41 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And for the record. I don`'t think that this will change this much (beside the sniper change with the range). The main Problem of Legion is not the expensive big units. It is the general structure of the game (many small units >> one expensive non trooper).

This is why I stopped playing legion. It is 100% if you are able to complete objectives, and it felt like 90% of the objectives required troopers units to even do so if you took one big unit you where passing up on 4+ trooper units you could take that would help you win the game so it was never worth taking, and I still don't think it would be with these changes, unless they add more vehicle friendly objectives or change how the game is won, its because you can only win by objective play and for the vast majority of objectives in Legion can only be influenced by trooper units that is what breaks legion not the unit cost. I felt like games just devoled into trooper units grabing an objective and hunkering down behind cover taking pot shots at each other.

Armada on the other hand I feel I can run pretty much whatever I want. I have even recently started to have success with Imperial MSU agian. Sure there are some upgrades I would like to see changed but I think things are fine the way they are. I would welcome some changes, but we don't need them so I am happy ether way.

14 hours ago, xanderf said:

Specifically - that 6-turn structure, paired with the objectives the give you game play requirements fitting the structure. Armada sings when in that format, and it really is just a snapshot of a larger story, but that's what the game aims to deliver, and it does so extremely well at the 300 pt range (tolerable at 400 pt).

I agee with your sintment but I think 600 sector is beter than 400 or 300. For me it comes down to the term Armada. I see grand fleet battles where the outcome echos across the galaxy. Where any one ship and manuver can tip the scales. I find that at 600 points. Where things are effectively + 2 squadrons and + 1 well upgraded medium base ship. The game doesn't slow down much because of that and you get that bigger scale I feel armada needs.

What I think the game really needs is a good way to play out a campaign or tell a story over a turniment. Kinda like the pirate event that was run not to long ago where each round had a universal objective. I'm picturing a warloards of the empire theme where there are universal objectives tossed in for extra turniment points or something.

14 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I want a two or even three-hour game that leaves me exhausted.

Same, it's why I love the bigger formats or playing people better than myself.

Only two ships I could see needing a recost are the AFMK 2 or the Interdictor which are probably about 10 pts over costed. Some upgrades like the already mentioned Dominator, NK-7 ion cannons probably could shed 2 points each and lastly Leia and Tarkin.

Combat Interdictor and Assault Pelta could use a Turbolaser slot. Gives them a bit more to work with the addition of a turbolaser slot. Assault Peltas are generally just trailers for Fleet commands or maybe a projection boat, allows them to support the fleet in a more offensive way. Same thing with the Interdictor.

AFmk2 A could use a point reduction. The additional anti-squadron and blue out the front/rear isn't worth it. Especially with the reduction of squadron value. I suggest going to 76.

Personally I wish Arquitens were about 4 points cheaper each.

Many of the officers that change to X command could use a cheaper value imo.

PDR remove range restriction or reduce cost to 3 - Hey it's that upgrade everyone likes.

Cluster Bombs reduce cost to 3 - Bringing this more in line to upgrades like Disposable Capacitors and External racks.

Make Redundant Shields from 8 to 4 points - Late timing window, valuable slot, and modification. Would love to put this on some small ships if not for the fact that it is an additional 8 points.

Rapid Reload and High Capacity Ion Turbines from 8 to 6/5.

Enhanced Armaments from 10 to 8.

Expanded Launchers from 13 to 10.

Spinal Armaments from 9 to 8.

Feel like all of the add to battery armaments could use slight price reduction. You aren't likely to get the full value out of them for the cost.

Slaved Turrets down to 5 from 6 - You lose a turbolaser slot, an attack, and it is a modification. Could use a reduction for just an additional red dice (Not even added to battery armament so if obstructed and only 1 red dice still can't attack.)

Dual Turbolaser turrets could go from 5 to 4/3 or lose exhaust would be nice. Especially compared to Linked Turbolaser Towers

Make Sensor Teams 3 points from 5 - Costly option in terms of slot and taking a dice.

Engineering teams could go from 5 to 4/3 -Gives a boost to engineering.

Redemption 8 to 5 - Requires you to be close and use engineering for 1 point.

