On 3/30/2019 at 9:29 AM, Nostromoid said:

@AdmiralOldOwlz I think you can assume that the eight new squadron cards to be revealed are one new unique squadron for each fighter type in R&V. So...

• YT-1300: Lando Calrissian (Millennium Falcon)
• YT-2400: ?
• HWK-290: ?
• Scurrg: ?
• Firespray: ?
• JumpMaster: ?
• YV-666: ?
• Aggressor: IG-88B (IG-2000B)

I think this is an interesting guess, especially considering the number of squads and the two revealed so far.

I wonder if we may get some Clone Wars characters such as Jango Fett, Aurra Sing, or Embo for the Imperial side. Its also possible they will be unique non-character squadrons (Like Gold or Saber) such as Trandoshan Slavers (YV-666) and Contracted Mercenaries (Jumpmaster) with the mention of irregular squadrons. On the Rebel side Kyle Kataran (HWK-290) or Outer Rim Smuggler.

Or FFG could just pull pilots out of the X-Wing list. I don't really care! Just bring on some new stuff!

Duplicate post. My bad.

4 hours ago, WhatsArmadaWithYou said:

I think this is an interesting guess, especially considering the number of squads and the two revealed so far.

I wonder if we may get some Clone Wars characters such as Jango Fett, Aurra Sing, or Embo for the Imperial side. Its also possible they will be unique non-character squadrons (Like Gold or Saber) such as Trandoshan Slavers (YV-666) and Contracted Mercenaries (Jumpmaster) with the mention of irregular squadrons. On the Rebel side Kyle Kataran (HWK-290) or Outer Rim Smuggler.

Or FFG could just pull pilots out of the X-Wing list. I don't really care! Just bring on some new stuff!

Yeah. was wondering about re-using from X-Wing. Took a look at the 2.0 Wiki and that could give us:

YT-2400: Leebo
HWK-290: Kyle Katarn or Roark Garnet
Scurrg: Sol Sixxa
Firespray: Kath Scarlet, Emon Azzameen, Koshka Frost, or Krassis Trelix
JumpMaster: Manaroo or Tel Trevura
YV-666: Latts Razzi or Moralo Eval

Plenty options for them there with previously used FFG characters, so there's already artwork and probably some basis for what type of mechanics they could pull into Armada.

Question about Lando. "1 or more dice" = "any number of dice"?

5 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Question about Lando. "1 or more dice" = "any number of dice"?

Well...not zero dice.

I know that may seem like a non-realistic distinction, but if there were an upgrade in the game that triggered only when another upgrade was triggered, then this would come into play.

A good title for the vsdwould be a dream come true

Found the card art for the vic on Wookieepedia.

I posted this is the thread about squadron fixing, but thought it'd fit here as well. To me it looks like the something Hanger Deck upgrade reads "When a non-unique squadron with SWARM? at distance 1-X"... 2 more words in that line, then 5 words in the next line and then 7 more lines that I can't decipher.

The beginning part at least sounds like a card to me and looks like it has all the right spacing/lengths for those first 2 lines. What all the details are and what it actually does is beyond my pixel reading power though.

One can hope it might be something to buff swarm's of TIE's though.

53 minutes ago, cadetvw said:

I posted this is the thread about squadron fixing, but thought it'd fit here as well. To me it looks like the something Hanger Deck upgrade reads "When a non-unique squadron with SWARM? at distance 1-X"... 2 more words in that line, then 5 words in the next line and then 7 more lines that I can't decipher.

The beginning part at least sounds like a card to me and looks like it has all the right spacing/lengths for those first 2 lines. What all the details are and what it actually does is beyond my pixel reading power though.

One can hope it might be something to buff swarm's of TIE's though.

Something that buffs swarm without other conditions just makes Sloane even better for Imperials.

Something that buffs non-limited (non-unique?) squadrons with swarm would be a different story.

Something I'd like to see with the addition of new objectives, is the cycling out of some old ones, at least for tournaments. that way, new ones don't always have to be constantly competing with the most used ones to see use.

7 hours ago, homedrone said:

Something I'd like to see with the addition of new objectives, is the cycling out of some old ones, at least for tournaments. that way, new ones don't always have to be constantly competing with the most used ones to see use.

