If you’re planning on buying the SSD, would you like to spend another $100 to convert it and your other imperial forces in 5-6 months time?

I don’t think 2.0 is needed.

I think with Peterson quitting just happens to be at a time where everything needs a reprint, and they are probably looking to hire a designer to replace his role for the work he did on armada.

23 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

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.

Hush, hush

I really would like a v2 to do 3 things:

- Address the activation inbalance.

- Use the benefit of insight to rebalance the costs of upgrades

- Revamp the squadron phase.

On the squadron phase, my pet peeve is that it tend to slow down the game considerably. I think it has to do with all the measuring and careful positioning. A solution worth exploring is to introduce the concept of flight leaders which would be used to measure distances. They could of course be named characters. Move your flight leader using the ruler and re-arrange your squadron around it. Other squadrons would basically act as a pool of hp for your flight leader. it would speed up the game because what counts is the flight leader

I really don’t see what the problem with squadrons is. Ok it’s a bit more fiddly & is a bit slower than ships but I’ve never found it bothered me.

On 1/23/2019 at 12:24 AM, PartyPotato said:

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.

I don't know if mandatory burning of cards constitutes a "very subtle change"

One of the other things X-wing was suffering from and a likely source of pushing things to 2nd Ed. was the accretion and/or power creep had driven a considerable portion of the ships actually from the movies out of the game. X-wing didn't have any X-wings in it.

Armada mostly still has things from the movies on the board. Armada is more recognizable as "Star Wars" than 1st Ed. X-wing had become. MSU seems pushed out but that puts the iconic ships on the table more. From that standpoint Armada is in a good place and not in need of a 2nd Ed.

2 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

I really don’t see what the problem with squadrons is. Ok it’s a bit more fiddly & is a bit slower than ships but I’ve never found it bothered me.

I didn't think squadrons were fiddily either till I went to some tourneys with far more experienced players. The issue is certainly Intel and the proliferation of range based effects that have to be carefully managed. The last time I taught new players I only brought one squadron for each side with an ability.

I still don't know why it was ever the case that a Relay ship didn't need to be in proper range of the ordering ship.

I like the ideas for Intel becoming "grants Grit" and moving effects to contact. There quickly becomes too much to keep track of with lots of named squadrons on the table. Squadrons are taking up too much bandwidth.

Don't really think the game needs a second edition though.

23 hours ago, pheaver said:

Also, burn down all the objectives and make new ones. Currently, only 10 or so of the 24 objectives are regularly used, and they are getting pretty boring.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as a complete revamp but I do agree the objectives do make the game quite a bit and some revamping would be good to reduce the viability of over-played ones or improve under-played ones. Imo one of the reasons every ship can remain relevant to the game is partly due to the different ways to victory presented by the objectives. Yet I think another set of 4x3 objectives is the max the game should have otherwise it will suffer from card bloat, so maybe a partial revamp of current objectives is necessary too.

9 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

I think with Peterson quitting just happens to be at a time where everything needs a reprint, and they are probably looking to hire a designer to replace his role for the work he did on armada.

I'm pretty sure Christian Peterson hasn't worked on an Armada expansion since the Core Set. Designers usually create a game, drawing up its nuts and bolts and the basics of the first set. Then the product gets handed off to developers who create further expansions. That is how FFG uses the two job titles, at least. Peterson had a role in creating the game that is Armada, but it's unlikely he did any of the work with its later expansions -- anyone with the package inserts could easily check and see if he is listed in the credits of the later expansions and if so what title he is given. e.g. see Jay Little -- he created X-Wing (as the designer), but the past five years worth of Waves, including second edition, have been developed by folks like Alex Davy, Frank Brooks, and Max Brooke (as seen on product inserts and "designer interviews" by podcasts).

It's like Star Trek. Roddenbury created the series, and he's credited as such in every episode. But the hundreds of episodes were mostly written and directed by other people, and even after Roddenbury's death in the early 90s series content continued to roll out without missing a beat, until the franchise had become unsustainable with waning viewers and CBS shelved it for a decade or so.

So I really don't think Peterson's absence is why there's a lull in product, nor do I think they're looking to hire some full-time Armada person (the people who have developed Armada have, I'm pretty sure, been folks who have worked on lots of other games concurrently -- FFG doesn't really have 'dedicated' staff members assigned to a single game line). Besides, he's basically been out of the picture for the past two years, with the negotiations and merger and CEO position.

Now, one way Peterson's departure may be relevant is if his directive kept the Armada line going despite it being an 'underperformer' (even if it's profitable, maybe it's not profitable enough ), because he had a special affinity for the game and was able to keep it going despite that dropping it and redirecting the resources may have been better for the shareholders. If this was the case, then his departure almost assuredly would spell the end of the product line (maybe RuneWars was a similar situation?).

