we have 500, get used to it and start call for 600.

Repeat.

41 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Honestly, armada is extremely simple and easy to play (marketed as the nicer sounding "streamlined" ) as well as relatively cheap, compared to pretty much all other miniature games I played which includes Historical Wargames, Battlefleet Gothic and 6th edition Warhammer Fantasy. Not to sound condescending but if 400 point Armada matches are considered "incredibly complex and involved mental affairs" I recommend some mental exercising .

Id have to argue about being less complicated than BattleFleet gothic, as an old player of that system.

Having played since release, and gone through two conflict campaigns with one ending in a final assault, playing 400 is almost boring. I man it's not till I hit 500 that I feel like I'm playing a fleet anymore. Maybe that's because after so many games the mental capacity to process it all has become accustomed to. But for two waves now I've also said that I would like the limit to be 500/150. Imps get two more squads max, rebels get one, imps have more room for ISD, and rebels have more room for support. It's different, balance is a bit rough, but seriously the game has been chasing balance for it's entire life and even after the latest FAQ/regs it still won't be. You'll just get trolled differently now, Grats.

My group would like 500 pts, but has concern on tournament play times. Not a lot, but for instance we won't ever call for 800 point fleets.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

The bigger issue than "balance" or "competitive play" is actually Armada's single greatest weakness as a game, "investment"

About the only thing xwing does better ito game design is it requires comparatively very little table space and very few models. A tiny fraction of xwing plays "epic" format, which triples the point limit and adds huge ships

This is simply because **** is expensive, real estate intensive, and time consuming

Armada as is is a great game, but 400 points is already an incredibly complex and involved affair that requires a momumental investment of time and mental resources.

This is especially compared to games such as Xwing miniatures. For this reason, it is far less popular

At 500 points...well gg then

Gonna have to arrange that ahead of time with opponents

I like Task force 200 for having invested less. Everything is quick and succinct.
500 used to sound nice, but the recent changes to the game making one large ship very favourable makes 400 fine.

Play whatever the frak you want to play when you're playing casually. In our local gaming group, we play 150 with just small base ships and fighters. We play 500. We play 1000.

But tournaments are just fine at 400.

2 hours ago, AegisGrimm said:

Id have to argue about being less complicated than BattleFleet gothic, as an old player of that system.

Then you know BFG has (usually) more ships per player (most fleets have I'd guess about 8 ships in a typical fleet, while some like Necrons could show up with as little as 4 and others like Greenskin & Nids 10+). There are fighters/bombers that you actually have to launch. In addition to that torpedo volleys that you have to track over multiple rounds. Boarding parties that you can launch or teleport raids you can perform, in addition to actual and fairly extensive ship on ship boarding rules. Then ships have multiple weapon systems with different firing rules involved. Lances being like Armada's attacks while battery firepower is modified by looking at a firing chart and depending on range and position of the target (flying away from you is harder to hit than flying parallel etc). Then there are the various psychic powers, leadership tests for various morale effects including ship orders, rules for stellar phenomena, and even rules for disengaging individual ships from the battle. Then there are substantial rule differences per faction as well. Overall BFG has a vastly more extensive (some might say bloated) ruleset with definitely more depth than Armada. Though admittedly I prefer Armada because it is less complicated.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

that's incredibly condescending, jesus christ

My apologies, I don't know why I wrote that.

15 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Then you know BFG has (usually) more ships per player (most fleets have I'd guess about 8 ships in a typical fleet, while some like Necrons could show up with as little as 4 and others like Greenskin & Nids 10+). There are fighters/bombers that you actually have to launch. In addition to that torpedo volleys that you have to track over multiple rounds. Boarding parties that you can launch or teleport raids you can perform, in addition to actual and fairly extensive ship on ship boarding rules. Then ships have multiple weapon systems with different firing rules involved. Lances being like Armada's attacks while battery firepower is modified by looking at a firing chart and depending on range and position of the target (flying away from you is harder to hit than flying parallel etc). Then there are the various psychic powers, leadership tests for various morale effects including ship orders, rules for stellar phenomena, and even rules for disengaging individual ships from the battle. Then there are substantial rule differences per faction as well. Overall BFG has a vastly more extensive (some might say bloated) ruleset with definitely more depth than Armada. Though admittedly I prefer Armada because it is less complicated.

