Yeah...honestly. All this talk about 2.0.

Two point ohh!

That's the number of games I've been able to play since Armada 1.0 came out!!!!

...a whole two games, counting the Learn To Play scenario.

😭 😭 😭

Hehhee.

13 hours ago, Truthiness said:

[...]

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

Who are we peasants to call a playtester crazy on such a topic! However, @Undeadguy told me that one can have nice bets with you when it comes to Armada predictions... 😜

11 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

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."

The problem with the Fish Farm was not that the objectives did not result in a death match, but that (thanks to strategic) the objectives favoured engagement avoidance . And that is indeed boring. If objectives were designed in a way that the outcome of the objective decides about the game, but that this very outcome was dependend on engagement that would be a totally different game than the one favoured by the Fish Farm.

As far as I know, in Legion people do not complain about an objective based scoring system that demands engagement. So maybe Armada players are not that different and we can trust people that they understand what they say, when they say that they want non-death-match objectives to be viable.

As I said in another thread, I can only justify the cost of buying into a new edition if it's offering something new...but the changes/additions I'd really like to see don't actually need an Armada 2.0. New ships. New objectives. A new campaign. Maybe new factions. Reprints of existing ships/squadron packs. None of those need a new edition.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I can't see a new version costing less. Even if FFG sold unpainted ships or "faction only" starter kits, I'd still expect them to raise prices in relative terms, even if the increases were hidden by the savings. Much like a new Toblerone bar that costs less and comes in the same-size packaging, but has double the space between the teeth and so less weight of chocolate for your money. Not that any self-respecting chocolatier would ever do such a thing!

I'm similarly ambivalent on the subject of an app. Yes, an app that allows for easy listing building and adjustable ship/upgrade costings seems like a really good idea... but only if it's handled properly . Not only were there a lot of technical issues with X-wing's app, but I'm concerned that the dynamic points/upgrade slots are less about long-term balance and more about pushing short-term gimmicks on the meta.

4 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

The problem with the Fish Farm was not that the objectives did not result in a death match, but that (thanks to strategic) the objectives favoured engagement avoidance . And that is indeed boring. If objectives were designed in a way that the outcome of the objective decides about the game, but that this very outcome was dependend on engagement that would be a totally different game than the one favoured by the Fish Farm.

As far as I know, in Legion people do not complain about an objective based scoring system that demands engagement. So maybe Armada players are not that different and we can trust people that they understand what they say, when they say that they want non-death-match objectives to be viable.

While I never ran into a fishing fleet, I don't think it would have been an issue, given my play style. Every fleet I design is made for the sole purpose of destroying the enemy fleet as fast as possible...hehe.

I am also a Legion player, and I do think the objective system there is more interesting, and will become even more so as they release more cards. Perhaps modding Armada's system to a similar thing would be interesting?

I just want to buy two lucrehulks and paint them yellow! most obnoxious looking donut fleet!

9 hours ago, Darth Veggie said:

Who are we peasants to call a playtester crazy on such a topic! However, @Undeadguy told me that one can have nice bets with you when it comes to Armada predictions... 😜

I wager FFG won't even give us a heads up before they drop 2.0. All we will get is a release article and some crazy expensive conversion kits.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

I wager FFG won't even give us a heads up before they drop 2.0. All we will get is a release article and some crazy expensive conversion kits.

And I wager that FFG will not drop a 2.0, at least in the next few years. Maybe, if Armada "dies" and FFG retains the license to Star Wars, we'll see them "relaunch" Armada in like 5-10 years with a newer edition, much like we're currently seeing with 'revived' properties like L5R, MonsterPocalypse, Necromunda, Battles of Middle Earth, etc.

I'm sure that the sales of any gaming product are heavily front-loaded, in the sense that base sets and early expansions are when you make the most sales and everything is generally diminishing as you move further into a game's life (because the hype wears off, people get bored, people realize they don't like it, people find other games, people realize they don't play it enough, etc.).

So it makes sense to release a game, ride that initial wave of hype and impulse sales, then let it die before a release becomes unprofitable. For games that did "well enough," drop a "REVIVED RELAUNCH!" a few years later to milk the same thing from the same people again.

2 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

And I wager that FFG will not drop a 2.0, at least in the next few years. Maybe, if Armada "dies" and FFG retains the license to Star Wars, we'll see them "relaunch" Armada in like 5-10 years with a newer edition, much like we're currently seeing with 'revived' properties like L5R, MonsterPocalypse, Necromunda, Battles of Middle Earth, etc.

I'm sure that the sales of any gaming product are heavily front-loaded, in the sense that base sets and early expansions are when you make the most sales and everything is generally diminishing as you move further into a game's life (because the hype wears off, people get bored, people realize they don't like it, people find other games, people realize they don't play it enough, etc.).

