This is a honest question, I'm not trying to point fingers or anything like that. I have been hitting a bit of a writer's block when it comes to list building for the Imperials, and to a lesser extent the Rebels as well. One of the biggest problems I have is not having an ISD in a list, everytime I try to make a flagship Victory for example I inevitably come to the conclusion that the ISD is only marginally more expensive, but so much more potent. I think a lot of issues stem from Strategic Advisor, but that's been extensively discussed already. So here's the questions:

Is the internal balance of the Rebels good or bad and why do you think so?

Is the Imperial internal balance good or bad and why do you think so?

Are the factions well balanced against each other?

Notably if you say the balancing is bad anywhere, how would you fix it? Through a new ship or ships, or are new upgrade cards the way to go, or maybe a little of both?

Is the internal balance of the Rebels good or bad and why do you think so?

Is the Imperial internal balance good or bad and why do you think so?

i was going to respond to these individually but this works.

Are the factions well balanced against each other?

Eh, there are better ships on both sides than others. On the rebel side the pelta and Neb find issue fitting in. On the imperial side the Vic has an issue being a wave 1 release, even though fixes have semi been shoe horned in and the raider just struggles to find a place it doesn't get 1 shot.

overall the factions are "fine" and balanced well enough against one another while remaining asymmetric. While I'd like to see more expansions and additional factions (really hoping for CIS/Droids) I think the game is fine as it is presently.

I think the game is losing a bit of balance. As it stands, the Empire has access to ASSAULT on the Gauntlets (albeit, no-one uses them) and the Rebels should have gotten their counterpart (U-wing) with the MC75. The Empire also has the SSD arriving soon, along with TWO new commanders. Rebels have yet to have anything announced, and wave VIII has yet to be announced. Other than that, FFG has done a superb job keeping Armada balanced, especially compared to X wing (they had to make 2.0 to fix it, lol!). Despite what I've said, I like where Armada is at. Each side has counterparts ship-wise, but those respective ships aren't exactly alike (MC30 v GSD).

Yes.

It is currently the most balanced state since it has been released. Check out the top lists of the last few large tournaments. Almost every ship was represented. Almost every admiral was represented... (sorry tagge, you’re garbage).

The last faq opened a lot of fun options up.

The game is currently in a very good state. I just came back from NOVA with @themightyhedgehog and it was hard to ignore just how well represented nearly every major ship and list archetype was including the dreaded Rieekan Aceholes list and other high quality squadron balls as well as no and low squadron fleets. And many examples of both did VERY well.

The only major concern I have right now is the ubiquity of Raddus and his ability to effectively disregard major elements of the core game mechanics when it comes to deployment advantage and positioning. This makes two major Rebel commanders (Raddus and Rieekan, respectively) for whom the primary advantage is ignoring several major balancing elements of the core gameplay mechanics. The only commander who seems to really match this clean break in a similar same way is Thrawn and his ability to let players use additional commands during the game.

There isn't really any way to get a large enough sample size of Armada games to determine balance. The only people that might have enough of that data, ie the more serious metas and playtesters, are not going to share that data. Any attempt to make conclusions is going to be skewed more by player skill and matchups than anything else.

It is the most balanced miniatures game I've ever played, hands down, bar none. I can't believe that seven waves in, I'm still constantly coming up with new ways to play and enjoy the game.

50 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:

There isn't really any way to get a large enough sample size of Armada games to determine balance. The only people that might have enough of that data, ie the more serious metas and playtesters, are not going to share that data. Any attempt to make conclusions is going to be skewed more by player skill and matchups than anything else.

We actually did quantify that very effectively over the last several years and I suspect it's gone a long way towards informing the balance changes that came with the last FAQ and Wave 7.

edit - And it needs to be noted that this was a community initiative to figure out what was causing problems in the game at the top levels and what was merely anecdotal vs what was getting consistent results.

2 hours ago, schmidty1701 said:

I think the game is losing a bit of balance. As it stands, the Empire has access to ASSAULT on the Gauntlets (albeit, no-one uses them) and the Rebels should have gotten their counterpart (U-wing) with the MC75. The Empire also has the SSD arriving soon, along with TWO new commanders. Rebels have yet to have anything announced, and wave VIII has yet to be announced. Other than that, FFG has done a superb job keeping Armada balanced, especially compared to X wing (they had to make 2.0 to fix it, lol!). Despite what I've said, I like where Armada is at. Each side has counterparts ship-wise, but those respective ships aren't exactly alike (MC30 v GSD).

