2.0 will be needed eventually, and the sooner it comes the cheaper it will be.

Unique sqadrons are the problem, especially their defense tokens. Take out unique squadrons, and the squadron element of the game would be much faster and less powerful.

If they provide a mechanic to remove/alleviate activation abuse and either remove drastically change Pryce, Bail, and Strategic Advisor, I’m in.

If they do a 2e and don’t fix those or they double down on activation abuse like those cards, I’m out.

From what I could tell of the NA champs lists, the top lists all had Strategic Advisor, Hammerheads for activation spam, or both. That isn’t fun. It’s just taking advantage abusable game mechanics.

I got into X Wing as a fun game to play as an occasional alternative to historical gaming. I stopped collecting a few waves ago, I think the K Wing was the last ship I bought. Interest died at our games club for various reasons. I've no desire to buy a THIRD core set and pay good money to fix a system that I didn't break and that I couldn't get a game of anyway. Neither can I be bothered to invest time getting up to speed with all the new ships and updates I missed. It's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun not an exercise in learning revision, I left that behind when I left school in 1982!

Armada looks pretty well balanced to me. Sure some upgrade cards don't see the light of day, the fighter and bomber battle is perhaps still a little too important to winning when compared to the big ship aspect but not by much and nothing that a decent "flak" upgrade couldn't sort out and activation advantage is still a big thing but it's not an auto win.

Overall I think Armada's not broken so why fix it?

I don't believe Armada 2.0 is warranted, but I'd jump over to a new system in a heartbeat. This game is pure joy, so I'd support it in any version.

On 8/21/2018 at 5:37 AM, Dreadnowt said:

2.0 for X-wing seems like a complete overhaul, which I don't think Armada needs. The app system for building fleets wouldn't be a bad idea though, if only for re-balancing costs. Ever since External Racks hit at 3 points, when do we ever see Expanded Launchers for 13, despite it being pretty fun on a Kuat Refit?

That being said, the whole activation count / last first mechanic still irks me a bit. It never felt right for a ship to seemingly appear out of nowhere, blow the enemy to ****, then disengage without taking any return fire (at least not on the scale of massive capital ships). This could be addressed with a complete overhaul, but doesn't have to be so drastic.

In our group we've toyed around with the idea of activation order being fixed after Turn 1, or going by the rule that the last ship to activate cannot then be the first to activate next round.

The squadron game I could see getting a little bloated to the point where some streamlining could be beneficial. but I don't think it's there yet.

I used expanded launchers on an mc75 a couple weeks ago and got 3 attacks from my front arc with it. It was terrifying! I obliterated an ISD but the second ISD destroyed my razor tooth MC75. But external racks are way to expensive. I was lucky to get three shots off with it in that game. That almost never happens.

also we played on a reduced size map due to space at my new apt. That helped my close game strat.

Back to topic. I would buy in reluctantly as I love this game and gave up xwing for armada two years ago.

Absolutely no need for 2.0 right now though. I would be a little irritable upgrading now.

I think that a big consideration would be how they structure buy-in. I don't like the method they used for x-wing 2.0 because it is punative for players that like certain ships over others. Thus, my 5 A-wings require me to purchase multiples of the conversion box even though I don't need that many y-wings, etc.

I really would prefer a single conversion box method even if it was just from FFG warehouse or bulk orders. For example, if you purchase 10 ship conversions, you can choose any 10 at whatever price the standard is for large and small ship conversion sets.

And if you are asking yourself what this is about, I have 5 more raiders than is ever necessary.

I like them.

I like them a lot.

Don't think a 2.0 is needed. An app to adjust point cost on certain cards could be nice. But to answer the question posed by the OP, Yes. I would swap over if it happened. I enjoy this game. If I'm willing to buy a $200 SSD, then I'm willing to swap over to a 2.0 should the need arise.

I'm in the "wouldn't mind a digital fleet builder" crowd. I got into the game late and only have 2 XI-7s, for example. Sure, I could buy more thanks to the alternate cards, etc, etc, etc....same with SFOs...I've heard in the future they're abandoning "you must buy the everything if you want the everything" mentality, but a digital fleet builder would backwards compatible fix the issue.

It could also handle things like adjusting Reeikans cost in a last gasp at balance, and lower cards like Tarkin and Leia which have decent functionality and a moronically high price. There's no reason expanded launchers should cost more then 7-9 points as another example.

