Anyone else like to see Armada change the way it handles attack order and initiative in the game? I know this is a YUGE part of the game too, but I like the card system from Legion and the random one from Bolt Action too. I'm completely brainstorming here and not opposed to it staying the same either, but thoughts?

Just now, TK 421 said:

Anyone else like to see Armada change the way it handles attack order and initiative in the game? I know this is a YUGE part of the game too, but I like the card system from Legion and the random one from Bolt Action too. I'm completely brainstorming here and not opposed to it staying the same either, but thoughts?

You would also need to completely change the way the objective system works. It's not the kind of thing that could ever be done in an errata - you'd need something like that to happen in a second edition.

If you want to mess with the initiative I think you are going to need to change from the shoot first then move to either allowing every ship a demo move/shot or really lengthening the weapon ranges. If you make it random or switch back and forth you almost completely squash the whole plan ahead for a shot move that makes Armada so rewarding.

I really like the way Bolt Action is working but not sure I would like it for Armada even if you change the victory conditions.

For those who didn't play Bolt Action (WWII miniatures), each unit have a dice with order on them (Fire, Advance, Ambush, Down, Run and Rally). At the start of the game, a mission is choose. After the setup of the battlefield, one player is choose randomly. That player take the decision on wich side of the map he want to play. For each unit in your army, you will have a dice. All your dices and the dices of your foe are going in a bag. The dices are pick out of the bag one at the time randomly and this determine who will play one of is unit and give it an order with the dice picked. When the bag is empty, end of that turn.

A good system that keep you on the edge every turn but I like Armada for what Armada is. Changing the initiative system will mean to change everything.

As I said in one other topics, "don't try to fix something that is ain't broke"

What's wrong with the Armada initiative system?

Changing initiative is cool and I see that it can help in some games with the always first/last etc, but the game needs to be designed around it IMO. It seems like it would be tough to implement now in Armada. Legiona and Runewars use either command cards and tokens or command dials that are numbered and determines what goes first. About the only way I have seen mentioned to implement in Armada or X-Wing would be based on squad points on the table, but that would be a lot of bookkeeping during a match and would slow down play.

36 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

What's wrong with the Armada initiative system?

Nothing really apart from possibly the Last-First ploy you can do as first player if you also have more ships than your opponent.

I know it is a tactic and a good one that people will design a list to make use of by, for example, padding a list with several flotillas and a decent bid.

I've mentioned this before but adding a simple rule that says - the last ship to activate on say turn 2 may not be the first ship to activate on turn 3 unless that player is down to his last ship and has no other choice. This would (nearly) always ensure that a ship that gets lined up and double arced has a chance to get away or shoot back before being hit again.

Problem with changing the initiative system, even by this relatively minor change, would be the altering of the balance and the missions which favour second player to compensate for first player.

1 hour ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

As I said in one other topics, "don't try to fix something that is ain't broke"

For some reason, I'd read that as "don't try to fix something that is this broke" and was about to LOL before I re-read it...

26 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Changing initiative is cool and I see that it can help in some games with the always first/last etc, but the game needs to be designed around it IMO. It seems like it would be tough to implement now in Armada. Legiona and Runewars use either command cards and tokens or command dials that are numbered and determines what goes first. About the only way I have seen mentioned to implement in Armada or X-Wing would be based on squad points on the table, but that would be a lot of bookkeeping during a match and would slow down play.

I think there is plenty of room to change it without breaking the game. The issues that seem to exist around it are:

• Last/first is bonkers powerful for some list types, while others don't care about it as much, which would appear to imply it isn't factored into point costs when list building. In that, it cannot be, since there is no way to reliably know if a particular ship or upgrade is key to a powerful last/first dynamic (exceptions exist with Bail Organa and Governor Pryce which specifically interfere with typical last/first planning, even with intense restrictions, and see how they are priced - or the 'Demolisher' title, with its implied use in a list that wants to last/first).
• Being out-activated because your opponent brought more flotsam to crowd up the map is just a negative play experience, flat-out. More ships to move slows down the game, and being outmaneuvered because there are more non-combat units in your enemy's list than in yours...is just lame. FFG seems to recognize this, too, and have made modest adjustments to that effect - notably the wave 7 upgrades. Most seem to agree that this isn't yet enough, but possibly the rumored 'flotillas don't count for tabling' FAQ change might finally put this one to bed. Maybe.