Independence 8 to 4 - Between Adar, AFFM! and FCTs, Independence could be cheaper at the cost of not attacking.

Dominator 12 to 8 - Costs shields (Primary VSD defense!) to add dice. Maybe just take a hit of 1 shield to add in 2 dice and make it an exhaust.

Warlord 8 to 6 - I just wanted Warlord cheaper

Just my opinion on the matter. I would just like cheaper options to shake up the meta a bit. Part of my disappointment with the new wave of ships. Rambling over.

PS Give the Arquitens an Offensive oriented title **** it!

1 hour ago, TallGiraffe said:

PS Give the Arquitens an Offensive oriented title **** it!

Another one? 😁
Centicore is really offensive oriented, as far as i can tell 😉

Armada is indeed balanced better than either X-wing or Legion but it doesn't mean that it couldn't use some dynamic point adjustment. It might seem that the game is reasonably varied (I guess it is) but if you look at your card collection you'll see how many of them never see play. Imperials have 12 admirals now and Rebels have 10 but only 3-4 on each side see any regular play. Some of the more interesting ones, such as Sato or Leia, see very little table time because of their prohibitive cost. When it comes to officer slots, when was the last time you've seen Major Derlin on the table? Or Commandant Aresko? They're not bad officers, just overcosted (btw props to you if you didn't have to look up Aresko's effect).

The same goes for every slot. Redundant Shields would be a viable choice on some ships if they were half the current price. Devastator would see some play at 4 points. Quite a few squadrons are nowhere to be found on the tables (generic YV-666s anyone? or agressors? or e-wings?). Meanwhile some things are clearly to good for their Pryce (pun totally intended). At Euros 3 out of 4 Imperial lists in top 8 were Sloanes and the other one was Thrawn. Top ranking Rebels were both Raddus lists, with Rieekan and Ackbar placing in the lower half of top 8. Also, only 1 fleet in the top 8 had less than about 110 points worth of squadrons. Most had them maxed out.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Sloane (I'm playing her myself) or Raddus or Thrawn for that matter. Objectively they're really well designed, interesting cards. I'm also glad that squadrons are an important part of the meta because the game would be far less interesting if no squadron lists dominated. That said, currently Sloane enjoys such a level of dominance on the Imperial side (and arguably in the game as a whole) that it's just not that interesting anymore.

Armada is in a relatively good spot compared to some other games but there's still a lot of room for improvement and point adjustments could really help with that.

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

Another one? 😁
Centicore is really offensive oriented, as far as i can tell 😉

I would consider that a more support option, but I see what you mean by that. Something that lets you reroll or add a dice or something would be nice.

Those admirals have other issues than their points cost. Sato is very vulnerable to your squadrons being tied down, Leia prefers as many ships as possible with as many upgrades as possible (a controversy on 400 ponts). Even at lower cost it would be tricky to use them. The same goes for COnstantine, Tagge, Mothma.

1 hour ago, Norell said:

Those admirals have other issues than their points cost. Sato is very vulnerable to your squadrons being tied down, Leia prefers as many ships as possible with as many upgrades as possible (a controversy on 400 ponts). Even at lower cost it would be tricky to use them. The same goes for COnstantine, Tagge, Mothma.

We've seen Sato lists doing well ocasionally (with wide area barrage). It's ok for his squadrons to be tied down as long as they're tied down next to the enemy ships . You're probably right that Sato wouldn't be top tier even if he cost 10 points less but it certainly wouldn't hurt. Besides if Sloane was nerfed enough to make her less prevalent, Sato's squadrons might actually survive long enough to do the job.

As for Leia, I have no clue what you mean about maxing out upgrades. To the contrary, the only reasonably successful list I've seen with her was a swarm of almost naked hammerhead scouts backed by Yavaris, a couple of flotillas and a sizable bunch of mostly generic squadrons. Hammerheads could max out the concentrate fires while Yavaris and flotillas were capable of pushing up to 9 squadrons a turn. It was a neat list, if not quite top tier. A few points extra for upgrades combined with the Sloane nerf (yeah, her again - she really locks meta down, doesn't she?) coul make a difference.

12 hours ago, xanderf said:

The "problem", such as it is, is that this conflicts with what makes THIS game so great to begin with.