Assault is garbage; the Rebels should be grateful they don't have to have a squadron that sucks because it has it. Re: the SSD and two more commanders, we have two dud commanders, so we're back up to par, we were down a ship so back up to par there, and given the ongoing struggles for Imperial players to develop truly innovative fleets or otherwise develop new and exciting archetypes, we kind of need the SSD. The Rebels have much less need for something quite so groundbreaking.

1 hour ago, AdmiralYor said:

There isn't really any way to get a large enough sample size of Armada games to determine balance. The only people that might have enough of that data, ie the more serious metas and playtesters, are not going to share that data. Any attempt to make conclusions is going to be skewed more by player skill and matchups than anything else.

I mean... @Baltanok and I haven't exactly been hiding this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14kjCf7_-KjTjAqMyUrXayZI8u9oBlqDyMLbYAMeaMxk/edit?usp=drivesdk

It just goes dormant outside of Regionals season because we like having...lives... Regionals season gives the best bang for buck. There are a lot of lists in a lot of different metas, all being played at a high level, so Regionals season data gives us the best pulse of the overall community.

P.S. when looking at that data, keep in mind it is pre-errata.

More data collection?

Come on, just release Clone Wars for Armada already! ?

Balance is weird.

In terms of both factions against one another, eh, I suppose so. I can go into depth about why Rebel fighter supremacy gives them an edge only countered by the Empire fielding their anti-fighter squadrons, rant about Yavaris again, and so on... but these things are not so overwhelmingly broken that they are on every table all the time. Player skill can overcome any mechanical advantage in the game, but some tools are easier to exploit than others.

I say balance is weird because some ship types are clearly better on the table in all situations than others. Imperial lights feel like they have a lot of conditionals to use properly, but their heavy ships are the best generalists and it's hard to go wrong with using them. For easy lists, it's something like an ISD of choice and Demolisher with Gozantis to be the most useful ships. If you take Arquitens, Raiders, Quasars, or Interdictors you need to have a specific plan in mind and a way to use them or they're going to be points-duds and cost you games.

Rebels on the other hand seem to have many tools that work really well, especially among the lights, but a few duds that are beyond redemption. Non-Yavaris Nebulons have an even higher skill demand than Imperial ships, and I haven't seen anyone leaning on Assault frigates around here as a part of their forces. While one can expect the Rebel spectrum to mirror the Imperial one and say Rebel heavies are tricky to use... I disagree. MC80s can be made into great carriers just as well as into great gunships with high survivability.

So... I don't think it's a clearly even field like the question would suggest. It's more of a patchwork of an even field, with some gaping holes and some things that fall through if you push them hard enough. It's enough for me to say things can still be balanced better, like lowering the skill threshold of those ARQs, RDRs, QFs, and Interdictors so that they can be used in more generalist lists. Giving purpose for craft outside of their chosen titles (Non-Yavaris Nebulons, Non-demolisher Gladiators) could also be an area to improve in terms of balance.

1 minute ago, Norsehound said:

Balance is weird.

In terms of both factions against one another, eh, I suppose so. I can go into depth about why Rebel fighter supremacy gives them an edge only countered by the Empire fielding their anti-fighter squadrons, rant about Yavaris again, and so on... but these things are not so overwhelmingly broken that they are on every table all the time. Player skill can overcome any mechanical advantage in the game, but some tools are easier to exploit than others. 

I say balance is weird because some ship types are clearly better on the table in all situations th  an others. Imperial lights feel like they have a lot of conditionals to use properly, but their heavy ships are the best generalists and it's hard to go wrong with using them. For easy lists, it's something like an ISD of choice and Demolisher with Gozantis to be the most useful ships. If you take Arquitens, Raiders, Quasars, or Interdictors you need to have a specific plan in mind and a way to use them or they're going to be points-duds and cost you games. 