IMHO, you could just as easily use the numbered tokens in the game to assign an activation order to your list at match start. Each round, you then activate your ships in the order you set up, lowest to highest (skipping numbers as you lose ships, but just staying in the same order each time). Obviously upgrades that specifically define a temporary new sequence (Organa, Pryce, etc) override that. That solves the last/first anyway (point 1), and slightly weakens the need for a large number of placeholder units to guarantee last activation (point 2). Combined with the other wave 7 changes and the rumored FAQ change on flotillas, I think the combination of factors could finally resolve the point 2 issue.

Of course, there are plenty of other ideas - some much larger changes that I've suggested or others have - and most of those I like better. But simply locking in an activation order would seem to require the fewest changes to the overall game for the desired effect. (Bonus: new game mechanic allowing future upgrades to utilize - IE., a future commander could have an ability of once a round swapping the activation order of two ships adjacent to each other in sequence, or something like that...)

I don't like the dice output Demolisher throws at me, can we edit that too? I'd say change its side black dice to Legion white dice, and all of my complaints will be solved.

If we're changing things, of course.

I love the freeform activation you get with Armada, it is what makes the feel of a true Armada battle. You chose the ship you need to move this activation, not ship #1 or the one with pilot ability X or what token you pull from a bag. Runewars touches a little of this but based on your action it could move the unit up or down on activation. First/last is not the greatest thing to face with a heavy hitter, but I don't feel it is breaking the game or at least not at this time. X-Wing the meta currently, and several times in the past, has been Pilot Skill dependant and you see many lists that are only PS9-11 and some lists win by a large margin based on this, and that is not fun.

Hmmm, I like command & control systems that represent the disruption caused by loss of leaders in battle and I was thinking yesterday that one Optional rule I might introduce for my games around Initiative/Activations is:

"If you destroy your opponents flagship you may take the Intiative (if you do not have it) or take the next [end of turn or start of turn] activation."

This will represent the shock/disruption of lost of commanders and time to re-establish a chain of comamnd.

OVerall, I do like the fact that activations alternate in Armada so both sides are kept closely involved in the a game, but story-driven or scenario-specific alterations to the normal flow would be fine.

Maybe, but I would only see it as an objective. Something like "choose a turn. that turn, the second player activates first." Would provide some shake-up, but retain the primary idea of the game. Could also be something like "After deployment, the second player becomes the first player" you would have to really pressure your opponent to choose them, but hey, maybe it would be fun.

17 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I don't like the dice output Demolisher throws at me, can we edit that too? I'd say change its side black dice to Legion white dice, and all of my complaints will be solved.

If we're changing things, of course.

Ah, yes, "the game is perfect and ideal and always right and nothing needs changed and anyone who disagrees is wrong" crowd.

Good thing FFG ignores you, and continues to change the game and improve it. I look forward to the next FAQ update - should shake some things up!

Completely randomizing initiative like in bolt action (or Batman Miniatures, that's were I stumbled over it), is quite fun, but I wouldn't want it in Armada. I don't like activation padding as much as the next guy, but activating ships in a predictable order allows for some of the most tense moments in the game. It let's you think ahead and play more around the idea of movement, which is less relevant in a ground-based game where the majority of models can move and/or shoot in any direction you want.

Getting unlucky and having your opponent activate several times in a row can prove useful in the long term, especially if it was just not enough to remove one of your important pieces, but it would most likely cripple a fleet in one turn in Armada. Several ships wrecking another should be happening because of a player mistake, not a color coming out of a bag, especially when facing changes so much about your ability to counteract your opponent.

12 hours ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

As I said in one other topics, "don't try to fix something that is ain't broke"

Sure, I in general agree with this. But blowing something up and putting it back together can sometimes take a good game and make it great . . . so thinking through issues like this can help (but like I said in OP, I'm okay if nothing changes too)

4 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

Maybe, but I would only see it as an objective. Something like "choose a turn. that turn, the second player activates first." Would provide some shake-up, but retain the primary idea of the game. Could also be something like "After deployment, the second player becomes the first player" you would have to really pressure your opponent to choose them, but hey, maybe it would be fun.