Maybe it's just that BFG clicked better for me then, because I never had as much brain burn playing that game as when I try to follow some of the rules threads for Armada, like for how Thrawn's dial-giving ability works, or the reasoning as to why we can (or cannot) chain multiple Lambdas with relay together after first sending them through Centicore from a ship across the table, lol.

Quickly looking up the firepower change for shooting at a target moving abeam to my firing ship was a piece of cake, in comparison.

6 hours ago, Sybreed said:

you guys are going too fast with your 500 points game. Go for 450 first and see how it feels.

I always felt 450 would be the sweetest spot for Armada.

One day I would like to see 500 points, but only after something changes to make the game fast er to play.

I still love my 900 point fleet/upgrades with 300 point fighter wing games. I get tons of "OMG that looks so cool" comments each game

3 hours ago, idiewell said:

I still love my 900 point fleet/upgrades with 300 point fighter wing games. I get tons of "OMG that looks so cool" comments each game

This sounds like tons of fun. What are your favorite fleets, if I might ask? I'm trying to get more armada players at one of my FLGSs and placing a whole bunch of cool ships on the table looks like a great way to start.

11 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

I wrote something condescending about why you wrote that, specifically the part where you wrote not to be condescending before being completely condescending, it was really ironic, but couldn't find the proper balance of humour and we're in too deep now.

this is worse when someone mentioned isolated bad apples which spoils the methaphor for apples leaking Ethylene which quickens the riping process in nearby apples spoiling them meaning the apples were no longer spoiling just other apples but methaphors in conversations happening over the internet and I think people died.

or that time I made a quote pyramid so big it crashed browsers but that was on whomever designed that forum.

Interesting points from both sides of the debate, on casual play me and @PodRacer very rarely play 400 as it goes anyway, usual games are 500, 800, or 1000.

I do feel the game is more complete IMO at 500, although I do hear the points against in regards to tournament play.

I understand as well with so many different fleets you can take, it allows you to mix it up and try all your ships out, playing at 400 for most people means leaving anything upwards of 6-8+ ships doing nothing, and if we're being honest who actually takes 100% different lists to tournetments unless an FAQ has been dropped.... it doesn't happen, both sides use variations of the same fleets, the best ones for each side, till rules or new toys come out to change that, so in reality you will always have ships that never play, until made useful again with future wave upgrades. As we say though for casual play it isn't much of a problem, but for future waves it could be for tournaments

22 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

This sounds like tons of fun. What are your favorite fleets, if I might ask? I'm trying to get more armada players at one of my FLGSs and placing a whole bunch of cool ships on the table looks like a great way to start.

I change up my fleets routinely, as my Imperial adversary is quite tricksy (for an Imperial). However, my last fleet fielded an MC80 Lib Battle Cruiser, MC80 Home One Assault Cruiser, RAF Mk IIA, 2 MC-30 Torpedo Frigates, 2 Pelta-Class Frigates (1 Command and 1 Assault), 2 GR-75 Combat Retrofits, a Hammerhead Scout and a Hammerhead Torpedo supported by 7 X-Wing's, 4 E-Wing's, 3 YT-2400's, 2 Z-95's, Nym, Green Squadron, Norra, Ketsu and Lt. Blount.

It looked awesome, if i do say so myself

how many TIE/LNs can you get in 200 points.......

1 hour ago, slasher956 said:

how many TIE/LNs can you get in 200 points.......

25

On 4/8/2018 at 6:14 PM, eliteone said:

I always felt 450 would be the sweetest spot for Armada.

Up the points to 450, drop the rounds to 120 minutes. With the new FAQ people people won't feel as obligated to take full fighter comp and it will become a calculated decision to use it.

3 hours ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Up the points to 450, drop the rounds to 120 minutes. With the new FAQ people people won't feel as obligated to take full fighter comp

Watch me do it haha

If only there were some FFG-provided way to enjoy 500pt fleets.......