20 minutes ago, LordCola said:

Really, which? Not trying to be a smart a*s, just genuinely can't think of one right now but someone will probably point out some really obvious ones.

I can't either, but if you could choose the order in that case, then what would be the point of gaining an objective token if you can turn it right away into a victory token? Why not just make you gain a victory token?

4 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

I can't either, but if you could choose the order in that case, then what would be the point of gaining an objective token if you can turn it right away into a victory token? Why not just make you gain a victory token?

Good point.

2 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Step 1: turn objective tokens into victory tokens on surviving ships with them.
Step 2: grab objective tokens from whale-watching

Ah, even worse, I based my post on the Video Karneck made about it.

34 minutes ago, RapidReload said:

Ah, even worse, I based my post on the Video Karneck made about it.

Yeah, you are basically aiming to start your entire fleet to grab early tokens on turn 1, before the combat ships move off. Leave 3 ships for whale watching, you get:

Turn 1: 0 objectives scored, gain 5 tokens (assuming a 5-ship list)
Turn 2: 5 objectives scored, gain 3 tokens (assuming 3-ship whale watching party while the big boys go off to fight)
Turn 3-6: 3 objectives scored, gain 3 tokens

So potentially up to 17 objective tokens. 340 pts? I'll take it!

3 hours ago, LordCola said:

Really, which? Not trying to be a smart a*s, just genuinely can't think of one right now but someone will probably point out some really obvious ones.

Just off the top of my head.

21 hours ago, RapidReload said:

The Purrgil cannot move across the ships that only have to park there to farm 60 points every second round - 180 overall. A life boat and two flotillas, that leaves room for all sorts of "fun" Sloane, BTA ISD, MMJ shenanigangs or similar on top of the farm engine to block any ships that attempt to close in fast. If anyone gets close, speed 1 or 2 on the ships is still slow enough to escort the purgills the last few rounds. Enemies would have to close in very fast and recklessly to attempt to mitigate this farm engine and such straight approaches are usually easily headed of. Maybe Raddus could do something, but even then, if you know where Raddus is coming and have squads its not that much of an issue. Also obstacles can be placed to create a sort of screen for the farm.

I mean, this is just silly, no? I am tempted to say the most stupid imbalanced objective so far. I assume this got playtested .. what happened there? Am I misunderstanding something?

Cheers

This does seem very good, although it's somewhat unavoidable that fleet + objective synergies would become tighter and tighter as more content is released. SSD + Advanced Gunnery is probably the most obscene combo that exists now- I think that objective is essentially unpickable. The same is probably true of Hyperspace Migration as you describe it, but in my personal experience (I haven't played in about a year) there was very little Blue objective variety, I only ever saw Solar Corona and Superior Positions. For that reason I'm not immediately put off by a super powerful Blue objective.

You can run an SSD and two flotillas in 400 points. With Advanced Gunnery, Hyperspace Migration, and a bid for second player you could force your opponent to pick Yellow. I wonder how bad that would be? What would be the worst you could do?

8 hours ago, RapidReload said:

Ah, even worse, I based my post on the Video Karneck made about it.

I'm confused, what part did I get wrong because I'm really confident I didn't mess anything up.

For too long now has the paradigm of First Player ruled Armada! Only with this, and more objectives like it , will balance be brought to the ̶F̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ game! When we see players regularly bidding 10-15 points for second (let alone 20-30!), then we will know that balance will have been achieved!

-manifesto of a regular second player

I do take the point about boring gameplay seriously....but will it be that boring? This objective forces you into a very predictable path if you want to keep harvesting tokens. And predictability is death...your opponent can very reliably concentrate all 400 points of their fleet against 350 of yours, at a predicted time and place. You can choose to break formation and give up points, but then you're giving up on potential points. Tactical decision making time!

6 hours ago, Karneck said:

I'm confused, what part did I get wrong because I'm really confident I didn't mess anything up.

So first of all thanks for your videos, is always great if people take the time to generate Armada content.

I looked at the video again in case I misunderstood you and it seems first you say that one cannot spend and take a token again in the same turn, then you say the opposite, probably I got confused. So no slight intended.

6 hours ago, Maturin said:

For too long now has the paradigm of First Player ruled Armada! Only with this, and more objectives like it , will balance be brought to the ̶F̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ game! When we see players regularly bidding 10-15 points for second (let alone 20-30!), then we will know that balance will have been achieved!

-manifesto of a regular second player

Funny, but it hasn't really.

I think the first/second player dynamic is currently not that unbalanced, Bids are that huge because First Player Lists compete for the bid in direct match ups. They are heavily punished if they are forced to play second. Second player lists, such as win many of the major tournaments at this point, don't need bother with this and can use more stuff as well as play to their objectives.

I played Hyperspace Migration with an MC80 Command Cruiser and 3 other ships vs an SSD. I played with the interpretation that you can't get a token and spend it in the same turn and still managed to get 180 points from tokens. I also had VCX and was able to split my fleet and get tokens from the second Purgill where I wanted it.

I think a reading of the rules that lets you spend a token and get another on the same is way too overpowered. When it's alternating turns I think it's manageable if not tough.

And yeah you have the argument that 'well just pick another objective then' but it's not like the other two are always going to be good choices. I had Fire Lanes (SSD player picking fire lanes vs VCX is just handing me lots of easy points) and Advanced Gunnery which is giving me more fire output from my MC80 than his SSD front arc. Yeah you can always pick another objectives but there needs to be some semblance of balance for each objective!

51 minutes ago, Zamalekite said:

I think a reading of the rules that lets you spend a token and get another on the same is way too overpowered.

Agreed, well I feel I voiced my thoughts enough.
All that remains is for me to exploit the heck out of it if it is released as announced.

