It seems to be the hot topic at the moment.

But I think people are assuming that more regular releases, more new players, better OP management and regular articles is something that comes along with that. Which we should all know by now that it's not the case.

Armada right now mechanically in my opinion is in a sound place, albiet could do with some adjustment but that's with any game.

Isn't what we really want, is FFG to just release more current Armada content and do all that other stuff I mentioned instead?

I'd hate for it to go 2.0 and for them to just treat it the same way they do now. But hey maybe I'm wrong and 2.0 is the way to go.

No deal

1 minute ago, Irokenics said:

It seems to be the hot topic at the moment.

But I think people are assuming that more regular releases, more new players, better OP management and regular articles is something that comes along with that. Which we should all know by now that it's not.

Armada right now mechanically in my opinion is in a sound place, albiet could do with some adjustment but that's with any game.

Wouldn't you really want FFG to just release more Armada content and do all that other stuff I mentioned instead?

I'd hate for it to go 2.0 and for them to just treat it the same way they do now. But hey maybe I'm wrong and 2.0 is the way to go.

I agree completely. This feels like another call for attention from a different angle. Remember how Legion is: brand new and swingier, less precise movement mechanics, less suitable for organized play. Remember that as X-wing 2.0 fixed some issues it created new ones and pushed players away too. Trusting FFG to rebuild Armada and make it better than it is now feels incredibly optimistic, even without considering their inclination to do so, or the resources they would allocate.

This is the 700th time I've seen someone ask something about 2.0

I have a question

What evidence, whatsoever, is there that there will be a 2.0? It's been a year since a release, why would they suddenly roll out an entirely redone system for a game they don't put out product for?

4 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

This is the 700th time I've seen someone ask something about 2.0

Quite the opposite, I was suggesting maybe we should stop asking about 2.0 and instead ask for more what we have now.

I just wanted to start a thread on pretty much the same topic.

I was wondering if some ffg supported community spies got the task of getting some 2.0 buzz going as the current number of threads on that issue seem to have spiked dramatically.

I just wanted to say, plz no 2.0. Game is working fine with very minor issues that are mostly due to players, less to the game system. Give us a decent new wave, maybe one small new mechanic ala raid, maybe a bit more impactful, not broken ofc, and I will give you some money for it.

Maybe. But I would rather have a new campaign or more expansions. There are tons of ships left to release.

I want a version 1.25.

Burn Bail, Pryce, strategic advisors, and Demo and Yavaris.

Have Intel grant Grit instead of giving Heavy.

Seasonally updated PDF document containing the points of all cards.

I’d be estactic with these very subtle changes.

Do not want a 2ed. When they did it to xwing, it killed that game for me, no one around here plays it or has any interest in it anymore.

Itis hard enough to get a game happening, with so many choices of games to play out there, if ff 2.0 it, it will also be the end of this game for me too.

So for me, no, I do not want a 2.0

I do NOT want a 2.0.

That being said, I'm not in charge, so if they're going to do it, I have no problems offering suggestions for how to do it best and with the least amount of screwups.

No. I want Clone Wars. Consulars and Acclamators and Venators, oh my.

Resounding "meh?" from me.

A second edition could be an opportunity for more than just a rules update, but I do think a few of things could be tried before restoring to that total revamp.

I, too, am not a fan of activation advantage because it rewards the ability to make a fleet rather than play the game. I understand that building a fleet is part of the game but there are times where I don't feel like a matchup is worth playing. Not a great feeling.

I want a 3.0! Armada 2.0 is already broken! 3.0 or nothing! Maybe 3.5 or Pathfinder, but none of this 4.0 talk!

We've learned a lot about the game since it was released, which includes a lot of what works, what doesn't work, and what works but could probably work better. I'm on board a 1.5 or 2.0, but a 2.0 seems more likely. All games that last long enough get reboots and that's healthy.

2 hours ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

No. I want Clone Wars. Consulars and Acclamators and Venators, oh my.

Actually, insteadnof a 2.0 now, I’d rather that “Armada 2.0” be handled for the Clone Wars era stuff whenever it happens, and can be backwards-applied to “regular” Armada.

As long as it doesn't change too much, but makes it easier to make adjustments to rules and point costs and the like, I'd be all for it. I know xwing 2.0 has an app, and a lot of people have been for/against it. Personally I don't think it would be the worst way to go. Keep the very core mechanics the same, however.

Armada 2.0 will most likely push me out. I will most likely go full fan fiction on Armada. 1.0 will morph into 1.5, as I roll out faction after faction. Come dance with me in the glory of fan created material.

I'd like to see a major rules revision that focuses on streamlining certain game aspects to reduce time and increase game intensity for certain play styles. I believe that a change to how squadrons interact during combat in particular could have positive impacts for both of these concepts.

I am also a major proponent of the Intel = Grit change. Intel in the current configuration effectively makes many squadrons completely useless since it nullifies the concept of defensive squadron play. This change alone could radically rebalance the game in regards to squadrons dominating the meta long term, and to make squadrons a meaningful component in all fleet compositions even when squadron play isn't the primary goal of the fleet design.

