Hi all!

I love Armada and that it has Campaign rules!!!

How ever, the first 3 times I played it I found that there were some things absent in the experience... For us the Campaign lacked a sense of progress and a sense of space. Also the expansion of each faction felt unconnected to the galactic map. We also encountered it difficult to be appealing to new players as in the second round, some fleets were combo-powerhouses and without the correct knowledge and manuver expertise the encounters were disappointing for some players with less time, involvement or expertise.

We are also very much fans of Imperial Assault and have done a few joint IA-XWing missions of which I can talk and share if you like. But at this moment I wanted to share with all of you a few modified rules that we are implementing in a new Armada campaign to adapt the Corellian Conflict Rules to solve what was retracting for us. We are applying the rules in our first modified campaign (2Vs2) since last week so I am sure it could use some fine tunning. However I wanted to share to see if any of you find them useful at least as a starting point to expand the experience of the player group and maybe attract new players.

In our opinion these rules help also feel a sense of progress simmilar to the one the heroes of IA experience through a campaign (You will see that a few mechanisms have been inspired in IA).

Please leave a comment if you have any questions or suggestions and your opinion if you apply the rules with a group of friends or develop your own inspired in these ones.

Thank you all and help our wonderful hobby expand!!!

PD.: We wrote the original rules in Spanish as we are from Argentina so I am sorry if there are translation errors...

Customized Corellian Conflict Rules.pdf

Says attachment is unavailable.

Strange (Well... as it is my first post I dont know if this is strange XD) but I can download it. Anyway, here is a google docs Share Link. Please check if this is accessible:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uskaRDj-_IYMe6LaVE6GxSxPRmo-giyrGTmVOm490gs/edit?usp=sharing

Hey @Templar_General I really like the transfer cost mechanism that you introduced. I am wanting to incorporate this into my first campaign with friends. How is it working so far? Does it seem like the transfer costs/fleet positioning bonuses are weighted correctly?

I am wanting to alter rules from CC to make it so that players are involved in every battle. There are 4 of us and we are wanting to play together every round instead of just during the all out offensive. I think if I find a good way of doing that in addition to using your customized rules I think it will be a lot of fun!

On the google docs you created, would you be willing to enable comments? I have more questions for you.

Hi!

Thank you for the comments. So far the inter planet travel costs seem balanced but we have not tested yet the transfer mechanic. The other thing is that the "balance" affects mainly which planets are more often used. this needs to be tuned. but so far we are doing good.

The other fact that the campaign modified rules does is to prevent a bit snowballing because the winner has to stay to build a base forsaking his double bonus and having to pay to build the base. Meanwhile the looser uses his double bonus to lick his wounds.

That set is the one we are currently using so I cannot open it for comments. But I created a copy we can all edit to comment and suggest:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OrqwIhyvMAqMtbvPl6iBeCaA2voYgTktBzTDW-wSuTI/edit?usp=sharing

Please check if you can access and edit.

3 hours ago, Templar_General said:

So far the inter planet travel costs seem balanced but we have not tested yet the transfer mechanic. The other thing is that the "balance" affects mainly which planets are more often used. this needs to be tuned. but so far we are doing good.

The other fact that the campaign modified rules does is to prevent a bit snowballing because the winner has to stay to build a base forsaking his double bonus and having to pay to build the base. Meanwhile the looser uses his double bonus to lick his wounds.

Hi! Thanks for the response, and I was able to get onto google docs. I started commenting.

When you say transfer mechanic, you're referring to removing a ship from a fleet and adding it to a lesser fleet? I like that change from the original CC.

Also on the "looser uses his double bonus to lick his wounds," your saying that they would probably put their fleet on a location that give them the bonus right? Even if you win an assault and keep your fleet in a system to build a base you would still get double points from other systems where fleets are stationed correct?

7 hours ago, Lagake said:

Hi! Thanks for the response, and I was able to get onto google docs. I started commenting.

When you say transfer mechanic, you're referring to removing a ship from a fleet and adding it to a lesser fleet? I like that change from the original CC.

Also on the "looser uses his double bonus to lick his wounds," your saying that they would probably put their fleet on a location  that give them the bonus right? Even if you win an assault and keep your fleet in a system to build a base you would still get double points from other systems where fleets are stationed correct  ?

1.- Your are very welcome and thank YOU for the comments and ideas. I have replied to each in the document.

2.- Yes. I refer to the possibility to transfer ships (with squadrons and personnel/upgrades) between fleets. It seemed a good way to mitigate one fleet from always loosing and the other from always winning. I wanted to include the fact that the ship could enter the battlefield at later rounds for adding roleplay but did not at the end for avoiding complexity and because balance is not straightforward (entering later gives you normally a strategic entrance with all the battlefield set but depends on the fleet, becouse you lack sterting punch). Maybe later we can think of a way to include this.

