1 minute ago, Lord Tareq said:

I think they made a mistake when they decided to make 'Armada' a small skirmish game with micromanagement in the form of uncountable upgrades per ship and a ton of squadrons with special rules. As an Imperial player you only need 2 ISD's or 1 ISD and 2 or 3 support ships. Imagine a ruleset where we could field 4-6 Star Destroyers + numerous support vessels. They would have tripled their sales.

Personally I am fine playing larger games, but I think the running idea was to simulate a larger engagement in a manageable fashion while still looking reasonably epic.

2 minutes ago, richarDISNEY said:

I really hope not. I got on board about a year ago, and I am irritated that I did no get on board sooner!

I even got some gaming buddies to get into it too.

I really like this game, and would love to see some longevity to it.

Don't worry. Armada won't die for a while.

6 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

I think they made a mistake when they decided to make 'Armada' a small skirmish game with micromanagement in the form of uncountable upgrades per ship and a ton of squadrons with special rules. As an Imperial player you only need 2 ISD's or 1 ISD and 2 or 3 support ships. Imagine a ruleset where we could field 4-6 Star Destroyers + numerous support vessels. They would have tripled their sales.

It's not unreasonable to see 4 Star Destroyers on the table at once during a Corellian Conflict 'All Out Assault' battle.

That is pretty epic, although clear your day for it...

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Or priced themselves out of a reasonably attainable game, if you were to assume they were the same size and cost ships as now...

Exactly this. At the current size and prices, the start-up price would be much larger. That would increase the barrier of entry and cut down the player base by a large factor.

If we take a modern Navel Carrier Strike Group, and create a Armada equivalent we would have:

• 1 Carrier
• a Air Wing of 9 squadrons.
• 1 or 2 missle cruisers
• A destroyer squadron of 3 destroyers
• up to 2 Submarines
• and a logistical supply ships.

So we would have:

• 1 ISD
• 9 Tie squadrons
• 2 Gladiators
• 3 - 5 Arquitens Light Cruisers
• and I'ma go with 2 Gozanti's for the supply ships.

So that could be interesting to do a large scale battle that people are talking about. This also works historically as a Line, which was the smallest unit in the old, age of sale navy. I don't know if it still that way, I am army. Meanwhile, you could also build a fleet around the imperial doctrine... as seen in this video:

but I thought the winning technique in empire at war as just build more ISDs? Please, gib more ISDs and Imperial Squadrons 1 FFG.

20 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

If we take a modern Navel Carrier Strike Group, and create a Armada equivalent we would have:

• 1 Carrier
• a Air Wing of 9 squadrons.
• 1 or 2 missle cruisers
• A destroyer squadron of 3 destroyers
• up to 2 Submarines
• and a logistical supply ships.

So we would have:

• 1 ISD
• 9 Tie squadrons
• 2 Gladiators
• 3 - 5 Arquitens Light Cruisers
• and I'ma go with 2 Gozanti's for the supply ships.

So that could be interesting to do a large scale battle that people are talking about. This also works historically as a Line, which was the smallest unit in the old, age of sale navy. I don't know if it still that way, I am army. Meanwhile, you could also build a fleet around the imperial doctrine... as seen in this video:

Air power has largely supplanted sea power in the real world. Battleships have been somewhat obsolete since WWII.

6 minutes ago, Cpt. Caine said:

Air power has largely supplanted sea power in the real world. Battleships have been somewhat obsolete since WWII.

ISDs are Carrier/Battleships.

44 minutes ago, Cpt. Caine said:

Air power has largely supplanted sea power in the real world. Battleships have been somewhat obsolete since WWII.

I just pulled the info from the wiki page for Carrier Strike Groups, and translated it to Star Wars. Because there arnt really subs in Star Wars, just add more line ships.

45 minutes ago, Ling27 said:

I just pulled the info from the wiki page for Carrier Strike Groups, and translated it to Star Wars. Because there arnt really subs in Star Wars, just add more line ships.