So it makes sense to release a game, ride that initial wave of hype and impulse sales, then let it die before a release becomes unprofitable. For games that did "well enough," drop a "REVIVED RELAUNCH!" a few years later to milk the same thing from the same people again.

You really think FFG will still have the license for Star Wars in 5 years? I thought the games being revived are not FFG IP. They are acquiring all these games and then relaunching them, so why would FFG wait? If they were to announce 2.0 at GenCon, they get to revitalize the game like they did with X-Wing. FFG is probably paying a **** ton of money to hold Star Wars so waiting to remake a game they already have out is a financial mistake. They already have production lines and (terrible) logistical plans in place. Adapting them to 2.0 would not be that difficult. They wouldn't have to make new models either for the stuff already released.

I'd be willing to pay money NOW for 2.0. If they wait 5 years I may end up selling my stuff and I doubt I'll want to reinvest.

This is all moot anyway since we know FFG won't be making 2.0.

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I'd be willing to pay money NOW for 2.0. If they wait 5 years I may end up selling my stuff and I doubt I'll want to reinvest.

Same. At the current rate, I doubt I'll play much Armada past a few months out. I already find the current competitive environment really boring, trying out weird combos is all I'm really enjoying these days. I would gladly drop money on 2.0 today, but I'm not even sure if that holds true 6 months from now.

1 hour ago, IronNerd said:

Same. At the current rate, I doubt I'll play much Armada past a few months out. I already find the current competitive environment really boring, trying out weird combos is all I'm really enjoying these days. I would gladly drop money on 2.0 today, but I'm not even sure if that holds true 6 months from now.

How does 2.0 change up the competitive environment though?

3 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

How does 2.0 change up the competitive environment though?

Since it doesn't exist, that's impossible to tell. Depending on what they did, it could change a lot of "problems" (these are my opinions) with Armada:

• Activation advantage/disadvantage (and by extension, first/last)
• Different viable objectives
• Tweaked point costs to make other ships (more) viable
• Overall squadron power balance, especially concerning aces

Small changes could have huge impacts. We could assume a change and discuss how that changes "the meta", but it's impossible to make an overarching judgment.

Yes. Several of the commanders could work a lot better if reworded, several out to cost less/more, several of the early ships while still totally relevant should have their stats reworked some, like an extra die on the MC80 side arcs would be totally appropriate I think.

Here's my 2.0 plan:

• Reprint all cards with errata for future reprints and waves.
• Add all errata and new upgrade icons to the rules reference (even if it is just the pdf
• Keep shops well supplied
• Profit

1 hour ago, RedPriest said:

Here's my 1.0 plan:

• Keep shops well supplied 
• Profit

Fixed*

lol

14 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Fixed*

lol

Woooosh.

On 1/25/2019 at 7:31 AM, MasterThrawn said:

I just want to buy two lucrehulks and paint them yellow! most obnoxious looking donut fleet!

You are going to need some colorful sprinkles on those!

2 hours ago, richarDISNEY said:

You are going to need some colorful sprinkles on those!

Those are vulture Droids

On 1/23/2019 at 11:03 PM, FlyingAnchors said:

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 didn't think of that. Yeah, a 2.0 version of Armada being released with conversion kits would have me pull out of future versions.

I think a rules update and a new campaign or set of scenarios would be best.

1 hour ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

I didn't think of that. Yeah, a 2.0 version of Armada being released with conversion kits would have me pull out of future versions.

I think a rules update and a new campaign or set of scenarios would be best.

Rule clarifications for the new mechanics would be nice, as well at least 3 campaigns I can think of:

Rise of Rebellion: Smaller Rebel cells struggle to make a dent in the imperial war machine, leads up to the big Climax which is the battle of scarif. (Rebels start with 200 points per fleet, empire 300. will need to be heavily balanced by having multiple objectives per mission. The big climax battle is an Epic team game).

Hunting the plans: The rebel alliance struggles to setup and keep listening posts for it's spy network going, while the empire is constantly protecting it's shipping lane resources. If the rebels can decrypt the message before the empire completes its project, Both sides will engage in the ultimate fleet battle: Assaulting the second death star At Endor!

Empire's End: A crumbling Empire struggles to maintain order throughout it's remaining sectors. Both sides will battle for control of various planets in the outer rim, with the Final battle taking place on Jakku.

At FFGs current production pace, 2.0 will be out in about 10 years. They need to be able to support v1 before even thinking of v2.

For the record, v2 not necessary at this point.

Regarding the “Intel gives Grit” propsal which seems popular (I’m intrigued)... has anyone tried it? Has anyone tried it a whole lot?

19 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

Regarding the “Intel gives Grit” propsal which seems popular (I’m intrigued)... has anyone tried it? Has anyone tried it a whole lot?

Yes.

Well if Rulesgod tested it, I guess I know what the next FAQ will have to say about Intel.

Meant as a joke.

2.0 no way. I will take a 1.x errata replacement cards pack. I’d buy that in a heartbeat.