game is weird. Why doesn't the movement template count for damage/effects? It does in X-Wing, and having played my first few games mistakenly doing that (had hundreds of games of X-Wing under my belt before starting Armada, so made most the 'usual mistakes' back then - crit damage for each crit card, taking damage while maneuvering, etc). Of most of those mistakes, this one I actually felt the games doing it "wrong" were more interesting than doing it correctly - it made maneuvering more challenging, and that's good , right?
• Half points for point fortresses. The 1+4 format of the game has really brought this to light...how many times have you seen a session report coming down from a regional event where someone is running a fat Ackbar+Defiance (or whatever), sitting at 200+ pts in a single ship, and the enemy kicks the snot out of it - blowing down all the shields (not hard to do all of them when Advanced Projectors running) and only 1 or 2 hull left...yet gets no points for it, unless the objective selected was 'Opening Salvo' for some reason. This feels very silly. It's always been a problem, of course, just sort of became more acute recently. X-Wing awards half points for 'large'-base ships with more than half damage on them...easier to calculate in that game, true, given only a single stack of shield tokens...but I think now that 'point fortresses' are becoming more common, this might be an easy way to address some of that. Even something as simple as half points of the base ship (IE., no upgrades) if it has at least 4 damage cards on it ? I think that'd wear off some of the most extreme edges of the problem. Possibly a better solution could be proposed - but, anyway, making partial points more a thing (without, of course, neutering objective scoring that uses it) would be welcome.

1: Eh, this is on a far larger scale than Xwing, they just go around the debris/asteroids. It's like saying that flying over/onto the station should do damage because how could they avoid it, space battles between ships this size are huge whereas X-wing is meant to be a WW2 fighter battle, the terrain adds to that.

2: half points isn't a bad idea but I'm not sure where the cut off should be. 4 points like you mention is a dead corvette. Half hull maybe but honestly if you're having that much of an issue with killing that one ship you're probably having issues beyond just the points value of it(I.E. Being out activated, first/last, the hat you wear for "theme" falling in front of your eyes as you try to move your ships).

I kid of course but ya, I don't think these are really that impactful of changes that would need to be implemented, seems like "I played this game, i want armada to be more like it". As someone that dropped X-wing after a year of pretty hardcore play I'm reasonably happy with most of armada.

I'd like to see the second one tested. I do find it a little odd that Its all or nothing in this game, while both IA and X Wing have some points for killing partial groups/ships.

4 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

1: Eh, this is on a far larger scale than Xwing, they just go around the debris/asteroids. It's like saying that flying over/onto the station should do damage because how could they avoid it, space battles between ships this size are huge whereas X-wing is meant to be a WW2 fighter battle, the terrain adds to that.

I guess the thing is - if the game has terrain, and that terrain has effect, why doesn't it always? IE.,

• Terrain setup alternates between players as it is supposed to be an important part of initial setup...in X-Wing and Armada. Heck, given how objectives impact available terrain, it's fair to say that even terrain selection is a part of X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain 'obstructs' shots...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ships that land on it...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ship that pass through it...only in X-Wing

Why is only that last thing different? So similar regarding impact on gameplay in all but one way. As noted in the OP, it's just... weird , that's all. Why not have it damage on maneuver-through?

2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I guess the thing is - if the game has terrain, and that terrain has effect, why doesn't it always? IE.,

• Terrain setup alternates between players as it is supposed to be an important part of initial setup...in X-Wing and Armada. Heck, given how objectives impact available terrain, it's fair to say that even terrain selection is a part of X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain 'obstructs' shots...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ships that land on it...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ship that pass through it...only in X-Wing

Why is only that last thing different? So similar regarding impact on gameplay in all but one way. As noted in the OP, it's just... weird , that's all. Why not have it damage on maneuver-through?

Terrain in X-Wing only damages ships on a roll 50% of the time. There is no roll here for landing on the asteroid instead it is a face up damage card or two shields from debris fields.

Also we have the station. I'd hate to think of ships repairing merely for passing by the station.

6 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Why is only that last thing different?

If I had to guess, there's two components:

1. It was probably tried and it was found that it was too limiting on movement (particularly for bigger ships). I could see this particularly leading to turtling in corners where the enemy has to go around the terrain and into VSD/ISD/etc front arcs.
2. There's no clean (and quick to play) way to determine where along the path the ship is positioned where it may take damage. Do you do it at every notch? That gets tedious fast for every ship movement anywhere near an obstacle. Xwing by comparison is simple: Does its movement marker and/or final position overlap the obstacle? Using the movement template in Armada could work too I guess... but that's even weird as its alongside the ship instead of representing the path is is actually flying over.

2 minutes ago, Palanthas said:

Terrain in X-Wing only damages ships on a roll 50% of the time. There is no roll here for landing on the asteroid instead it is a face up damage card or two shields from debris fields.