That is the same general idea i had for my imperial taskforce 1 ISD, 2 vsds, 3 vindicator heavy cruisers, 4 escort carriers( the ton falk kind), 5 light cruisers ( my mix was 2 Arquitens, 2 Carracks, and 1 Nebulon B) and 6 corvettes ( my mix 2 Raiders, 2 Tartans and 2 Lancers)

4 hours ago, xanderf said:

The people who 'liked' the things the app requirement allows for (point adjustments over time, upgrade slots added/removed from ships over time, specific ships being rotated in/out of allowed/prohibited in lists by tournament season) seem to only like that change as a way to solve the game's playtesting shortfalls.

The people who hated the app dropped the game entirely over it.

So by introducing an app you have one group that kinda likes it but could take it or leave it, and another group that leaves the game over it.

Why do that to Armada, which could hardly support the fracture in the player base, anyway? I mean does anyone really think it would add players by having an app you have to check to see if your current favorite list is even still legal, that changes quarter to quarter? Because, citation: X-Wing, you'll certainly lose players over it, no question.

Your math doesn’t add up. X-wing is not a sinking ship. And an app like the one X-wing has would be a great addition to Armada. Your rant was on the verge of a full Admiral neilson. Rage quitting over an app is a pretty silly reason.

6 hours ago, Cpt. Caine said:

That'd be lying, option B. Lying about the certainty of their information - if they're just guessing, they're lying.

If guessing was just lying, then having 6 ideas for a new ship in an r&d session, they would be lying on 5 of their ideas? I don't see the logic in your statement.

7 hours ago, Do I need a Username said:

If they cancel the game, they will announce it well in advance.

This is certainly not the industry standard. I've played plenty of games that have gone belly-up or have ended, and in every single circumstance the game's death wasn't officially announced until the final installment of product had hit shelves or was just about to hit shelves. Companies want to get the best return on that final investment that they can, so they're not going to declare a game dead well in advance of the final product hitting shelves, because it would tank sales of that last investment into the property. Usually, it's like that week before the product hits shelves, as this helps the company save a bit of face and reputation with their customers, who may be future customers for new lines.

Ergo, if the SSD is the final product for Armada, FFG won't announce as much until right about when the SSD is shipping.

15 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

This is certainly not the industry standard. I've played plenty of games that have gone belly-up or have ended, and in every single circumstance the game's death wasn't officially announced until the final installment of product had hit shelves or was just about to hit shelves. Companies want to get the best return on that final investment that they can, so they're not going to declare a game dead well in advance of the final product hitting shelves, because it would tank sales of that last investment into the property. Usually, it's like that week before the product hits shelves, as this helps the company save a bit of face and reputation with their customers, who may be future customers for new lines.

Ergo, if the SSD is the final product for Armada, FFG won't announce as much until right about when the SSD is shipping.

You're just a big ol Rey of sunshine, aren't you?

18 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

This is certainly not the industry standard. I've played plenty of games that have gone belly-up or have ended, and in every single circumstance the game's death wasn't officially announced until the final installment of product had hit shelves or was just about to hit shelves. Companies want to get the best return on that final investment that they can, so they're not going to declare a game dead well in advance of the final product hitting shelves, because it would tank sales of that last investment into the property. Usually, it's like that week before the product hits shelves, as this helps the company save a bit of face and reputation with their customers, who may be future customers for new lines.

Ergo, if the SSD is the final product for Armada, FFG won't announce as much until right about when the SSD is shipping.

Um...netrunner....

<drops mic>

9 minutes ago, geek19 said:

You're just a big ol Rey of sunshine, aren't you?

Well, I mean, I've seen plenty of games come and go (e.g. Star Wars Decipher CCG, AvP CCG, L5R, Star Wars Miniature Battles, Warhammer Fantasy, many others) and that is always how it goes. ****, there is almost a boilerplate announcement for it: "We hope you are enjoying the latest set of OUR GAME and that it is bringing joy to our loyal players. It is with a heavy heart that we must announce, though, that this latest set is the final installment of OUR GAME. We want to thank all of you fans and players who have made this such a treat for us, and we've appreciated the opportunity to bring joy to your tables as we've added to the world of OUR GAME."


I didn't follow Tannhauser, Call of Cthulu, Dust Tactics, or the Star Wars LCG... but I'm pretty sure FFG's basically handled death announcements pretty much the same way at the same time (right as or after a final set/cycle has been released).