Rebels on the other hand seem to have many tools that work really well, especially among the lights, but a few duds that are beyond redemption. Non-Yavaris Nebulons have an even higher skill demand than Imperial ships, and I haven't seen anyone leaning on Assault frigates around here as a part of their forces. While one can expect the Rebel spectrum to mirror the Imperial one and say Rebel heavies are tricky to use... I disagree. MC80s can be made into great carriers just as well as into great gunships with high survivability.

So... I don't think it's a clearly even field like the question would suggest. It's more of a patchwork of an even field, with some gaping holes and some things that fall through if you push them hard enough. It's enough for me to say things can still be balanced better, like lowering the skill threshold of those ARQs, RDRs, QFs, and Interdictors so that they can be used in more generalist lists. Giving purpose for craft outside of their chosen titles (Non-Yavaris Nebulons, Non-demolisher Gladiators) could also be an area to improve in terms of balance.

Norse, I think you would have been very happy to see the results at NOVA and I encourage you to follow the Overnight Report and look at some of the top performing lists. There were only two major ships that didn't appear in the top 8: VSD and Gladiator. Everything else made an appearance and some no and low squad fleets for both factions also did well.

Between this and GenCon we've seen possibly the most diverse game meta since the launch of Wave 2.

8 hours ago, schmidty1701 said:

I think the game is losing a bit of balance. As it stands, the Empire has access to ASSAULT on the Gauntlets (albeit, no-one uses them) and the Rebels should have gotten their counterpart (U-wing) with the MC75. The Empire also has the SSD arriving soon, along with TWO new commanders. Rebels have yet to have anything announced, and wave VIII has yet to be announced. Other than that, FFG has done a superb job keeping Armada balanced, especially compared to X wing (they had to make 2.0 to fix it, lol!). Despite what I've said, I like where Armada is at. Each side has counterparts ship-wise, but those respective ships aren't exactly alike (MC30 v GSD).

About Gauntlet and Raid/Assault.
I would agree when raid/Assault would be good, but it is not. The Gauntlet squadrons are bad, from cost and effect. And rebels have a raid card, but this one is bad as well (because raid/assault is bad...)
But if you want to say that the Gauntlet is a good rogue squadron i have to disagree. The rebels have the best rogue squadron from all. The YT2400 is by far the best one, and there is no equivalent rogue on imperial side (ROGUE, not in general!).

About the SSD and the two new commanders.
Rebels have one more ship since wave 1. So it is no big deal that only the imperials get one now (maybe it should not have been such a big one, but well ? ).
And two more commanders, do you really count Tage as a commander? ? How many have been used on tournaments (just take it from release), and how many were successful?

But i agree with the balance. It is really good. Maybe one reason for this is the few waves they are releasing.

I like that ships come with limitations but I have to admit I struggle to find a place for VSDs (even tho I do like them).

That and the interdictor seems too big, overpowered & overpriced. I don’t think it makes for interesting fleet builds.

An ISD pretty much seems like an auto-include & I’m not sure that’s a good thing for variety.

i dunno, maybe it’s just me but my feeling is rebels have an easier time of making strong varied list with admirals that synergise much better with their fleets.

That's a weird question to ask on a forum. But I like it. I've been thinking about it, comparing Armada, Warhammer 40K and Video games.

I agree that "balance" in a game usually rely on checking data. i.e. How often is a ship/commander/faction played, how often is a ship/commander/faction part of the winning side of a game. Then you go into details : Is one title getting field every time, etc... Online video games look at balance this way.

But looking at competition would be skewed. Games like Star Craft 2 would look at both competition builds AND data from battle.net (people playing online from all levels of the ladder) to ensure that every level of play have fun, accessible solution/build/whatever.

I find miniature games weird because, while we are driven by our competitive community (no harm there), we also have people who just play 1v.1, for fun, on a semi regular basis. And that is not equivalent to people playing SC2 or League of Legend in bronze league...

... that and a video game player can produce any unit in the game. Miniature wargames player doesn't necessarily have every unit at his disposal, let alone several of the same. So things like "Zergling rush" (spamming one efficient cheap unit) is not so much a question for Armada as it is for Star Craft. While it is a question for Warhammer 40K.

So talking about balance is weird. Cause one could say it depends on the context and/or the game you are playing.