It always denies actions, though (or issues a stress token, depending) - that isn't dependent on die rolls. And as we saw in 'Empire Strikes Back' - it's quite a lot easier for a small fighter (or freighter) to avoid asteroids than capital ships, so it's thematically sound that damage to ships is always required, while a fighter rolls for it.

In regards to the point fortresses. Maybe instead of doing a percentage award 5 points per damage card that is in play to the opposing player. It would increase the value of reinforced blast doors, repair crews, and engineering commands so i'd be interested how that all played out.

2 minutes ago, Rikash said:

If I had to guess, there's two components:

1. It was probably tried and it was found that it was too limiting on movement (particularly for bigger ships). I could see this particularly leading to turtling in corners where the enemy has to go around the terrain and into VSD/ISD/etc front arcs.
2. There's no clean (and quick to play) way to determine where along the path the ship is positioned where it may take damage. Do you do it at every notch? That gets tedious fast for every ship movement anywhere near an obstacle. Xwing by comparison is simple: Does its movement marker and/or final position overlap the obstacle? Using the movement template in Armada could work too I guess... but that's even weird as its alongside the ship instead of representing the path is is actually flying over.

1. I guess I could see that, although as noted, we did play this way 'incorrectly' a few times before someone corrected me, and I didn't really see that issue. It definitely does make 'maneuver around obstacles' more of a factor, but considering how spread out the obstacles are - I mean, nothing is changing that, you cannot build a literal wall around a corner forcing a single approach, the deployment restrictions prevent that - it doesn't seem like that big a deal. It does make planning your approach - and exit vector for a combat pass - a lot more important, though. It's certainly something that moves up the skill floor of the game, which...maybe that was the reason?

2. Well, yeah, you do it like X-Wing does. Just the template, itself, counts - the ship more or less teleports from the start to the end of it. (And, yeah, that's weird on its own, but...whatever, works for X-Wing, it'd work here)

Not sure “points fortresses” - i.e. large ships - need a nerf. If you’re rewarded for damaging a target, where is it really fair to stop that policy? It’s not like MSU or squadrons are discouraging builds to take right now...

22 minutes ago, xanderf said:

It always denies actions, though (or issues a stress token, depending) - that isn't dependent on die rolls. And as we saw in 'Empire Strikes Back' - it's quite a lot easier for a small fighter (or freighter) to avoid asteroids than capital ships, so it's thematically sound that damage to ships is always required, while a fighter rolls for it.

it's as if the terrain in this game is meant to function differently than it does in X-wing(a different game).

Honestly if the goal was to make 1 game more like the other I would not be on the boat that wants to make armada more similar to the game i currently consider a hot mess.

33 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I guess the thing is - if the game has terrain, and that terrain has effect, why doesn't it always? IE.,

• Terrain setup alternates between players as it is supposed to be an important part of initial setup...in X-Wing and Armada. Heck, given how objectives impact available terrain, it's fair to say that even terrain selection is a part of X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain 'obstructs' shots...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ships that land on it...in X-Wing and Armada
• Terrain damages ship that pass through it...only in X-Wing

Why is only that last thing different? So similar regarding impact on gameplay in all but one way. As noted in the OP, it's just... weird , that's all. Why not have it damage on maneuver-through?

I think the hard part would be how to check to see if it gets damage on maneuver. I only see two options, and neither seem very good.

Option 1 - If the maneuver template overlaps an obstacle after you lock in.

This seems kind of strange since the maneuver template is to the side of the ship and not in front like X-Wing. So a ship flying too close to a asteroid may have the template overlap the asteroid even when the ship does not.

Option 2 - Check the position of the ship at each joint to see if it overlaps at any of them.

This would probably be cumbersome, and there is a chance that the ship could overlap the same obstacle at multiple joints.

15 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Not sure “points fortresses” - i.e. large ships - need a nerf. If you’re rewarded for damaging a target, where is it really fair to stop that policy? It’s not like MSU or squadrons are discouraging builds to take right now...

Not 'just damaging', though - although Opening Salvo does get you that - but rather doing an amount of damage that indicates you are doing a decent job holding your own in an engagement. You still lose, after all.

IE., this isn't a "nerf", per se - the point fortress still wins the game, but rather than being a 10-1, it's...something else, reflecting the other player being effective (just not effective enough ), which a 10-1 doesn't show. A change of a game result that might now be 10-1 to 9-2 isn't exactly breaking anything, no?

26 minutes ago, xanderf said:

1. I guess I could see that, although as noted, we did play this way 'incorrectly' a few times before someone corrected me, and I didn't really see that issue. It definitely does make 'maneuver around obstacles' more of a factor, but considering how spread out the obstacles are - I mean, nothing is changing that, you cannot build a literal wall around a corner forcing a single approach, the deployment restrictions prevent that - it doesn't seem like that big a deal. It does make planning your approach - and exit vector for a combat pass - a lot more important, though. It's certainly something that moves up the skill floor of the game, which...maybe that was the reason?