3.- Yes. Normally you would on average win 1 and loose 1. the one you won you have the option to build a base. If you do, the fleet building the base has to stay there and provides no bonus. However, the fleet that lost can relocate for example to corellia (if imperial). In doing this the p´layer would receive an aditional 15 refit points for the double bonus on the repair yard and an additional 20 points for double up on corellia´´´'s resource points.

4.- Also I was thinking about using skilled spacers to allow to deploy 1 ship with its squadrons on the deploy zone 1 turn later (or 1 turn per skilled spacer spent) but have not yet analized the strategic and balance implications with each ship type and objective available. Maybe this can be exploited and abused...

My main issue with this is that it delays large fleets and tend to keep fleet size down.....I'm currently running a CC where we increased the base allowance and refit points and upped fleet size to 700 points.

28 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

My main issue with this is that it delays large fleets and tend to keep fleet size down.....I'm currently running a CC where we increased the base allowance and refit points and upped fleet size to 700 points.

I think that if the idea is to play with experienced players, no problem!

But our modified rules were thought for including new players as stated in the Objectives of the custom rules. We dont have many armada players around locally and want to teach. For this purpose starting with small sizes, avoiding 1 turn knowledgeable strong combos and introducing upgrades slowly helps new players to catch up.

From another point of view... I am the only player with Armada ships in our group, so upping the limits leaves us with fewer options of picking because im poor mainly (according to ffg gaming standards... ;P).

I love high point battles, but our group is not there yet. We have played some 800 v 800 point battles of X-Wing and combined missions IA & XWing with success. I can share some pictures! I will provide a link today (im uploading)

Here is the 800v800 Point X-Wing Convoy Assault: https://photos.app.goo.gl/6cshhHxNmrcK6E6m7

And here is the Joint X-W & IA Rescue Mission: https://photos.app.goo.gl/SjbaJbjc1DziLtnz8

Wow that is an intense battle!

1 hour ago, Templar_General said:

Here is the 800v800 Point X-Wing Convoy Assault: https://photos.app.goo.gl/6cshhHxNmrcK6E6m7

And here is the Joint X-W & IA Rescue Mission: https://photos.app.goo.gl/SjbaJbjc1DziLtnz8

Nice. Yeah, given your situation, your approach makes sense. While we don't have many players here, three of us have enough to field over 2,000 points each, so numbers is not an issue... 😊

On 2/15/2019 at 1:08 PM, Darth Lupine said:

Nice. Yeah, given your situation, your approach makes sense. While we don't have many players here, three of us have enough to field over 2,000 points each, so numbers is not an issue... 😊

I so envy your situation! hahaha

On 2/15/2019 at 1:07 PM, Lagake said:

Wow that is an intense battle!

Yes, but some of the players were inexperienced..... On turn 1 8 Tie Fighters crashed into each other (not willing..)

I love mixed x-wing and IA missions most. Roleplaying StarWars retracts me with the campaign missions of X-Wing (PC) and Tie Fighter (PC) that were full of purpose. And I enjoy more directing a thematic big mission as GM than playing a game without story.

I picked Admiral Sloane and for our rules she is so behind.....

As you cannot fully equip upgrades she is weak the first rounds.... So if you suffer many losses you will be outnumbered quickly. I am facing an ackbar and a Sato. Both of them are ver good without upgrades.

6 hours ago, Templar_General said:

I picked Admiral Sloane and for our rules she is so behind.....

As you cannot fully equip upgrades she is weak the first rounds.... So if you suffer many losses you will be outnumbered quickly. I am facing an ackbar and a Sato. Both of them are ver good without upgrades.

I found the opposite with Sloane generally - she doesn’t need upgrades, as she’s reliant on max squads - paying up for losses with destroyed enemy ships, as there’s no real combo needed to put a TIE on target...

... but all of these things are enemy dependent

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

I found the opposite with Sloane generally - she doesn’t need upgrades, as she’s reliant on max squads - paying up for losses with destroyed enemy ships, as there’s no real combo needed to put a TIE on target...

... but all of these things are enemy dependent

Don't forget having 8-10 veterans slaughtering everything in the later stages...

Love these threads, thanks for posting. Playing my second campaign now and we are already seeing the need for adjustments. Here's what we are developing for house rules and what we've adopted already. Also playing with spoiled cards for the next one!

Most of this came from notes I took reading threads here, so apologies in advance for any stolen ideas

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTDIMXHZFZyWp7aqPdDChUqrIMCxN3pJjERr2eEqhcM76ino_QRqL7ASBpObJcOUUZKlGICQdctlwVp/pub

Thanks for sharing! I like some of those ideas a lot! like diplomacy tokens cancelling diplomacy tokens. Also, after winning your objective you must switch it out, and publicly announcing attackers and then revealing defenders. Side board is interesting, and risky! For squadrons, can you never get more than 150?

Right. I think squad limits in CC are based on potential fleet size not the player's fleet size so 25% of 600 (fleet sector rules) is 150. But the first round when you start with a limited one-upgrade-per-ship 300 point build we allow up to a hundred points in squads.

Not sure about side board yet we are playing with only the two in bold marked "adopted" at present.