19 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:Found a picture of the Armada 2.0 Core Set :
Well joking enough as it is sometimes I feel this joke can be made about X-wing 2nd edition. With the moving tank like turrets and the different terrain features that you can now stop on, these new mechanics exaggerates the 2-dimensional playing field of X-wing.
6 hours ago, codytx2 said:One of the interesting things X-Wing 2.0 did was sliding scale cost upgrades. Putting overload pulse on a Raider would cost +2pts(?) more than if the upgrade was on an ISD.
Armada does not need this. the Game has no were near the weight that X Wing does. There are so many ships and talents that upgrades need to cost more on different ships due thinks like pilot skill
I cant think of an example of where this would be need.
2 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:Armada does not need this. the Game has no were near the weight that X Wing does. There are so many ships and talents that upgrades need to cost more on different ships due thinks like pilot skill
I cant think of an example of where this would be need.
I can.
Incentivise things one way or another - ECM cheaper for smaller ships than Larges, for example... Nake the “guarantee takes” on certain things more of a choice.
but do you really want to make Tua ECM's cheaper on a Gozanti?
I know people hate TRC corvettes but if you increased the cost it makes them hard to play.
so would you increase the cost of TRC then lower ECM for them kinda becomes counter productive
I dont really like the the sliding scale X Wing is doing. you are forced to use a apps thats not user friendly. Gone are the days where you can build a list in your head on the drive home from work.
2 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:but do you really want to make Tua ECM's cheaper on a Gozanti?
I know people hate TRC corvettes but if you increased the cost it makes them hard to play.
so would you increase the cost of TRC then lower ECM for them kinda becomes counter productive
I dont really like the the sliding scale X Wing is doing. you are forced to use a apps thats not user friendly. Gone are the days where you can build a list in your head on the drive home from work.
Frankly I love the idea of incentivizing Tua Gozantis.
The fewer ECM ISDs I face the better. I can’t ram them to death in one turn.
besides, what’s not to say the small baseline isn’t 7 points as it is now?
Were talking as part of s whole across scale refit though, so it’s difficult to ascribe in a vacuum, and then add further comparative factors.
I just forsée potential.
Edited by Drasnighta11 hours ago, X Wing Nut said:Armada does not need this. the Game has no were near the weight that X Wing does. There are so many ships and talents that upgrades need to cost more on different ships due thinks like pilot skill
I cant think of an example of where this would be need.
I simply stated I thought it was interesting; not that it was needed to fix something or even that something was broken. However, if the current meta, either local or overall, seems stale than point adjusting is the widest reaching tool to remedy that w/o adding new mechanics or upgrades that render older items useless or create broken combos. I agree that the current status of the app for X-Wing resembles something closer to a class project than a finished product from an industry leading company and from observation that is generally where the reluctance lies, not the app but the quality of what exists.
On 3/28/2019 at 10:37 PM, Church14 said:Using the legion activation system sounds terrible.....
Armada always seemed to have a point where one player or the other had a “bad turn” where their opponent would be just out of range and they had to move a model into range for no good purpose. I think too this feels worse when you are playing a list with few ships as you can lose an entire turn before you get to shoot.
I think the fix will be a significant change to the game, my suggestion would be to allow red dice to be shot before or after moving. But I haven’t tried this out myself, so it could be pretty broken in any case.
Beyond that I would love an app that would do all of the planning and book work.
No 2.0 coming I think. Not now I mean, but maybe in the future?
If you look at X-wing it's the same game really. The core rules have been streamlined and improved, but the game remains the same.
That would have to be true for Armada 2.0 - unless they want to make an entirely new game.
There would be an app. Variable points and upgrade slots. Variable upgrade pricing.
Every ship, squadron and upgrade would be reworked. Some a little, some more. They would try to remain true to the old version, but not at every cost.
Stuff like Demo and Yavaris would get long hard looks. And if allowed in their old form heavily costed.
Aura buffs would either be weaker or removed, as they have the most potential for abuse.