Digital list building and storage would solve a myriad of issues. That said, I've no problem with the general state of the game (including squadrons), I'm only regretful they didnt have the forsight to include Large, Medium, Small, and Squadron placeholder templates so we're left to the ingenuity (and price) of fellow players.

Edit: Forgot the point of my ramblings....yes,, I would (regretfully) switch over, but I would view it as a money grabbing scheme given the current state of the game.

So far, In no way does the “digital builder” concept of XWing remove your requirements to own the physical card.

It just divorces upgrade slots and points from the cards themselves, so they can be readily adjusted...

if you want to run 6 copies of something, you still gotta own 6 copies of it.

FFG is in absolutely no rush whatsoever to move away from that revenue generating requirement.

On 8/22/2018 at 12:03 PM, Bolshevik65 said:

...the fighter and bomber battle is perhaps still a little too important to winning when compared to the big ship aspect...

So FFG just needs to release a Lancer-class frigate, and problem solved.

(Didn't the old EU invent them specifically because of this exact issue within the actual lore?)

On 8/22/2018 at 9:43 PM, ryanabt said:

I really would prefer a single conversion box method even if it was just from FFG warehouse or bulk orders. For example, if you purchase 10 ship conversions, you can choose any 10 at whatever price the standard is for large and small ship conversion sets.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds like a very inefficient way of doing things. You'd have to make every single ship conversion its own product with its own packaging, driving up the price, and also taking up more store shelf space than the game already does.

Conversion Kits are the primary reason I'd want an Armada 2.0. I love what it does for X-Wing and could see an Armada kit converting 2 of each ship, 4 of each squadron, give you 1 of each unique upgrade and 3-4 of each other upgrade. This, presumably, can make my casual X-Wing play actually Tournament viable without needing to pilfer cards from others and without buying ships I don't want just for cards. Also, with the X-Wing 2.0 concept of not having to buy other faction ships to get cards you need, this would be nice for Armada as well - although I don't think it is as prevalent as it was in X-Wing. So a rebel conversion kit and imperial conversion kit would be awesome purchases, well worth $50 each (or $40 at most major online stores). I would hope that the core set would have different ships in it though, but that is less likely to happen.

All of that said, I don't think Armada 1.0 is broken enough to warrant a 2.0, but it could use little tweaks, like card points as mentioned above. A 1.5 upgrade would be nice, and again, they could did it through a cardboard kit that just gave all the errata / updated cards and other pieces as needed. Then they can just have the 1.5 cards be official with a single product being needed to upgrade the game (or two if they still do faction based upgrades for something like this).

A 2.0 as in X-Wing would mean that the game's very fundamentals are not working - as in firing arcs, line of sight, range, the whole speed and defense tokens system, upgrade slots etc. etc. Is that really a problem in Armada? I don't think so.

The problems Armada have are based mostly on incorrect points costs - and that's something you can easily fix with an app. You don't need a whole new version. Some argue that squadrons are too powerful - yet we see more and more lists without squadrons, following ye old "I will destroy thee, mighty carrioooooh!" rule.

Armada is far from broken and thus far from the utter mess X-Wing was.

I want 2.0

Everyone that quits the game has valid complaints about the initiative system.

2 minutes ago, Wax Maniacal said:

I want 2.0

Everyone that quits the game has valid complaints about the initiative system.

Try playing with alternating initiative. We often play with 4-6 people at the same time and only use alternating initiative (initiative changes at the start of every turn).

1 hour ago, Wax Maniacal said:

Everyone that quits the game

Everyone? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

So, I like were this is going. How about putting the minds together and agreeing to what cards, ships, and squadrons should be point costed or changed?

upgrades ....sure even if some are zero you won’t take them. What could you do to some to make them playable besides point costs. People photoshop proxies all the time and Mel’s miniatures exists for a reason.

ships .....not just points also what other changes would you do like with yaw etc.?

Squadrons....how make points before you at least consider, maybe not play, x,y, and Z. I think simple point rebalance changes most of this and no text is needed.