Maybe Moralo can kill all three farm ships in turn 1, that would solve the problem right there :-p.

7 hours ago, RapidReload said:

So first of all thanks for your videos, is always great if people take the time to generate Armada content.

I looked at the video again in case I misunderstood you and it seems first you say that one cannot spend and take a token again in the same turn, then you say the opposite, probably I got confused. So no slight intended.

Ahhh, not clear enough on the whole

"Its not THIS way, its THIS way" example I was giving there. I'll see if I can edit it to be clearer or reshoot it.

3 minutes ago, Karneck said:

Ahhh, not clear enough on the whole

"Its not THIS way, its THIS way" example I was giving there. I'll see if I can edit it to be clearer or reshoot it.

Could you just add an annotation in the middle of the video? That's what Khan Academy does when Sal makes a minor speaking error. Reshooting sounds tedious.

8 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Could you just add an annotation in the middle of the video? That's what Khan Academy does when Sal makes a minor speaking error. Reshooting sounds tedious.

Plus, that's easier to change later when FFG erratas it to have a different meeting entirely. 😜

1 hour ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Could you just add an annotation in the middle of the video? That's what Khan Academy does when Sal makes a minor speaking error. Reshooting sounds tedious.

Youtube changed so that you can no longer do annotations sadly.

16 hours ago, Karneck said:

Youtube changed so that you can no longer do annotations sadly.

I wonder what the thinking there was, because a lot of people were relying on them a lot for linking sources and stuff. What a weird thing to cut.

The board game youtuber JonGetsGames uses the Klingon subtitles to add corrections after publishing. It works well, but I guess you do have to tell people to turn them on every time so it's not ideal either.

4 hours ago, Villakarvarousku said:

I wonder what the thinking there was, because a lot of people were relying on them a lot for linking sources and stuff. What a weird thing to cut.

The board game youtuber JonGetsGames uses the Klingon subtitles to add corrections after publishing. It works well, but I guess you do have to tell people to turn them on every time so it's not ideal either.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mashable.com/article/the-death-of-youtube-annotations.amp

Never worked properly on mobile, apparently. There was no way to turn them off if you wanted to, I think.

First sorry for the necromancy of the thread.

My group just played our first two rounds of the RitR campaign, and we have some questions regarding this mission.

We understand that there are three things that happen during the "End of Round" section. The Purrgil moves, You score, you place objective tokens.

We have a slight divide on the order of things.

I believe that the order should be as I just stated where the Purrgil(s) must move first, then you score what within distance 1, and then assign new objective tokens.

Since there is now exact order of play for this scenario, we decided as a group to have it be Score, Assign objective tokens, move purrgil.

Is there an official/unofficial stance on what the order of play is supposed to go?

Edit: my logic stems from how the gravity rift works for the Doomed Station mission.

There is no official word from FFG yet, my unofficial stance is already mentioned in my SWAE video.

12 hours ago, Deeple101 said:

First sorry for the necromancy of the thread.

My group just played our first two rounds of the RitR campaign, and we have some questions regarding this mission.

We understand that there are three things that happen during the "End of Round" section. The Purrgil moves, You score, you place objective tokens.

We have a slight divide on the order of things.

I believe that the order should be as I just stated where the Purrgil(s) must move first, then you score what within distance 1, and then assign new objective tokens.

Since there is now exact order of play for this scenario, we decided as a group to have it be Score, Assign objective tokens, move purrgil.

Is there an official/unofficial stance on what the order of play is supposed to go?

Edit: my logic stems from how the gravity rift works for the Doomed Station mission.

But Doomed Station explicitly states how it works. Hyperspace Migration doesn't. Given you have two separate end of round triggers, we have to decide who "owns" them, as that will determine what order they trigger in. If the first player owned one and the second player the other, that's how they would resolve. If one player owned both, they'd resolve in the order of their choosing. There is no concept of a "neutral" player, either effects are owned by the first player or the second player.

It stands to reason that the second player owns the objective. It also stands to reason that the second player owns the purrgils created by that objective, especially given when purrgils move it begins with the second player. Therefore, the most consistent way to apply this objective is the second player chooses at the end of the round if the purrgils move first or if the objective does the entirety of its "eat tokens for points, spit out more tokens from whale-watching" routine.

We need an FAQ, regardless, but I've talked this objective out so many times now and I simply can't find another interpretation that has as much consistency and rules backing as the one I gave above.

What is really the wording in English for moving towards? Cause in Spanish it says that if it cannot move the minimum distance it moved to closes point to the line that is the end of the minimum distance segment.

I mean, a purgill touching the rear of a small base ship could jump in front of that ship and be placed touching the front of the ship as that point is closer to the line than the other. The end of distance 2 is closer to the end of the distance 1 than the beginning of distance 1.

The "Towards" keyword is explained in the RitR RRG.

1 hour ago, Karneck said:

The "Towards" keyword is explained in the RitR RRG.

No, really?

3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

What is really the wording in English for moving towards? Cause in Spanish it says ...

I would borrow your RITR RRG but my arm is not that long. 🤣

The arm reach of the Sith is LONG indeed.

"Toward:

Some effects direct players to move an obstacle or token toward a ship, squadron, obstacle, other token, or portion of the play area. When this is specified, the player moving the obstacle must also follow these restrictions:

*This movement must be measured directly toward the other component, along a line from the closest point on the obstacle to the closet point on the other component.

*That obstacle or token must be moved from its current position to at least the line that marks the end of the distance band matching the specified minimum movement.

*If that object cannot be moved its specified minimum distance, it must be moved from its current position as close as possible to the line that marks the end of the specified minimum distance band."

Thats whats in the English book for "Toward'. Any questions?