I would only be in favor of a full 2.0 treatment if it came with a distinct change to the core set, starting with a dramatic price decrease. I firmly believe that the core set itself is holding back Armada from larger adoption, and the generally more expensive expansions don't help any.

I have to admit that while I stopped playing X-Wing and was mildly excited about 2.0, even though I got the conversion kit, after sitting on my shelf for like 3 months I still have not even opened it and right now given an option of play X-Wing 2.0 or playing Armada as is, I would still rather play Armada.

Now that may just be preference, but truth be told, it took me a long time to become familiar and comfortable enough with Armada that I felt I knew what I was doing. If someone thrust a new rulebook and a whole new set of cards in a conversion kit for Armada today, personally I think it would end up in the same place that X-Wing 2.0 is... sitting on my shelf as a "maybe I will try it some day".

Perhaps its my age starting to rear its ugly head but I just don't feel the excitement of yet another "new" miniature game or "updated" version. I actually think the market has been saturated, which has taken the wind out of miniature gaming communities as a whole. In my circles the excitement for miniature games has died down very heavily and I think a lot of has to do with the fact that the hobby has become a never ending battle line of trying to keep up with the latest and greatest and the truth is that Armada didn't get good until they stopped pushing constant releases. I agree with whoever said that Armada is in a great place right now, its stable, balanced and barring a few OP things in the game that you can house rule, a very fair and interesting game space.

I do not believe however that the market can sustain Armada as a competitive game even with a 2.0. Generally the miniature games of today are becoming simpler, the games are becoming less about the game and more about the hobby, which is kind of where it started. Armada is a very complex game, its not something you can "just pick up", like Legion for example that has rules that fit on a cocktail napkin.

Personally I think the Armada community should brace themselves for a Runewars type announcement, its going to go the way of the doedoe bird and its going to happen very soon as in, we may already have seen the last thing that will ever be released for the game.

9 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Armada  is a very complex game, its not something you can "just pick up", like Legion for example that has rules that fit on a cocktail napkin.  

Dear God but that was not my impression, even after a few trial games. Legion may have a thing or two going for it (painting opportunities, customizability) but man is it clunky to learn and a little arbitrary. I don’t know that that I’ve met one Legion player who hasn’t quit for one reason or another.

Anyway, we almost certainly have more stuff coming eventually. There are whispers on this forum of concrete evidence of new product, and I’m inclined to listen.

I don't need and I don't want a 2.0. The only things we need are some news from time to time.

I think 2.0 would be a drawback because everybody likes and dislikes other aspects of the system. There are those dreaming of streamlined squadron rules. Others want to speed up games at general. Some would like to add rules. Another group wants higher FP limit. What ever would be changed would offend a number of players. Remember the discussions about every FAQ nerf.

A game in a healthy state (rules wise) may progress in evolution. Only a game with heavy rules and/or balance problems should risk revolution.

54 minutes ago, Triangular said:

I don't need and I don't want a 2.0. The only things we need are some news from time to time.

I think 2.0 would be a drawback because everybody likes and dislikes other aspects of the system. There are those dreaming of streamlined squadron rules. Others want to speed up games at general. Some would like to add rules. Another group wants higher FP limit. What ever would be changed would offend a number of players. Remember the discussions about every FAQ nerf.

A game in a healthy state (rules wise) may progress in evolution. Only a game with heavy rules and/or balance problems should risk revolution.

I think that hits the nail on the head. Even the change I consider to be the least intrusive, that would help to lift the game a lot, and that I have never dreamed of that people could dislike it, is highly controversial: an app. Every player has his most darling change to the rules, and every player dislikes most of the most darling changes of the other players.

The majority of the community will only accept changes, if it feels the game is broken. But it is not. It is in the best state since its birth. I don't want to say that the community is content. But the annoyance is about FFG, not the state of the game. Hence, what we really want is not Armada 2.0, but FFG 2.0 🤣

All that said, if I have read most of the recent threads, videos, and blog entries about Armada 2.0 correctly, the authors do not say that they want Armada 2.0, but are in nature highly speculative about how it could be done.

Well said Irokenics! A good thread to straighten out the narrative.

17 minutes ago, Darth Veggie said:

I think that hits the nail on the head. Even the change I consider to be the least intrusive, that would help to lift the game a lot, and that I have never dreamed of that people could dislike it, is highly controversial: an app. Every player has his most darling change to the rules, and every player dislikes most of the most darling changes of the other players.

The majority of the community will only accept changes, if it feels the game is broken. But it is not. It is in the best state since its birth. I don't want to say that the community is content. But the annoyance is about FFG, not the state of the game. Hence, what we really want is not Armada 2.0, but FFG 2.0 🤣

All that said, if I have read most of the recent threads, videos, and blog entries about Armada 2.0 correctly, the authors do not say that they want Armada 2.0, but are in nature highly speculative about how it could be done.

This. I don't want Armada 2.0, I want FFG 2.0.

Oh, and I don't want an app because it would make me even more dependent on FFG to play.

Yeah dog. That's gonna be a no for me on 2.0.