Specifically - that 6-turn structure, paired with the objectives the give you game play requirements fitting the structure. Armada sings when in that format, and it really is just a snapshot of a larger story, but that's what the game aims to deliver, and it does so extremely well at the 300 pt range (tolerable at 400 pt).

Whew lad. I gotta disagree with this. Hard. Like equal and opposite.

I think it's fast at 300 points, and a lot of players at tournaments appreciate that as it keeps a 3+ round tournament manageable in terms of time and effort, but I definitely disagree that this game sings at 300 points. Anything less than 600 points and you're basically building half a fleet. I can't argue design intent, as I didn't design it, but I can argue functionality. Sector fleet games, in my experience, are much better rounded and often allow for more diverse upgrades and ships. Since the point limits don't restrict players into using competitively optimal upgrades or designing fleets around optimizing which ships are most efficient, the game itself becomes more robust. Interaction between fleets are less rock-paper-scissors .

I would argue, when given the points to build a complete fleet, usually between 600-800 points, the game develops a vastly more interesting dynamic and has infinitely more rewarding play.

300 points just isn't enough to be worth playing. ( I would say that 400 is pushing the low end as well). At that point this game becomes "Star Wars: Do-groups" instead of Armada.... and I'm just not interested in small task force games. lol

6 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Whew lad. I gotta disagree with this. Hard. Like equal and opposite.

I think it's fast at 300 points, and a lot of players at tournaments appreciate that as it keeps a 3+ round tournament manageable in terms of time and effort, but I definitely disagree that this game sings at 300 points. Anything less than 600 points and you're basically building half a fleet. I can't argue design intent, as I didn't design it, but I can argue functionality. Sector fleet games, in my experience, are much better rounded and often allow for more diverse upgrades and ships. Since the point limits don't restrict players into using competitively optimal upgrades or designing fleets around optimizing which ships are most efficient, the game itself becomes more robust. Interaction between fleets are less rock-paper-scissors .

I would argue, when given the points to build a complete fleet, usually between 600-800 points, the game develops a vastly more interesting dynamic and has infinitely more rewarding play.

300 points just isn't enough to be worth playing. ( I would say that 400 is pushing the low end as well). At that point this game becomes "Star Wars: Do-groups" instead of Armada.... and I'm just not interested in small task force games. lol

Not that I completely disagree - but the central premise of “not optimizing” with sector fleet is a misnomer itself. Turn it into s tournament and you’ll see EXACTLY the same amount of nitty gritty efficiency thought as you do currently at 400. Only objectives are worth fewer points overall.

Yhe desire to run on pure efficiency is a tournament issue, a competitive issue, not a size issue.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Not that I completely disagree - but the central premise of “not optimizing” with sector fleet is a misnomer itself. Turn it into s tournament and you’ll see EXACTLY the same amount of nitty gritty efficiency thought as you do currently at 400. Only objectives are worth fewer points overall.

Yhe desire to run on pure efficiency is a tournament issue, a competitive issue, not a size issue.

Yes and no though.

Even if you optimize your fleet with the same point restricted mindset, it has enough room to build a rounded fleet. That's something I can't say for our current 400 point staple. (and definitely not a 300) Most of the time, when building the fleet you have to sacrifice something to make sure the important parts are included... I've found when trying to build rounded fleets in standard format most of them do everything okay but nothing great, I've found this is very much less so with sector fleet games.

For instance. At 600+ all my fleet have a formidable squadron presence, That is not something I can say for all of my 400 point fleets. I'm usually sacrificing squads to get something more central to the fleet into the point restrictions.

44 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Yes and no though.

Even if you optimize your fleet with the same point restricted mindset, it has enough room to build a rounded fleet. That's something I can't say for our current 400 point staple. (and definitely not a 300) Most of the time, when building the fleet you have to sacrifice something to make sure the important parts are included... I've found when trying to build rounded fleets in standard format most of them do everything okay but nothing great, I've found this is very much less so with sector fleet games.

For instance. At 600+ all my fleet have a formidable squadron presence, That is not something I can say for all of my 400 point fleets. I'm usually sacrificing squads to get something more central to the fleet into the point restrictions.

