Just now, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I think he meant that if demo is in close of something, that something is dying anyway, so boarding teams aren't super useful.

Right, but it's the "discard to use" thing I wanted to focus on - see edit. Given her ability is basically just a better Brunson for close-range-favoring ships, it only really comes up if/when you expect Demo to be making its final charge to death, so...you discard her, anyways, if you want to use that role.

I dunno, I think she's a perfect fit for the ship.

10 minutes ago, xanderf said:

1) Isn't a huge problem, as if the Raider is getting four attacks in a single turn, it's not meaningfully surviving anyway (although I agree it's nice she doesn't exhaust to use this ability)

2) Ummm...no. Brunson requires the enemy to obligingly fly close enough to an obstacle to work, an Brunson only works once a turn (exhaust to use). Even on the Demo, Iden can do the exact same thing twice. For only one point more? No question, Iden wins.

3) Maybe

4) We talking about the same Demolisher, here? It lives in close range, that's literally the only place it can attack from. And even if it dies to enemy fire after the move+shoot thing it does...that's fine, she discards to use, so...if Demo dies, so what?

1) evades can still be used at long range edit: so I'm saying you can still get value out of the other token, aslo it can be used against squad attacks, so a instigator canceling 4 bomber attacks in a single round would be very possible

2) I run demo with Brunson, in dozens of games never once had an issue, range 2 is a big bubble. Also Brunson is in addition to the evade, the evade can be used at long range still (as can Brunson)

4) you misunderstood what I meant, I'm saying the enemy ship should be dead there fore raid on it wouldn't be useful theoretically demo survives (especially with defense upgrades)

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

... I might have to play Imperial just so I can yell "I'm gonna use Death Blossom." with IG88B

The amazing thing is I get this reference...

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

I might have to play Imperial just so I can yell "I'm gonna use Death Blossom." with IG88B

Me too @clontroper5 me too...

Can someone help me set up a Kickstarter? A whole bunch of crows ran to me asking for shelter.

Apparently a whole bunch of salty Armada forum users are trying to eat them???

Please help!

22 minutes ago, duck_bird said:

Can someone help me set up a Kickstarter? A whole bunch of crows ran to me asking for shelter.

Apparently a whole bunch of salty Armada forum users are trying to eat them???

Please help!

You know there are a bunch of us that aren't thrilled about this announcement, right? Y'all need to stop assuming that your opinion is right and antagonizing us that disagree. I was going to leave this thread alone, but you just HAD to go there...

51 minutes ago, JauntyChapeau said:

I still don't really know what Marked For Destruction does - without any way on the card itself to generate objective tokens I have to assume that purrgils will have special text to generate them.

Look more closely at the crit effect: it assigns one to the defender (after first removing them from other enemy ships just so that there can only be one per side). So you can mark your opponent' ships and try the get the purrgils to eat them and give you points as thanks for the lovely snacks.

34 minutes ago, duck_bird said:

Can someone help me set up a Kickstarter? A whole bunch of crows ran to me asking for shelter.

Apparently a whole bunch of salty Armada forum users are trying to eat them???

Please help!

You are incorrect. I'm still salty. While there are interesting things in this campaign, and I'll certainly will get it, it is not what I expected. Run into that shelter yourself. Keep them crows company. We don't want them. 😆

1 hour ago, JauntyChapeau said:

I still don't really know what Marked For Destruction does - without any way on the card itself to generate objective tokens I have to assume that purrgils will have special text to generate them.

10 minutes ago, Villakarvarousku said:

Look more closely at the crit effect: it assigns one to the defender (after first removing them from other enemy ships just so that there can only be one per side). So you can mark your opponent' ships and try the get the purrgils to eat them and give you points as thanks for the lovely snacks.

This, basically. IMO, the more important questions are how and when do purrgils move?

47 minutes ago, xero989 said:

Me too @clontroper5 me too...

Hrm still needs more.

3 hours ago, xanderf said:

2) Ummm...no. Brunson requires the enemy to obligingly fly close enough to an obstacle to work, and Brunson only works once a turn (exhaust to use). Even on the Demo, Iden can do the exact same thing twice. For only one point more? No question, Iden wins.

What are you talking about the defender, aka the ship Brunson is on, has to be in range 1-2 of the obstacle not the attacker?

I am not sure what Iden does. Does she cancel another dice in addition to the one canceled by the evade or what? The wording just seems weird to me

1 minute ago, chr335 said:

I am not sure what Iden does. Does she cancel another dice in addition to the one canceled by the evade or what? The wording just seems weird to me

She allows the evade to work at close range, where it is otherwise worthless

I'm really looking forward to this, but the thing I'm interested in more than anything else is the campaign mechanics, specifically the balancing.

The Corellian Conflict is a lot of fun, but there is almost universal agreement that it suffers from snowballing, though to be fair that's true of a lot of campaign systems. Therefore I want to see how FFG have put this campaign together, and what steps (if any) they have taken to keep games interesting and competitive from start to end...

4 hours ago, clontroper5 said:

Iden versio looks good for a Raider (fitting since she was stationed on a raider) a nice boarding troop with other benifits!

Edit: Heck she can even be paired with boarding Vader and make a really mean raider lol

Corvus title plz!

Not sure if it has been noted already, but Rebellion in the Rim is listed on the site as SWM31 not SWM28 - so we still have that missing.