I feel (feel... so it's subjective) that the game is more balanced now. Rebels show a variety of fleets. Imperials have less go to, but they do have more efficient solutions than they used to prior to Wave 7 and the "recent" FAQ.

But I think we shouldn't aim for objective balance. At the moment, that's not part of the ADN of our games, and we can rely on FFG to update the rules to keep the game balanced and interesting.

On that last point:

Yeah, raid is not such a great mechanic. But that's not a balance issue. It's a design issue. It's not interesting. Nothing awefully wrong there.

9 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

The game is currently in a very good state. I just came back from NOVA with @themightyhedgehog and it was hard to ignore just how well represented nearly every major ship and list archetype was including the dreaded Rieekan Aceholes list and other high quality squadron balls as well as no and low squadron fleets. And many examples of both did VERY well.

. The only commander who seems to really match this clean break in a similar same way is Thrawn and his ability to let players use additional commands during the game.

Ships were able to use additional commands since wave 1. Tarkin and Garm were designed to make it even easier. ?

The balance in Armada is so good because there is always a counter that is not only a counter (aka pointless unless it counters). There are synergies. And there is no clear "best" list/ship/squadron/commander. It is a really good paper, rock, scissors.

They are all good/bad against special other combinations.
There was even no clear "best list meta". Everytime i think it is, there is one big tournament that show the different.

And i think it is not only the balance. It is as well the luck/skill factor of the game. I find the luck part is really low (not zero, for sure not ? ). If you have, like in X-Wing, attack and defense dice, you have way more luck factors that can hit.
Most of the games are decided really early in the game, and it is hard to fix an early fault. It starts with first or second player, goes on with the mission. The obstacles can decide as well a bit. The deployment is really important.
The whole game after this is only the translation of the preperation. Yes, games are still decided at this point, but the first steps already give a big bonus for the real game. WAY more than they do in X-Wing.

I think it's balanced well enough to not threaten the integrity of the game.

More importantly, the last wave we got was, by all accounts, pretty successful. All the variants released and most if not all upgrade cards see some play and have opened up new possibilities. It might be argued that SaD is not good for the long-term health of the game, but it undoubtedly made low-activation count fleets viable, so it might be a necessary evil in the end.

On top of that, the last FAQ did wonderful things for balance and nerfed the unealthy trend of flotilla spam.

Is it perfect? No. There are definitely some sore spots (namely Rieekan and Raddus), but they're not a systemic problem with the game and they can easily be tweaked with an errata. Yes, Rieekan has already had an errata, but I think, all things being considered, it's a good sign for the game that he is gradually being brought in line with the other commanders (hopefully) and didn't suffer from wild balance swings. THAT would worry me more, as a sign that FFG isn't able to balance the game properly.

To answer the questions posed... I think both factions are pretty well balanced. They offer assymetrical but roughly equivalently effective options.

The recent FAQ helped a lot.

That being said, the balance issues in the game aren’t from ships or squads that were badly costed or designed. The balance issue comes from activation mechanics. Yes, recent tournaments show an impressive variety of commanders - all of which happen to work with a large number of activations. These tournaments showed a large variety of 5+ activation fleets doing really well along with the occasional 4. Design a commander that really only works in fleets with low numbers of activations and the player base will evaluate them as lackluster (hi Piett).

SAd (and Pryce/Bail) didn’t so much fix an unbalanced mechanic as much as give everyone access to it. If somehow FFG found a way for Armada to allow a two activation build to be competitive, I would say that they’ve balanced it nearly perfect.

15 minutes ago, Church14 said:

If somehow FFG found a way for Armada to allow a two activation build to be competitive, I would say that they’ve balanced it nearly perfect.

@Green Knight would you please!!

One activation might be competetive soon. Depending on the rest of the rules (especially how to fly the SSD) a single SSD could really be a good list.

19 minutes ago, Rocco79 said:

@Green Knight would you please!!

@BrobaFett would you please

31 minutes ago, Rocco79 said:

@Green Knight would you please!!

Let me be clear. I mean two activation, not two ship.

Also, I do know that double ISDs have seen some success. Where are the double MC80, double MC75, or MC75+MC80 builds finding success? A single list archetype based around the best ship in the game (debatably, admittedly) providing an exception to an issue doesn’t stop the core of the issue.