There's one more advantage to playing at higher point limits - it decreases the impact of individual unique upgrades (typically officers or titles) as well as squadrons that tend to dominate the standard 400 point games. I'm thinking of things like Yavaris, Demolisher, Avenger, Admonition, Profundity, Pryce, Adar Tallon, Brunson, Maarek Stele, Morna Kee and so on.

In a 400 point game a single combo of Adar Tallon plus FCT plus Yavaris activation can win the game outright be knocking out the main ship in the opponent's list. Similarly a Pryce last-first combined with Sloane's ability can end the game before it has begun. Such explosive combos still have a place in 600 or 800 point games but they're no longer so decisive. Fleets that large simply cannot be built around a single gimmick like this. At best the gimmick can be incorporated into the larger strategy of playing that fleet, as a means of gaining initial advantage, but the strategy doesn't end there.

Also, you're right that an ISD with a couple of small ships and some flotillas hardly qualifies as "armada". And that's what you get if you spend nothing on squadrons...

4 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

There's one more advantage to playing at higher point limits - it decreases the impact of individual unique upgrades (typically officers or titles) as well as squadrons that tend to dominate the standard 400 point games. I'm thinking of things like Yavaris, Demolisher, Avenger, Admonition, Profundity, Pryce, Adar Tallon, Brunson, Maarek Stele, Morna Kee and so on.

In a 400 point game a single combo of Adar Tallon plus FCT plus Yavaris activation can win the game outright be knocking out the main ship in the opponent's list. Similarly a Pryce last-first combined with Sloane's ability can end the game before it has begun. Such explosive combos still have a place in 600 or 800 point games but they're no longer so decisive. Fleets that large simply cannot be built around a single gimmick like this. At best the gimmick can be incorporated into the larger strategy of playing that fleet, as a means of gaining initial advantage, but the strategy doesn't end there.

Also, you're right that an ISD with a couple of small ships and some flotillas hardly qualifies as "armada". And that's what you get if you spend nothing on squadrons...

I agree with this completely.

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Yes and no though.

Even if you optimize your fleet with the same point restricted mindset, it has enough room to build a rounded fleet. That's something I can't say for our current 400 point staple. (and definitely not a 300) Most of the time, when building the fleet you have to sacrifice something to make sure the important parts are included... I've found when trying to build rounded fleets in standard format most of them do everything okay but nothing great, I've found this is very much less so with sector fleet games.

For instance. At 600+ all my fleet have a formidable squadron presence, That is not something I can say for all of my 400 point fleets. I'm usually sacrificing squads to get something more central to the fleet into the point restrictions.

Yes, but being ABLE to 'do everything great' is bad game design.

The entire point of why fleet building is a game in itself is BECAUSE you 'always have to sacrifice something' - and then in play, figure out a way to work around that.

That's literally what makes a game - wanting to do more than you can do, and having to make difficult sacrifices and choices.

32 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Yes, but being ABLE to 'do everything great' is bad game design.

I agree. But I never said anything about being able to do everything great. I specifically said at 400 points a well rounded fleet can do everything okay and nothing great.

I've played up to 1200 points and I've yet to see a fleet that "does everything great". The 400 point standard forces people to make fleets that have sacrificed a specific aspect, sometimes to the point of complete absence.

32 minutes ago, xanderf said:

The entire point of why fleet building is a game in itself is BECAUSE you 'always have to sacrifice something' - and then in play, figure out a way to work around that.

I think that is a very unimaginative system that causes players to rely solely on gimmicks and game mechanics (such as we saw with floatilla spams and often see with 1st/last combos) I think @Lightrock's post makes some excellent points in that area too.

I will also mention that you still have to work within point constraints at sector fleet levels. You still have to build to make specific aspects of your fleet stronger and you still have to manage where you're willing to lose points, just with extra points those sacrifices are less extreme.

32 minutes ago, xanderf said:

That's literally what makes a game - wanting to do more than you can do, and having to make difficult sacrifices and choices.

That's an aspect of the game, I don't think it's the most important but I think the competitive nature of the game has caused many people to focus on that and considering the FFG standard is 400, I'm not surprised by it nor do I expect it to change.