A lot of thought would go into making all fleet types viable. Small, medium and large ships. Low squad, middle or heavy. Few upgrades or many.
Emphasis on careful manoeuvring and squad play.
More factions could be added.
Edited by Green Knight9 hours ago, Green Knight said:No 2.0 coming I think. Not now I mean, but maybe in the future?
If you look at X-wing it's the same game really. The core rules have been streamlined and improved, but the game remains the same.
That would have to be true for Armada 2.0 - unless they want to make an entirely new game.
There would be an app. Variable points and upgrade slots. Variable upgrade pricing.
Every ship, squadron and upgrade would be reworked. Some a little, some more. They would try to remain true to the old version, but not at every cost.
Stuff like Demo and Yavaris would get long hard looks. And if allowed in their old form heavily costed.
Aura buffs would either be weaker or removed, as they have the most potential for abuse.
A lot of thought would go into making all fleet types viable. Small, medium and large ships. Low squad, middle or heavy. Few upgrades or many.
Emphasis on careful manoeuvring and squad play.
More factions could be added.
Well thought out and good comparison. So here is why it isn’t going to happen anytime soon....TIME. All of those things take time and manpower to do. I think we all know that FFG is stretched thin at this point and our game SEEMS to get the least amount of time and manpower put into it. Do you see them pulling people from Legion or X-Wing to do that?
Probably not.
If I was given the power to change one thing about Armada, as it is on this day, it would be:
Yes, it would still allow a "pseudo last-first" if you had enough activation, but you'd need at least 1 more activation than before.
More importantly, it would put a limit on Pryce last-first and (the somewhat less abusive) Bail last-first (where Bail ship gets a double activation by out-waiting the opposition, then activating top of next round).
Of course, it would not completely negate Pryce, as the Pryce 2 to 2.5 ship player could go last with say a Quasar and then first with another ship, say an ISD. Still powerful, but way more complex - and not quite as broken, I think. It would be excellent if Pryce STILL was a hugely good card, yet with some additional checks and balances.
Is this like to happen? I think not. After all, we suffered years of Demo last-first, so why not some Pryce last-first?
But still, if I were allowed to change ONE thing, this would be it.
If I were given further powers to make Armada better, I would look long and hard at the squadron play:
There would not be less squads on table, and they would be just as deadly, but there would be fewer aces and less crazy distance aura interactions to keep track of.
I’d force a change in sequencing activations. I think I would work it in descending order. So all command 4 must activate first, then all command 3, and so on.
Pryce and Bail would NOT allow a ship to activate outside their command level. So Pryce would allow an ISD to activate last out of all the command 3 ships, but every command 2 and command 1 would still activate after. Strategic Advisor would be allowed to be tapped during any command level. So your ISD could exhaust SAd to delay a quasar or raider activating.
Though this would make Relentless a far more interesting title.
I have not playtested this and for all I know it would destroy balance. I’m just having a harder and harder time playing Imperials since they seem to be increasingly relying on last-firsting. I don’t even think MMJ is that big of a problem if brought in a list that isn’t built around trying to last-first
Edited by Church142 hours ago, Green Knight said:
- Generics also tend to be command-intensive, so I would give ships the ability to command (Squadron value/2, rounded down) squads without any command. A dial would allow the full squad value, of course, and the squad token +1 squads as before
I’ve long thought something needs to be done about generics. I’ve never got that battle of Endor ‘there’s too many of them’ vibe with armada.
As you say, with no major rework looking likely I thought a ‘swarm tactics expert’ could be a reasonable first start. Give a ship with this officer the ability to activate an extra 4 generic squadrons with the swarm keyword. Just a random thought I had.
A second thought I had was regarding hyperdrives. Reb fighter have these for a reason, imp philosophy revolves around swarms. Maybe some effect to factor this in somehow to simulate the strategic & tactical flexibility the hyperdrive offers. What this could actually be, I don’t know yet.
Simplified squadrons, less upgrade slots on ships, more ships in battles would be my wishlist for 2.0
7 hours ago, Church14 said:I’d force a change in sequencing activations. I think I would work it in descending order. So all command 4 must activate first, then all command 3, and so on.