A 2.0 to fix some point costings and address some issues I think would be excellent. Also big on revamping the objectives since currently most of them never see play and the game ends up just being a deathmatch. Which I think just exacerbates the first/last mechanic.

I would be potentially intrigued in a change That switched initiative each turn, and for objective bonuses you are just red and blue player.

3 minutes ago, draco193 said:

[...]

I would be potentially intrigued in a change That switched initiative each turn, and for objective bonuses you are just red and blue player.

Allthough switching initiative seems to be a symmetrical game, it is not. The player who is first player of the first game round has an enormous advantage: normally, the first activation of round 3 is one of the most important in the game. And he gets it. In contrast, it is also extremely valuable to have the last activation of round 2 - which he also can get easier than his opponent.

Finally, a shifting first player approach might result in some cat and mice game about the point who gets the first activation when the most serious bloodshed starts, i.e. whether it starts in round 2,3, or 4 (with a strong bias for round 3) and thereby replacing an unthematic mechanism for another unthematic mechanism.

Might as weigh in since I did an editorial not long ago. Of the changes I proposed, I don't think any of them absolutely need a 2.0 to work. We've come to work within the Demo and Yavaris limitations. ****, Yavaris is quickly fading (as are all rebel squad builds, but that's another discussion). I'd be perfectly OK with FFG updating points on old commanders via errata, though I know they're very against it. The rest can be done via errata or upgrade cards in ways they've been happy to do previously. Even Strategic Adviser, the card I most hate, I think is being challenged in a good way by Pryce and Bail. I'm told California is having a regurence of MSU because 1) Pryce is making SA irrevelant and 2) Pryce has enough counter play that good players are starting to restore MSU's ability to dominate the activation game. It's a good time to be playing the game. Despite no releases, the meta is still evolving and changing. That's awesome.

So yeah, what we need is more regular releases. Call me crazy, but I've got a good feeling about this year.

„this year“ 🙂

I really hope that this bar is low enough for FFG to jump over. You were thinking multiple expansions, right? 😁

Just confirming for a, ahm, friend 😉

I don't understand the call for a nerf to Yavaris, its not winning, at least currently and we have the data to back that up this regionals seasion so far Yavaris is only in 9% of all lists, and has yet to win a regional, and agian out of the top 10% of players only 9% took Yavaris. Personally I hardly see it anymore. I think the call to nerf Yavaris more stems from a kind of PTSDish condition, from facing the old aceholes, that evolved into a hate of squadrons that has permeated the community. Personally if Armada did not have both ship and squadron play I would have stopped playing it a long time ago, heck I may have never bought into the game, as having both was a big selling point for me. Im open to reforming of the squadron game, infact I have thought for a long time that Intel should just give squadrons grit, but I still want Squadrons in the game.

I feel that demo does need a further nerf he is taken in 25% of all list and is in 44% of all winning lists almost half. I would just make the stipulation of the move and attack option that it has to target the rear hullzone. I feel that this would bring Demo into line, and would help alleviate the first/last issue as. believe Demo is the crucks of that problem, though adding an additional overwatch rule would be cool and help alleviate this even more.

I really think the small issues the game has can be solved by errata, and a simple update pack, we don't need a second edition.

I don't think it needs a nerf at this point. I would just prefer for it didn't exist. It limits design space for Rebel squads by being such a force multiplier. That inevitably limits what you can do with Rebel squads from a design perspective. There's a reason it's in **** near every Rebel squad list. If it's there, Rebel squads are good. Without it, they're kind of lackluster.

12 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I don't think it needs a nerf at this point. I would just prefer for it didn't exist. It limits design space for Rebel squads by being such a force multiplier. That inevitably limits what you can do with Rebel squads from a design perspective. There's a reason it's in **** near every Rebel squad list. If it's there, Rebel squads are good. Without it, they're kind of lackluster.

I can understand that, and is intriguing, out of curiosity if Yavaris did not exist, what would you do to give rebel squadrons a boon, to put them on par with the Empire?

24 minutes ago, xero989 said:

I feel that   demo does need a further nerf he is taken in 25% of all list and is in 44% of all winning lists almost half

24 minutes ago, xero989 said:

so far Yavaris is only in 9%  of all lists, and has yet to win a regional, and  agian out of the top 10% of players only 9% took Yavari   s

I know everyone loves a handy statistic to sharpen the pitchforks, but I personally dont pay too much heed to those numbers. Its based on data from 19 regionals, which is still nice, but not representative. In my opinion winning still relies more on knowing the strengths and weaknesses of a list and playing to that, as well as getting good matchups, maybe aided by your knowledge of the local meta.

2 hours ago, draco193 said:

Also big on revamping the objectives since currently most of them never see play and the game ends up just being a deathmatch. Which I think just exacerbates the first/last mechanic.