Now this is pod-racing! . . . I mean brainstorming

At the start of turn 4 (and every subsequent turn afterwards) calculate the average command value, using the number of command dials assigned to each ship, rounding down. The Admiral with the lowest average command value has initiative this turn. This does not change them being first or second player for objectives and scoring perposes.

I created this topic regarding this exact issue. It has some discussion in it, specifically some cons/pitfall about adapting Legion's system:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/272404-legions-command-system-adapted-for-armada/

But I agree completely with the OP, imho it would do the game a lot of good if we // FFG came up with a good way of allowing initiative to change during a match. Could perhaps be as simple as a D6 roll on every turn but the first. Both players roll, first player gets a +1 modifier and wins on a tie, lowest total command value adds another +1. Highest roll gets initiative for that turn.

2 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

But I agree completely with the OP, imho it would do the game a lot of good if we // FFG came up with a good way of allowing initiative to change during a match. Could perhaps be as simple as a D6 roll on every turn but the first. Both players roll, first player gets a +1 modifier and wins on a tie, lowest total command value adds another +1. Highest roll gets initiative for that turn.

Randomizing initiative would remove a lot of Armada's strategy.

Armada is about executing a plan that spans multiple turns, which becomes impossible if you can't know who is going to go first on any given turn.

1 hour ago, svelok said:

Randomizing initiative would remove a lot of Armada's strategy.

Armada is about executing a plan that spans multiple turns, which becomes impossible if you can't know who is going to go first on any given turn.

It adds an element of uncertainty, knowing things may not go as you expect becomes part of the strategy. I admit I'd personally prefer a command card system like Legion as this means you do get to "plan ahead" rather than relying on pure chance, though your opponent may foil your strategy.

Just now, Lord Tareq said:

It adds an element of uncertainty, knowing things may not go as you expect becomes part of the strategy. I admit I'd personally prefer a command card system like Legion as this means you do get to "plan ahead" rather than relying on pure chance, though your opponent may foil your strategy.

But that's the kind of game that Legion is. It's not the kind of game Armada is.

32 minutes ago, svelok said:

But that's the kind of game that Legion is. It's not the kind of game Armada is.

But they want a thing, so shouldn't they immediately be granted the thing they want? It's the only fair way to ensure that we're all equal or whatever.

11 hours ago, xanderf said:

Ah, yes, "the game is perfect and ideal and always right and nothing needs changed and anyone who disagrees is wrong" crowd.

Good thing FFG ignores you, and continues to change the game and improve it. I look forward to the next FAQ update - should shake some things up!

An FAQ longer than the rules themselves is one of the things that ruined X Wing for a lot of people. A flow chart just for shooting? Really??

There's nothing wrong with the occasional FAQ to improve things but I'd rather they play tested it extensively and got it right the first time.

Constant FAQs which change the rules can only have a negative effect IMO. Giving players the task of firstly memorising the rules then the FAQ is, in effect, asking them to learn two rulesets. I've been a wargamer since 1981 and I've seen this happen before, it puts new players off and old hands start to look for something that's less like hard work rather than have reams of rules amendments on dogeared print outs they have to constantly refer to.

23 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

An FAQ longer than the rules themselves is one of the things that ruined X Wing for a lot of people. A flow chart just for shooting? Really??

There's nothing wrong with the occasional FAQ to improve things but I'd rather they play tested it extensively and got it right the first time.

Constant FAQs which change the rules can only have a negative effect IMO. Giving players the task of firstly memorising the rules then the FAQ is, in effect, asking them to learn two rulesets. I've been a wargamer since 1981 and I've seen this happen before, it puts new players off and old hands start to look for something that's less like hard work rather than have reams of rules amendments on dogeared print outs they have to constantly refer to.

My favorite is the Toilet Seat that has had 3 major FAQ/Eratta with the last one completely making the printed card useless aside the stuff on the cardboard base; had they play tested that better and looked at it compared to their other ships they could have done a better job. Many people, myself include, think a simple point increase to their other large scum ships and no EPT on generic would have made the ship usable but not game breaking like it was.

I am glad they have been better with Armada and hope they continue with better releases that require less FAQ.

I really do love this game. If there are no changes, I'm okay with that. I love Xwing too and don't have issues w/ the way they've FAQ'd it (except the Jumpmaster). I'm not sure it's always the play testers fault either, there are so many variables now in Xwing, it makes it difficult. I appreciate the discussion. . . .Now I gotta get back to my post.