2. Well, yeah, you do it like X-Wing does. Just the template, itself, counts - the ship more or less teleports from the start to the end of it. (And, yeah, that's weird on its own, but...whatever, works for X-Wing, it'd work here)

To your second point, it's really weird that people don't get how big space is. If you were to stand on one asteroid in the asteroid belt you would barely be able to see any other asteroids in the very same belt with a telescope. The reason it at least "Semi" works in x-wing is because its largely built around seat of your pants flying.
It's also a 2d game. They "teleport" because, again, they're going around the object. it's the same as moving through ships, which has no more impact in x-wing than it does in armada. If anything X-wings rules are inconsistent in that, you can fly through ships and be perfectly fine so long as you clear but for some reason going "through" a piece of terrain messes you up. Silly rules for a game that desperately needs a second edition to clean it's 5+ year long mess of power creep up.

26 minutes ago, xanderf said:

It always denies actions, though (or issues a stress token, depending) - that isn't dependent on die rolls. And as we saw in 'Empire Strikes Back' - it's quite a lot easier for a small fighter (or freighter) to avoid asteroids than capital ships, so it's thematically sound that damage to ships is always required, while a fighter rolls for it.

There’s enough ways around that in xwing that it’s not much of an issue. Pattern analyzer....

Also with how movement works in the game it’s always based on the outside of a ship. So even if my tool crosses an obstacle it doesn’t mean the ship will. Obstacles work well in this game and I don’t see why the change is needed. This whole idea would rework the games maneuvering as you would a tool that inserts into the front of your base, increased yaw to simulate the flexibility of moving off of either side of the base.

Having ships count as overlapping if the maneuver tool overlaps might speed the game up somewhat, but you'd also never see an MC30 on a table ever again.

33 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Why not have it damage on maneuver-through?

well, based on FFG's quality control for Armada this could have been foresight for the flexibility and inaccuracies in the maneuver tool itself. X-wing tools, from what I can tell must be fairly precise in both arc and thickness, each tool is near identical. Armada's tool does not share this characteristic, as it has adjustable joints each varying based on the softness of the material or mileage on the part.

Sheer fact of the matter is, I have a tool for each speed, but I know my speed 3 and 4 tools have almost 3/16" more flex or play than my other two tools.

By eliminating the pass through rulings they've reduced the need for manipulating the faults in the gear. They've also reduced the play by millimeter mindset that often causes game slowing interactions....


May just be my interpretation, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Partial point gains from damaging ships is problematic.

The Imps tend to have more hull while the rebels have more shields. Any rule that favors a standard damage rule or % damage rule that only includes hull value is going to be weighted in favor of one faction or the other. Beyond that, it could possibly have some effects on the meta.

How do you do half points when 6-5 is already only a 0-1pt gain?

1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Maneuvering over obstacles in this game is weird. Why doesn't the movement template count for damage/effects? It does in X-Wing, and having played my first few games mistakenly doing that (had hundreds of games of X-Wing under my belt before starting Armada, so made most the 'usual mistakes' back then - crit damage for each crit card, taking damage while maneuvering, etc). Of most of those mistakes, this one I actually felt the games doing it "wrong" were more interesting than doing it correctly - it made maneuvering more challenging, and that's good , right?

Wanted to chime in on this: While I do not think "if the tool overlaps asteroids, you should take damage", I think that generally, rocks take up too little space in this game, and make maneuvering too easy and loose.

I also think that squadrons should take 1 damage whenever they end a move onto an obstacle, however, I haven't been able to seriously test this to see if it improves the game or not. I understand very much that rock hiding is a big part of the squadron game currently. (Please, before anyone insinuates again that I don't play squadrons.)

The menuver templates in xwing represent a near 1 to 1 outline of the ships 'path'

The tool in armada does not.

2 minutes ago, codegnave said:

The menuver templates in xwing represent a near 1 to 1 outline of the ships 'path'

The tool in armada does not.

Exactly. Especially true for inside turns:

That's not to say that I necessarily disagree with the idea, at least as a house rule to try out in casual games. It's just a little hard to implement in a way that makes sense.

4 minutes ago, Villakarvarousku said:

Exactly. Especially true for inside turns:

That's not to say that I necessarily disagree with the idea, at least as a house rule to try out in casual games. It's just a little hard to implement in a way that makes sense.

Oh, I agree. And as with the partial-point thing, too - not sure there is really any "easy fix" to either thing. Just...as they are ...it's weird.

(I mean, heck, I wouldn't at all hate just moving a ship step-at-a-time down the template checking for any obstacle or ship collision at each notch - but this would be increasing complexity a bit, and I think people would read it as too much of a buff to ships moving at speed-1)