That's not likely to happen. Will bring extra stuff to keep track of, but might also rule out strategies based around certain objectives. Making certain lists less/not playable for that tournament and with that maybe even decreasing the variety instead of increasing it.

Cycling objectives ... Like Objectives permitted in Q1, thoses ones for Q2, theses for Q3, and lastly all projets objectives only granted in Q4?

Super on board for the introduction of "Banned Objectives This Season", from Store Champs onward. Objectives are the easiest thing to proxy without a card. Dropping Most Wanted, Contested Outpost, Superior Positions / Solar Corona suddenly opens up a lot of fleet design space and requires people to approach first player very differently. Leave at least two of the Core Set r/y/u options open to make sure newer players arent SOL, but making such a list for organized play is just as much work for new players as all the errata.

On 4/20/2019 at 3:28 AM, homedrone said:

Something I'd like to see with the addition of new objectives, is the cycling out of some old ones, at least for tournaments. that way, new ones don't always have to be constantly competing with the most used ones to see use.

10 hours ago, evoimperative said:

Super on board for the introduction of "Banned Objectives This Season", from Store Champs onward. Objectives are the easiest thing to proxy without a card. Dropping Most Wanted, Contested Outpost, Superior Positions / Solar Corona suddenly opens up a lot of fleet design space and requires people to approach first player very differently. Leave at least two of the Core Set r/y/u options open to make sure newer players arent SOL, but making such a list for organized play is just as much work for new players as all the errata.

I cannot disagree more wholeheartedly. Yes, there are those objectives that you see over and over again. But not because they are too strong, but because the others are too weak. Always keep in mind that an objective is there to counter first player advantage. We are already at the point where nearly none complete set (i.e. one of each color) is able to do that. Hence, we have high bids quite often - and always for first player. We need more objectives like superior positions, not fewer.

One of the roles should be stronger. That's why the bid is there to self balance. If the weaker role is 2nd player because of rotation that opens up the number of objectives played, I'm ok with That.

1 hour ago, homedrone said:

One of the roles should be stronger. That's why the bid is there to self balance. If the weaker role is 2nd player because of rotation that opens up the number of objectives played, I'm ok with That.

I think it’s better to have equally balanced roles. The bid rewards the winner with choice, not direct in-game advantage. The real reward should having a better plan than your opponent, and that plan should be evenly weighted toward first or second player.

I also think perfect balance would be the best. But it's not going to happen. One of the sides will be stronger than the other. The bid mechanic softens that organically.

If there are a number of objectives being chosen at a much higher rate than others, cutting those off could open up the variety a lot. As has been said, the second player might not be the desirable role in that world, but then that drives players to bid higher for first. leaving room for people who make lists work with their objectives to ignore the bid race. If the bids became crazy, and 1st was still crushing it.. then FFG would probably have to make some other kind of change. I just don't think it's that big a problem yet, and more variety would be great.

All I REALLY want is the objectives to all be more equal in advantage to the second player to encourage more variety there. So re-doing the underused objectives would be awesome. That just hasn't been FFG's way of doing re balancing of things like that so far. If Armada got an App like X-wing did for point cost balancing, I'd hope objectives could also be adjusted in a similar way, but sometimes it can't be a simple number fix. They do do cycling though. I think it could open up the play variety here.

46 minutes ago, homedrone said:

I also think perfect balance would be the best. But it's not going to happen. One of the sides will be stronger than the other. The bid mechanic softens that organically.

If there are a number of objectives being chosen at a much higher rate than others, cutting those off could open up the variety a lot. As has been said, the second player might not be the desirable role in that world, but then that drives players to bid higher for first. leaving room for people who make lists work with their objectives to ignore the bid race. If the bids became crazy, and 1st was still crushing it.. then FFG would probably have to make some other kind of change. I just don't think it's that big a problem yet, and more variety would be great.

All I REALLY want is the objectives to all be more equal in advantage to the second player to encourage more variety there. So re-doing the underused objectives would be awesome. That just hasn't been FFG's way of doing re balancing of things like that so far. If Armada got an App like X-wing did for point cost balancing, I'd hope objectives could also be adjusted in a similar way, but sometimes it can't be a simple number fix. They do do cycling though. I think it could open up the play variety here.