You see it is this kind of decent, thoughtful effort that helps the casuals who don’t play tournaments and who buy most of the plastic. If you help them homebrew, more ships will be bought and FF will starting taking both ways of playing far more serious. You get 5 or so experts on this game to pit in a little work, flag it to the front page for casuals, and this game starts selling better. For years game designers have themselves recommended small changes to systems to keep them balanced. Since the design team is under FF’s umbrella, we aren’t fortunate to ask them.

If you build it, more ships will sell.

3 hours ago, 1977Valarian said:

So, I like were this is going. How about putting the minds together and agreeing to what cards, ships, and squadrons should be point costed or changed?

upgrades ....sure even if some are zero you won’t take them. What could you do to some to make them playable besides point costs. People photoshop proxies all the time and Mel’s miniatures exists for a reason.

ships .....not just points also what other changes would you do like with yaw etc.?

Squadrons....how make points before you at least consider, maybe not play, x,y, and Z. I think simple point rebalance changes most of this and no text is needed.

You see it is this kind of decent, thoughtful effort that helps the casuals who don’t play tournaments and who buy most of the plastic. If you help them homebrew, more ships will be bought and FF will starting taking both ways of playing far more serious. You get 5 or so experts on this game to pit in a little work, flag it to the front page for casuals, and this game starts selling better. For years game designers have themselves recommended small changes to systems to keep them balanced. Since the design team is under FF’s umbrella, we aren’t fortunate to ask them.

If you build it, more ships will sell.

In my opinion, changing card text is bad for the game. Only points should be adjusted, and if that cannot fix a card, it should be banned.

6 minutes ago, Varyag said:

In my opinion, changing card text is bad for the game. Only points should be adjusted, and if that cannot fix a card, it should be banned.

Interesting. Why do you think FFG holds almost the exact opposite opinion, though?

(Legit question, I know I often come across as sarcastic, but I'm genuinely interested on your thoughts.)

Adamantly opposed to a 2.0 in the near future.

That's production time i'd rather see go into new content, i.e. ships, then into a conversion set that would only fix minor issues. I'm not seeing enough problems to warrant something of this scale.

X Wing was in a real bad way for a good while before 2.0 came around. It was needed for that game to survive and be taken seriously.

Keep in mind FFG really only did 2.0. to balance tournaments, which they heavily prioritize X-Wing for over Armada consistantly.

If one day the Armada meta gets enough out of whack and the errata gets really rough and messy then i'd be for it to clean the game up.

I'm not keen on how expensive the conversion kits are for X-Wing if you own more then an alloted number of multiples of a ship, which many do.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Interesting. Why do you think FFG holds almost the exact opposite opinion, though?

(Legit question, I know I often come across as sarcastic, but I'm genuinely interested on your thoughts.)

Because point values are used when building a fleet, but not in game. On the other hand, it is annoying when a card does not do what it says and you have to look at an errata sheet in game to see what it really does.

7 minutes ago, Varyag said:

Because point values are used when building a fleet, but not in game. On the other hand, it is annoying when a card does not do what it says and you have to look at an errata sheet in game to see what it really does.

That I agree with.

So I do think FFG could and should sell a box with all the upgrade cards significantly affected by errata.

32 minutes ago, Varyag said:

Because point values are used when building a fleet, but not in game. On the other hand, it is annoying when a card does not do what it says and you have to look at an errata sheet in game to see what it really does.

But from the contrarian point of view, errated points can lead to a situation where someone brings an illegal fleet, while errated cards still do something (and typically not radically different).

2 hours ago, Varyag said:

Because point values are used when building a fleet, but not in game. On the other hand, it is annoying when a card does not do what it says and you have to look at an errata sheet in game to see what it really does.

Distinctly disagree here. Points are also used while playing, especially when calculating Victory Points. Yes, they are counted at the end of a game, yet even during a match you make decisions based on points; for example when deciding whether it's worth risking losing that small ship to maybe destroy the enemy ISD or letting it fly away safely to not give up VP.

On 8/22/2018 at 11:54 AM, Church14 said:

If they provide a mechanic to remove/alleviate activation abuse and either remove drastically change Pryce, Bail, and Strategic Advisor, I’m in.

If they do a 2e and don’t fix those or they double down on activation abuse like those cards, I’m out.

From what I could tell of the NA champs lists, the top lists all had Strategic Advisor, Hammerheads for activation spam, or both. That isn’t fun. It’s just taking advantage abusable game mechanics.

Go have a look at what the Brits are doing at their Nationals.