I agree, but I'm not sure the community writ large does. Remember after Gencon 2016 when Berling won flying his Ackbar "fish farm," which then became a semi-popular net deck that performed well, but never dominatly so? It won primarily by farming objective tokens for points, and would happily avoid confrontation if it could scoop enough tokens to win. This was the first time a "win on objectives, not combat" list did well in Armada, and the community whined like a bunch of little babies about it and about how stupid the list was and even the designers/playtesters hit it pretty heavy-handedly with two failry quick nerfs--with both Relay and Flotilla-Caps.

Armada players may say that they want non-death-match objectives to be viable, but they sure don't act like they actually want that when non-death-match objective fleets are actually viable. When that happens, they whine that the list isn't fun to play against and that such lists are "avoiding the game of Armada."

1 hour ago, RapidReload said:

I know everyone loves a handy statistic to sharpen the pitchforks, but I personally dont pay too much heed to those numbers. Its based on data from 19 regionals, which is still nice, but not representative. In my opinion winning still relies more on knowing the strengths and weaknesses of a list and playing to that, as well as getting good matchups, maybe aided by your knowledge of the local meta.

I don't really disagree, from a mathematical point of view. But when it comes to game balance, if you're not going to use the best available tournament data, what are you going to use? Because otherwise it's all subjective gut feelings and people's inferences from their local anecdotal experiences?

Happy to toss the Regional Data out for the reasons you note, but first we'd need to know a superior empirical basis from which to draw sweeping re-balancing judgments. Because otherwise we'll just be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

17 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I don't really disagree, from a mathematical point of view. But when it comes to game balance, if you're not going to use the best available tournament data, what are you going to use? Because otherwise it's all subjective gut feelings and people's inferences from their local anecdotal experiences?

Happy to toss the Regional Data out for the reasons you note, but first we'd need to know a superior empirical basis from which to draw sweeping re-balancing judgments. Because otherwise we'll just be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Well like I mentioned in the past, I am not a fan of community ravings being taken for gospel by designers, and by *insert deity* I hope ffg has a better source for their game balancing decisions than 19 regional results.

Although now that I say it out loud... probably not.

9 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

Well like I mentioned in the past, I am not a fan of community ravings being taken for gospel by designers, and by *insert deity* I hope ffg has a better source for their game balancing decisions than 19 regional results.

Although now that I say it out loud... probably not.

Honestly, I think it'd be a miracle if FFG-devs even looked at 50% of the Regional Results any given year.

Like, X-Wing 2.0 is supposed to be all about reactive and responsive rebalancing to keep a healthy competitive game. So you'd think FFG would be poised to systematically collect and analyze X-Wing tournament results, especially since they've just designed their own app. But nope... to the extend that any results are collected at all, it's just like 1.0 and all of the leg work is done entirely by players within the community and it's completely dependent on player-created software and webspace and the good graces of the TOs to collect and submit results out of the goodness of their hearts. FFG has done nothing to put into place or encourage any sort of systematic infrastructure to collect, organize, or analyze actual game results.

So I have absolutely no idea what X-Wing or Armada devs look at as 'justification' for when they are issuing errata or rebalancing points...? It's probably just the subjective (and possibly biased) impressions of whichever playtesters shout the loudest? Devs don't compete in tournaments, and barring one or two big tournaments a year they're not even present as TOs or Judges. So I have no idea to what extent they are connected to the actual tournament results?

30 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

It's probably just the subjective (and possibly biased) impressions of whichever playtesters shout the loudest

This would be my guess.

Though the play testers may have better insight as to what is what over the insights that might be gained from tournament data alone.


I'm venturing this from my own business standpoint, and it is entirely conjecture, but I believe that the play testing process could reveal issues with the game pretty well. When I release a product I create a prototype. I test the prototype to make sure it's entirely functional. Once it's 100% functional, I release it to a test group. I take that information, redesign, and try again. I do this until the feedback doesn't reflect a realistic improvement goal.

For example my original Squadron command plate:


The basis for the idea was to create a numerical & color coded method of taking the squadron cardboard off the table to improve game state accuracy. The picture above was the initial design. Upon prototyping, I found that the 3D printed pegs would snap very easily. I replaced the pegs with a copper belt rivet. They fit snug on the squadron dials and fit the design well enough to function. Once that was solved I released it for play testing.

10 games in, I got back quite a bit feedback.
-The elongated designed used up too much space on the table, players preferred a side by side design idea.
-The recess design for the dial and activation toggle made it difficult to turn the dial and push the toggle.
-The numbers were a little too small.
-The arrow was too small.
-The plate could not fit sleeved cards
-The Ace plate had not slot for tokens
-The plate, because of the rivet, sat uneven on the table.
-The plate was too big and boxy, difficult to store.