3 minutes ago, moodswing5537 said:

Um...netrunner....

<drops mic>

Wasn't that a weird scenario where they unexpectedly lost the rights to the game? And even then, it's not like they announced it well before a final product was put onto shelves. They announced it between releases, with the release that was being worked on never even getting printed. Even the lead designer of Netrunner said the announcement caught him by surprise and that he was in the middle of developing stuff, I think.

In some ways, this is even worse, as the actual final product had already been out for a while and the would-have-been next product never saw the light of day. This doesn't count as "announcing a game's death well before the final product releases," since the (now) final product had already been out and became the final product de facto of future sets getting canned.

13 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

I think they made a mistake when they decided to make 'Armada' a small skirmish game with micromanagement in the form of uncountable upgrades per ship and a ton of squadrons with special rules. As an Imperial player you only need 2 ISD's or 1 ISD and 2 or 3 support ships. Imagine a ruleset where we could field 4-6 Star Destroyers + numerous support vessels. They would have tripled their sales.

speaking from a lore point of view, while Empire possibly had the resources to field 4-6 SDs a battle, the rebels did not have as many resources. About 13 Mon Cals were counted present at the battle of Endor which was where the rebels presumably threw everything in. Maybe not all were seen on screen, but Palpatine considered his gathering of 37 SDs more than sufficient of containing the rebel fleet, suggesting that the rebels did not have many ships. Considering the GCW saw many skirmishes across thousands of worlds and it's more likely that the rebels fielded in very small task forces, and only engaged openly when there was chance of success (imp task force of <400 points)(Even a single ISD was greatly feared and able to hold down a system alone). I think ffg did a good description of a major sector clash in Campaign with the All Out Offensive, where it is possible to see 4-6 SDs when rebels dared to commit more resources for the prize of a sector.

I think Clone wars might see an issue here as there were more ships and resources involved in each battle, so maybe the current format may not fit those factions that well? ...

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

This is certainly not the industry standard. I've played plenty of games that have gone belly-up or have ended, and in every single circumstance the game's death wasn't officially announced until the final installment of product had hit shelves or was just about to hit shelves. Companies want to get the best return on that final investment that they can, so they're not going to declare a game dead well in advance of the final product hitting shelves, because it would tank sales of that last investment into the property. Usually, it's like that week before the product hits shelves, as this helps the company save a bit of face and reputation with their customers, who may be future customers for new lines.

Ergo, if the SSD is the final product for Armada, FFG won't announce as much until right about when the SSD is shipping.

"Starting on October 22nd, 2018, Fantasy Flight Games will no longer offer for sale any Android: Netrunner The Card Game products, including Android: Netrunner playmats and card sleeves. Before we reach that point, Android: Netrunner still has one final stop to make: the Reign and Reverie deluxe expansion will be the final product for the game. Featuring cards for every faction, Reign and Reverie is a celebration of all things Android: Netrunner, and an appropriately climactic conclusion to the game's six-year run. What's more, while Android: Netrunner is coming to an end, the worlds of Android will continue to be explored, from the gritty streets of SanSan to the warring colonies of Mars, in future products from Fantasy Flight Games." - Posted in June, stating end of product in October, but that there will be further releases until then. form the following link:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/6/8/jacking-out/

<picks mic back up, drop kicks it into the audience, then moonwalks off stage>

3 hours ago, moodswing5537 said:

If guessing was just lying, then having 6 ideas for a new ship in an r&d session, they would be lying on 5 of their ideas? I don't see the logic in your statement.

No.... read the actual post. The discussion was on whether the host on TORJ was relaying info from an FFG employee or just guessing when he said an FFG employee had told him wave 8 is being playtested. Per definition just guessing would be lying, as that means he is lying about knowing about it from an FFG source.

12 hours ago, Ling27 said:

If we take a modern Navel Carrier Strike Group, and create a Armada equivalent we would have:

• 1 Carrier
• a Air Wing of 9 squadrons.
• 1 or 2 missle cruisers
• A destroyer squadron of 3 destroyers
• up to 2 Submarines
• and a logistical supply ships.