That said, again, my whole point was to express that I disagree about Armada singing at 300 points. I believe the opposite. That Armada unlocks it's true potential at higher levels of game play, not lower.

I agree with @Darth Sanguis the more points in the game the more options and combos there are to exploit and to plan for. Which in turn makes the game better. Restricting options and players is just going to make everything boil off until there are fewer competitive options.

I just wish the objectives scaled better at 600+ and that there was some way to tie a tourniment together into a narrative.

19 minutes ago, Grathew said:

I agree with @Darth Sanguis the more points in the game the more options and combos there are to exploit and to plan for. Which in turn makes the game better. Restricting options and players is just going to make everything boil off until there are fewer competitive options.

I just wish the objectives scaled better at 600+ and that there was some way to tie a tourniment together into a narrative.

FFG could always develop new objectives with 600 points in mind, or ban current objectives that get ridiculous at that fleet point cost. Although, to be honest I might rather see a re-design of some of the Core Set Objectives more than a points adjustment.

40 minutes ago, eliteone said:

FFG could always develop new objectives with 600 points in mind, or ban current objectives that get ridiculous at that fleet point cost. Although, to be honest I might rather see a re-design of some of the Core Set Objectives more than a points adjustment.

I'm just sitting here waiting for everyone to realize that Legion's Objective/Deployment/condition system in conjunction with the pip based initiative and command cards is the superior system and that Armada could easily convert to it.

I can dream, right?

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm just sitting here waiting for everyone to realize that Legion's Objective/Deployment/condition system in conjunction with the pip based initiative and command cards is the superior system and that Armada could easily convert to it.

I can dream, right?

You can dream, but I have no idea about the rest of it.

3 minutes ago, Grathew said:

You can dream, but I have no idea about the rest of it.

This is all conjecture, but before the announcement of new objectives I decided to try to convert the ones we have into a format similar to legion. The idea being that game play would become exponentially more variable if the game was objective centered like Legion, but that conditions and deployment areas vary similar to the legion system, I also speculated that reworking the commanders to issue effects through numbered pip cards would sever the need for players to bid heavy and prevent people from riding the activation mechanics for advantages. This change came with an exclusion of all upgrades that effect activation mechanics....

Still needs play testing, but I suspect it will give the game a very satisfying dynamic feel

I think you miss understand. I have zero understanding of how legion works.

39 minutes ago, Grathew said:

I think you miss understand. I have zero understanding of how legion works.

Ah gotcha

well a shorthand explanation, essentially you build lists just like armada. Whoever has the lower point total get's to choose whether they are red or blue player. After setting out the terrain and such you work through a set of battle cards...

These cards come in 3 categories

Objective:


Condition:


Deployment:


You set out 3 of each category at random from the ones you've chosen then take turn eliminating choices to decided how the games plays and sets up.




After that initiative each round is determined by whoever has the lower number on their command card. (so 1st and 2nd player aren't locked in like armada).

I like the point made that 600+ fleets Can shrug off a wombo combo better than a 400 pt fleet can. Can anyone honestly say getting one shot by bta avenger or swatted by Adar tallon+ yavaris has been a fun experience to be on the receiving end of? It’s stuff like that that kills the fun for me. Doesn’t ever feel that I’ve ever really been outplayed by the opponent either just “wow that’s a strong combo”.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I'm just sitting here waiting for everyone to realize that Legion's Objective/Deployment/condition system in conjunction with the pip based initiative and command cards is the superior system and that Armada could easily convert to it.

I can dream, right?

Yes, pip based system where the die has to decide is so much better... 😁

No sorry, but seriously. The pip idea was nice, but the way it is done is poor. Both want to be first, both take the 1 pip, and a dice roll has to decide who will maybe win this game. No idea how you can call this a great system.

About the objective i will agree, partly. The idea to "build up" a deployment zone, environment and win condition is good. But these win objectives are the cause of all evil in Legion. Trooper > non Trooper; more units at all cost. And Victory token grabbing and hunker down on top of it. In Armada you get rewarded for destroying enemy units on top of your objective. In Legion it does not matter at all. All that count are the victory tokens. Nothing else. If i have more tokens than you, it does not matter if i have only one trooper left on the field. I win.