It was after this data came in that I redesigned the plate to this:



Now, here's where I'm getting to my point. After I released the new version, I had them play tested again. The feedback here was different than the feedback from before. No longer about the function of the plate itself, but how the pieces worked with the game.

-If two players are using the same faction and the same color plates, game confusion occurs.
-If one player uses 2 plates sharing the same color and numbers, game confusion occurs.
-If there are more than 6 numbered squads of the same color, game confusion occurs.

With this input, I was able to change the way they are sold . When people buy in bulk, I encourage different colors for different factions (typically cool colors for imps hot colors for rebs). I always make sure to consult people with orders that have 2 plates of the same color to prevent doubles.I eliminated the plate that had 8 slots and now only sell a plate up to 4 slots.

I've been selling since January 2017 and I've yet to receive a complaint, I believe that's a good indication that the process worked.



All this to say, I imagine play testing the expansions as the release, introducing controlled changes, is very much more insightful than raw data from tournaments.

11 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This would be my guess.

Though the play testers may have better insight as to what is what over the insights that might be gained from tournament data alone.


I'm venturing this from my own business standpoint, and it is entirely conjecture, but I believe that the play testing process could reveal issues with the game pretty well. When I release a product I create a prototype. I test the prototype to make sure it's entirely functional. Once it's 100% functional, I release it to a test group. I take that information, redesign, and try again. I do this until the feedback doesn't reflect a realistic improvement goal.

For example my original Squadron command plate:


The basis for the idea was to create a numerical & color coded method of taking the squadron cardboard off the table to improve game state accuracy. The picture above was the initial design. Upon prototyping, I found that the 3D printed pegs would snap very easily. I replaced the pegs with a copper belt rivet. They fit snug on the squadron dials and fit the design well enough to function. Once that was solved I released it for play testing.

10 games in, I got back quite a bit feedback.
-The elongated designed used up too much space on the table, players preferred a side by side design idea.
-The recess design for the dial and activation toggle made it difficult to turn the dial and push the toggle.
-The numbers were a little too small.
-The arrow was too small.
-The plate could not fit sleeved cards
-The Ace plate had not slot for tokens
-The plate, because of the rivet, sat uneven on the table.
-The plate was too big and boxy, difficult to store.

It was after this data came in that I redesigned the plate to this:



Now, here's where I'm getting to my point. After I released the new version, I had them play tested again. The feedback here was different than the feedback from before. No longer about the function of the plate itself, but how the pieces worked with the game.

-If two players are using the same faction and the same color plates, game confusion occurs.
-If one player uses 2 plates sharing the same color and numbers, game confusion occurs.
-If there are more than 6 numbered squads of the same color, game confusion occurs.

With this input, I was able to change the way they are sold . When people buy in bulk, I encourage different colors for different factions (typically cool colors for imps hot colors for rebs). I always make sure to consult people with orders that have 2 plates of the same color to prevent doubles.I eliminated the plate that had 8 slots and now only sell a plate up to 4 slots.

I've been selling since January 2017 and I've yet to receive a complaint, I believe that's a good indication that the process worked.



All this to say, I imagine play testing the expansions as the release, introducing controlled changes, is very much more insightful than raw data from tournaments.

Where do you sell them?

4 minutes ago, Bakura83 said:

Where do you sell them?

Check your PMs.

It doesn't need a 2.0. Just add a new faction.

Pirates and Mercenaries would be great. You can put all the Clone Wars era ships under that label too.

Dreadnaught cruisers, Venators, TradeFed battleships, Kaloth battlecruisers.....

All of those ended up in pirate or mercenary hands one way or another in Legends at least.

The Empire or Rebels can hire "mercenaries" or just face off against pirate armadas.

It would be awesome.

10 hours ago, Truthiness said:

Might as weigh in since I did an editorial not long ago. Of the changes I proposed, I don't think any of them absolutely need a 2.0 to work. We've come to work within the Demo and Yavaris limitations. ****, Yavaris is quickly fading (as are all rebel squad builds, but that's another discussion). I'd be perfectly OK with FFG updating points on old commanders via errata, though I know they're very against it. Th  e rest can be done via errata or upgrade cards in ways they've been happy to do previously. Even Strategic Adviser, the card I most hate, I think is being challenged in a good way by Pryce and Ba  il. I'm told California is having a regurence of MSU because 1) Pryce is making SA irrevelant and 2) Pryce has enough counter play that good players are starting to restore MSU's ability to dominate the activation game. It's a good time to be playing the game. Despite no releases, the meta is still evolving and changing. That's awesome. 

So yeah, what we need is more regular releases. Call me crazy, but I've got a good feeling about this year.

Hey man.... you crazy!