So we would have:

• 1 ISD
• 9 Tie squadrons
• 2 Gladiators
• 3 - 5 Arquitens Light Cruisers
• and I'ma go with 2 Gozanti's for the supply ships.

So that could be interesting to do a large scale battle that people are talking about. This also works historically as a Line, which was the smallest unit in the old, age of sale navy. I don't know if it still that way, I am army. Meanwhile, you could also build a fleet around the imperial doctrine...

My thought as others have said Air power had replaced ship power, and with that

1 Carrier - ISD (W/6 TiE squadrons)
1 or 2 Cruiser - VSD (W/2 TiE squadrons each)
3 Destroyers - GSD (W/2 TiE squadrons each)
2 Submarines - The Arquitens or Raiders (W/1 TiE flight each)
This give an air wing of between 14 and 17 TiE squadrons.

12 hours ago, ninclouse2000 said:

Your math doesn’t add up. X-wing is not a sinking ship. And an app like the one X-wing has would be a great addition to Armada. Your rant was on the verge of a full Admiral neilson. Rage quitting over an app is a pretty silly reason.

I can understand quitting over the app especially with the always online requirement which not everyone can afford or have access to, I know of game stores that don't have wifi and are in cell dead zones making giving minimal if any connection to cellphone data networks (I mean how hard is it to have the app work offline for list building but needed periodically connection for updates).

Plus the app is STILL inferior to 3rd party options.

8 hours ago, Muelmuel said:

Maybe not all were seen on screen, but Palpatine considered his gathering of 37 SDs more than sufficient of containing the rebel fleet, suggesting that the rebels did not have many ships.

I don't believe this to be accurate. I suspect the Mon Cals at Endor outnumbered the ISDs, to say nothing of all the Nebulon-Bs, Corvettes, and Transports that were present. My best guesses put the Imperial Fleet at the Executor and a little under 30 ISDs. From the scenes of Wedge and Lando exiting the DSII to rejoin the Rebel fleet, we know that over 10 Mon Cals survive the battle of Endor, meaning probably that 20-30 were present in the assault. Which is to say nothing of the dozens of GR-75s and handful of frigates and corvettes supporting the fleet.

Palpatine was banking on the superlaser winning the conflict, not his fleet. Once that was off the table, the Rebel fleet actually had the upper hand in the conflict, which is why the remaining Imperial ships retreat from the system. If the Empire's fleet had an advantage, they would have driven the Rebels from the system and the Rebellion would not have been able to go and party down Endor's forest moon overnight, as we see in RotJ and so many of the new novels/comics.

2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I don't believe this to be accurate. I suspect the Mon Cals at Endor outnumbered the ISDs, to say nothing of all the Nebulon-Bs, Corvettes, and Transports that were present. My best guesses put the Imperial Fleet at the Executor and a little under 30 ISDs. From the scenes of Wedge and Lando exiting the DSII to rejoin the Rebel fleet, we know that over 10 Mon Cals survive the battle of Endor, meaning probably that 20-30 were present in the assault. Which is to say nothing of the dozens of GR-75s and handful of frigates and corvettes supporting the fleet.

Palpatine was banking on the superlaser winning the conflict, not his fleet. Once that was off the table, the Rebel fleet actually had the upper hand in the conflict, which is why the remaining Imperial ships retreat from the system. If the Empire's fleet had an advantage, they would have driven the Rebels from the system and the Rebellion would not have been able to go and party down Endor's forest moon overnight, as we see in RotJ and so many of the new novels/comics.

Numbers on this exist on wookiepedia. The Imperial Neb-b's at the battle outnumbered the rebel ones just for an example. You can't really use the film as info om fleet compositions as Imperial doctrine and the EU explanation of ship combat in Star Wars wasn't really developed until after the original trilogy.

For an explanation as to why the rebels won AFTER the second death Star was destroyed, read the Heir to the Empire trilogy. Thrawn explains to Palleon that it was due to the Emperor using battle mediation techniques to basically mind control the entire Imperial Navy, they had lost the willpower or mental energy to fight effectively at all because he had destroyed their own wills when he controlled them. Is it an apology that they had to make up to explain the unexplainable? Yes. But it is what we have.