Pryce and Bail would NOT allow a ship to activate outside their command level. So Pryce would allow an ISD to activate last out of all the command 3 ships, but every command 2 and command 1 would still activate after. Strategic Advisor would be allowed to be tapped during any command level. So your ISD could exhaust SAd to delay a quasar or raider activating.
Though this would make Relentless a far more interesting title.
I have not playtested this and for all I know it would destroy balance. I’m just having a harder and harder time playing Imperials since they seem to be increasingly relying on last-firsting. I don’t even think MMJ is that big of a problem if brought in a list that isn’t built around trying to last-first
I think I may have to try this out just to see how this would work. Question; would both sides need to complete their higher command ships before either side could move down to the next level? For clarification assume Player one has 3 ships with command 3, 2 and 2. Player two has 4 ships with commands 3, 3, 2 and 1. Would player 1 have to wait to activate their command 2 ships until after player 2 activates both of theirs? Or would Player 1 be able to active a command 2 ship as their second activation?
3 hours ago, Fraggle_Rock said:I think I may have to try this out just to see how this would work. Question; would both sides need to complete their higher command ships before either side could move down to the next level? For clarification assume Player one has 3 ships with command 3, 2 and 2. Player two has 4 ships with commands 3, 3, 2 and 1. Would player 1 have to wait to activate their command 2 ships until after player 2 activates both of theirs? Or would Player 1 be able to active a command 2 ship as their second activation?
Yeah. So player 1 would have to move 2 SSDs before any of player 2’s AFmk2 would move. If player 1 also had a raider, then that would move last here.
Activations: the same other then initiative swaps each round and first player gains the ability to "seize the initiative" on a round they would normally not get to go first, but only once a game.
Objective rework: so all objectives provide some way to get points.
Squadron rework: there are many ways to take this but the key is to make intel give squadrons Grit or to let squadrons attack ships even if engaged, but. An engaging squadron gets a free attack and/or ships getto attack the squadron first with AA and only if the squadron survived can it deliver it payload, with this it would call for the rework of other aspects of the squadron game like escort would prevent the free squadron attack or it would have to be done against the escort it practically a complete rework, but at the core it's the same. Something also has to be done with aces they need ether some sort of cap or points increase, or lose their deffinse tokens.
APP: Make for easy point adjustment.
That is what I see coming in a 2.0, but some of this stuff could be just added as more of a 1.5 Errata pack then a full blown 2.0.
On 4/1/2019 at 8:17 AM, Green Knight said:No 2.0 coming I think. Not now I mean, but maybe in the future?
If you look at X-wing it's the same game really. The core rules have been streamlined and improved, but the game remains the same.
That would have to be true for Armada 2.0 - unless they want to make an entirely new game.
There would be an app. Variable points and upgrade slots. Variable upgrade pricing.
Every ship, squadron and upgrade would be reworked. Some a little, some more. They would try to remain true to the old version, but not at every cost.
Stuff like Demo and Yavaris would get long hard looks. And if allowed in their old form heavily costed.
Aura buffs would either be weaker or removed, as they have the most potential for abuse.
A lot of thought would go into making all fleet types viable. Small, medium and large ships. Low squad, middle or heavy. Few upgrades or many.
Emphasis on careful manoeuvring and squad play.
More factions could be added.
why does everyone hate demolisher so much, it was barely used at worlds and its already been majorly nerfed
4 minutes ago, MasterThrawn said:why does everyone hate demolisher so much, it was barely used at worlds and its already been majorly nerfed
Hating Demo since 2015 (while having it in the majority of my lists).
In the current meta Demo is still ok, but it ain't no Avenger ISD with Pryce and maxed squads.
What confirmation of more huge ships?
6 hours ago, mazz0 said:What confirmation of more huge ships?
Two sizable ships.
Not huge ships.
1 hour ago, Green Knight said:Two sizable ships.
Not huge ships.
Ah. Quite different!