Perfection doesn't need to be attained, just a high enough level of balance that nobody can recognize clear flaws. The problem is why MW and AG are the backbone of objective suites, and it's not just because they're better than the other reds. It's because if you bring Blockade Run or Station Assault, 2-3 Cymoons will choose them and turn them against you. Fleet Ambush? Demo still kills you, bombers still kill you, Ackbar conga lines still kill you. Madine, Ozzel and Jerry laugh at Nav Hazards, Strategic will show a fleet just where to shove those mines. Those objectives can help your enemy. Worse, previously viable objectives don't work anymore because there's nothing in a different color that list likes to take.

Since getting a second player advantage at all would be matchup dependent, players will just bid harder for first, digging a big hole for one player before the ships hit the table.

Edit: For the record, I agree with what you're trying to achieve. I just believe we need to go in the other direction. The more objectives available, the more combinations open up. The right blue could encourage a Station Assault/Contested Outpost gunline without room for a flotilla, for example. The right red could easily eclipse MW in a shuttle spam list.

On 3/31/2019 at 12:29 AM, Nostromoid said:

@AdmiralOldOwlz I think you can assume that the eight new squadron cards to be revealed are one new unique squadron for each fighter type in R&V. So...

• YT-1300: Lando Calrissian (Millennium Falcon)
• YT-2400: ?
• HWK-290: ?
• Scurrg: ?
• Firespray: ?
• JumpMaster: ?
• YV-666: ?
• Aggressor: IG-88B (IG-2000B)

I hope there's new cards for the other squadron types too. Would be nice to see a Defender other than Maarek, and more use of Z95s. Plus Thane has yet to make an appearance, X-wing alr has him(and lack Ciena haha); and Arvel for an SSD counter.

11 minutes ago, Muelmuel said:

I hope there's new cards for the other squadron types too. Would be nice to see a Defender other than Maarek, and more use of Z95s. Plus Thane has yet to make an appearance, X-wing alr has him(and lack Ciena haha); and Arvel for an SSD counter.

They've got Ciena as Crew, I thought.

On 4/23/2019 at 2:59 PM, The Jabbawookie said:

... It's because if you bring Blockade Run or Station Assault, 2-3 Cymoons will choose them and turn them against you.

Woah. I destroyed 2 out of 3 ISDs in a blockade run. Its one of my favorite objectives because people arnt used to only being able to fly 1/2 as wide esstentially. So it throws some people for a loop. Others are skilled enough commanders it doesnt bother them. Still, its different enough that changes the way people think about deployment, ranges, ect.

I also agree. More objectives the better, because that means someone might not have trained as much on an objective you've chosen and like. Thus, giving you home, field... objective...

I hope that makes sense?

Wouldn’t the unique YT-2400 probably be Iron Squadron or whatever that group of idiots called themselves from Rebels?

The one who hurled cargo containers for of explosives at an Arquitens and thought they killed an ISD.

54 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Wouldn’t the unique YT-2400 probably be Iron Squadron or whatever that group of idiots called themselves from Rebels?

The one who hurled cargo containers for of explosives at an Arquitens and thought they killed an ISD.

This brat: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mart_Mattin

57 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Wouldn’t the unique YT-2400 probably be Iron Squadron or whatever that group of idiots called themselves from Rebels?

The one who hurled cargo containers for of explosives at an Arquitens and thought they killed an ISD.

Even when they did not destroy a Star Destroyer, it would be strange to see a YT2400 that can one shot an Arquitens (in Armada) 😁, but it was a Gozanti that they destroyed, if i remember right.

But it might be one of the best fittings for it. Unless they want to use the X-Wing ones. Leebo for example.

10 minutes ago, Tokra said:

Even when they did not destroy a Star Destroyer, it would be strange to see a YT2400 that can one shot an Arquitens (in Armada) 😁, but it was a Gozanti that they destroyed, if i remember right.

Gozanti in the first instance.

Konstantine’s Arquitens in the second.

Moments before the Chimaera shows up.