Just now, Grumbleduke said:

Not sure if it has been noted already, but Rebellion in the Rim is listed on the site as SW31 not SW28 - so we still have that missing.

Clone Wars core set?

Since no one's mentioned it, I'll toss in that the box art definitely deserves some appreciation.

When's the last time you saw an Interdictor trading close-in strafe attacks with an MC-75? And the TIEs might be outnumbered by the B-Wings? And Nebulons are chasing the Interdictor through space? It might be a ridiculous notion to see any of that in an Armada game, but that's a shame because it's gorgeous to look at.

I snooped around the picture for any clues about unreleased ships. The only thing I could see is a blob firing out toward the foreground. I'm pretty sure it's just a Gozanti seen in direct frontal view. But there's some seriously challenging scaling going on with foreground and background, so it's hard to tell.

31 minutes ago, Nostromoid said:

When's the last time you saw an Interdictor trading close-in strafe attacks with an MC-75?

It’s reasonable. Would probably look a lot like that too. 😉

46 minutes ago, Grumbleduke said:

Not sure if it has been noted already, but Rebellion in the Rim is listed on the site as SWM31 not SWM28 - so we still have that missing.

Interesting catch.

• SWM20 - SSD
• SWM21 - Pelta
• SWM22 - ARRRRGHkittens
• SWM23 - Rebel Squadrons II
• SWM24 - Imperial Squadrons II
• SWM25 - Corellian Conflict
• SWM26 - Quasar Fire
• SWM27 - Hammerheads
• SWM28 - ???
• SWM29 - Chimaera w/ Mandos
• SWM30 - Profundity
• SWM31 - Rebellion in the Rim

SKU puts it in the batch of stuff from Rebels/Rogue One. Sooooo...I call Dornean Gunship + U-Wing kit! 😎

9 minutes ago, xanderf said:

SWM22 - ARRRRGHkittens

LOL

Does somebody will try to synthetise all cards and guessing the unreadable ones?

We got a Victory title! That's on my personnal opinion enough tout get me excited and happy to still be playing that game.

2 minutes ago, AdmiralOldOwlz said:

Does somebody will try to synthetise all cards and guessing the unreadable ones?

We got a Victory title! That's on my personnal opinion enough tout get me excited and happy to still be playing that game.

What about the card with the TIE/ln fighters?

I really want to know about "irregular squadrons" (as mentioned in the Hired Scum objective). I thought this was a brand-new term. However, someone pointed out that the paper insert for Rogues & Villains addresses this. Sure enough, checking Crabbok's unboxing video from way back in 2015, I see a paragraph that I do not recall ever noticing:

Quote

Irregular Squadrons: All squadrons in this expansion are Irregular squadrons. Squadrons of this type feature a single plastic fighter model (instead of three). Despite this difference in appearance, irregular squadrons follow all of the rules for normal squadrons.

So, this rather obscure game term is not new at all, and in fact has been quietly laying around, never mentioned or acknowledged by any other rules or effects in the game, until four years later! This is all so interesting to me. It gives us a class of units in Armada that started with the YT-1300, YT-2400, HWK-290, Scurrg, Firespray, YV-666, Aggressor, and Jumpmaster, and since then has actually been added onto. Though it's never mattered until now, the Lambda, Decimator, Gauntlet, VCX, and Lancer are all irregular squadrons, and always have been. As are all of their unique analogues.

I like the irregular keyword, though I suppose it's a little bit unintuitive. The name seems right for mercenary forces that exist outside of the traditional military organization of either the Rebellion or Empire, hence all the bounty hunters and civilian craft in this category. But that would make the Decimator and Lambda a poor fit, being irregulars only be technicality and not really in their fictional roles. Meanwhile, some Rebel fighters could have been irregulars if they were flown by pirates or outlaws fighting a common enemy of the Alliance, like the odd Z-95 or Y-Wing. Still, by the rules, your "Hired Scum" (for either faction?) are allowed to consist of all Lambda shuttles.

I've been saying that Armada could use more tags. Stuff like this makes it easier for rules to interact with other rules. Contrast this with rules for unique squadrons, for which the only defined term is "unique" and "non-unique." This completely prevents future rules from interacting with the eight "Corellian Conflict" squadrons (Gold, Rogue, Dagger, Green, Saber, Gamma, Tempest, Black) differently from "ace" squadrons. The rules can't distinguish between them (without being obnoxiously wordy) because, from the rules' point of view, there is no definitional difference.

Oh boy... I think I might be reading a bit into it, but here is my theory...

12 hours ago, AdmiralOldOwlz said:

We got a Victory title!

If that title is Protector we might see Admiral Harkov, who defected to the Rebellion with his whole fleet aka Victory SD for rebels? In his fleet he also had the Nebulon-B Akaga which would explain why Nebulons on the cover are "behind" the interdictor, because they are Imperial vessels! Now this isn't news that the Empire used Nebulon-b's , but if they are trading ships to opposing factions, this would be a sweet way to do it. And if we go further, an MC-40 named Warhawk rescued Harkov and his fleet, but were destroyed by Vader. (next rebel ship?)

In the same game, where I took this information, There is Captain Raymus A. who fights a crime leader named Tyber Zann, who runs the Zann Consortium. The Zann Consortium finds plans for the Imperial Eclipse Dreadnaught. Zann manages to capture the Dreadnaught after the battle of Endor. Which could be another rebellion ship? Also new squadron: TIE Avenger.

Oh man I've gone to far... Don't listen to me. I am a fool!