Hi all hope the week is treating you amazing. I have been sick and dead to the whole world how ever we are getting close to July so that mean just a few months to Clone Wars/ a little bit closure!

What is one meaningful change you would like to see post launch of the new factions?

I’m pretty happy with the game as it is, but wouldn’t turn down a rule that put a cap on Aces/Uniques (either by points or total number).

Add: Stations for each faction. Real ones that play similar to ships, with models, useful dice pools, defense tokens, upgrade slots and some new unique ability.

Subtract: The number of unique squadrons allowed in a fleet.

Nerf: Change the word on "Strategic Advisor" from "exhaust" to "discard".

Better info policy, specially here in Spain. And I don't mean just a couple of articles a year:

We don't know where are the kits we paid for. Not even the Grand Championship. We don't know if the new wave is gonna be translated, or if it's gonna be sold at least in English.

EDIT: and with new wave I mean the Onager and the Starhawk.

Another Medium for both factions. The imperials could use something in points between a Vic & Arq and the rebels could use just another Medium.

But as for changes rather than release, I would like to see Imperials get access to fleet command slots on something smaller than an Imp Star. Flag bridge definitely gives more options but is only single use. If the rebels can use a pelta how come I can't use my Vic to lead my task force?

Also, I always love these threads Cubanboy, keep 'em coming. 😃

1 hour ago, Chamberlin said:

I would like to see Imperials get access to fleet command slots on something smaller than an Imp Star.

I really don’t want to see this. I personally think the Chimaera title is a little too powerful as it is. There’s very little downside for the Imperials taking Chimaera and getting a fleet command slot. The Rebels’ only option is a Pelta (or the CR-90 title). Which you can make work, but you have to really build around it.

11 hours ago, thestag said:

Add: Stations for each faction. Real ones that play similar to ships, with models, useful dice pools, defense tokens, upgrade slots and some new unique ability.

Subtract: The number of unique squadrons allowed in a fleet.

Nerf: Change the word on "Strategic Advisor" from "exhaust" to "discard".

I think that one of the negative consequences of Strategic Advisor is that it discourages use of medium base ships like the VSD and AFMk2. After all, for 30pts more you can have a large base and two activations instead of one. I certainly find myself thinking like that.

In support of what many have already said, more medium bases (especially Rebel), I like the idea of stations as a playing piece.

I previously supported an Ace cap, but I think Rebels might just need some better anti-squad options (Imps are pretty good with Kallus, Mauler, Howl, Quasar Alphas, viable Flechette boats)

I would like to see more titles for ships, especially for the Interdictor, Pelta, Hammerheads etc.

As far as meaningful change, I would like a re-structured Rules Reference that's easier to navigate and find what you'e looking for or a way to do points rebalancing for upgrades/ships or at the very least ships base costs. It could be dynamic like X-Wing or maybe even annually.

I think it could be cool to pick objectives similiar in a way to Legion, where player 2 can pick 6 Objectives (2 of each color) and then players take turns picking which Objective to discard, until there's only one left.

34 minutes ago, eliteone said:

.

I think it could be cool to pick objectives similiar in a way to Legion, where player 2 can pick 6 Objectives (2 of each color) and then players take turns picking which Objective to discard, until there's only one left.

We already have this. The second player choose 3 and the first player discard 2.

26 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

We already have this. The second player choose 3 and the first player discard 2.

That's not the way it works at all. Currently the first player rules out 2 and chooses 1 - they don't choose one and then discard 2. The way I suggest, the first player discards one, and the second player discards one, until only one remains, leaving the first player with only one choice.

This would give the first and second player chances to discard objectives, instead of the first player ruling them out, if using six objectives: the first player discards 3 and the second player discards 2. The first player usually can immediately discount the 'very worst one' for their fleet, leaving the second player a chance to get rid of an objective that doesn't suit their fleet vs, their oppoents fleet. That leaves four more choices to go through before eventually settling on one Objective.

8 minutes ago, eliteone said:

That's not the way it works at all. Currently the first player rules out 2 and chooses 1 - they don't choose one and then discard 2. The way I suggest, the first player discards one, and the second player discards one, until only one remains, leaving the first player with only one choice.

This would give the first and second player chances to discard objectives, instead of the first player ruling them out, if using six objectives: the first player discards 3 and the second player discards 2. The first player usually can immediately discount the 'very worst one' for their fleet, leaving the second player a chance to get rid of an objective that doesn't suit their fleet vs, their oppoents fleet. That leaves four more choices to go through before eventually settling on one Objective.

I’m still not seeing how this would be functionally different than the current method. 2nd player is only going to bring objectives that work well with their fleet, whether they bring 3 or 6.

Legion’s a very different beast. You have three different types of cards you’re choosing from (objective, condition, and deployment). Also, you don’t have one player as 1st player all game; it can change based on which command cards are played. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Now if you wanted to change up the objective and initiative aspect completely, that would be an interesting discussion. But merely increasing the number of objective cards brought would probably change very little.

2 hours ago, flatpackhamster said:

I think that one of the negative consequences of Strategic Advisor is that it discourages use of medium base ships like the VSD and AFMk2. After all, for 30pts more you can have a large base and two activations instead of one. I certainly find myself thinking like that.

Hot take: Gallant Haven is a better ship for a squad fleet than any MC75

16 minutes ago, eliteone said:

That's not the way it works at all. Currently the first player rules out 2 and chooses 1 - they don't choose one and then discard 2. The way I suggest, the first player discards one, and the second player discards one, until only one remains, leaving the first player with only one choice.

This would give the first and second player chances to discard objectives, instead of the first player ruling them out, if using six objectives: the first player discards 3 and the second player discards 2. The first player usually can immediately discount the 'very worst one' for their fleet, leaving the second player a chance to get rid of an objective that doesn't suit their fleet vs, their oppoents fleet. That leaves four more choices to go through before eventually settling on one Objective.

I know how it works. And it's worse.

Right now second player choose three and the first player discard two of the choices by picking the one it's gonna be played.

The way you suggest the second player choose six (so the pool of options for the first to choose the less harmful is bigger, remember that the first player already has got her advantage). Then the first player starts to remove and so on.

So the second player choose the objectives in order of the advantage they provide to her. 1sr the best, 6th the worse. Then we start: 1sr out, 6th out, 2nd out, 5th out, 3rd out, 4th is played.

While right now, the second player choose the 3 best and they play the 3rd.

That's worse for the second player right away. But, wait, it get even worse. The second player didn't choose the 3 best objectives in fact cause he is already limited by the color of them. Also what is better or worse for the first player may vary while it doesn't for the second. Why is that? Cause the second player chose the objectives for her list without knowing what he was gonna face. This means that even if the first player doesn't discard the three best for you, he does cause they're also good for him.

This system makes sense for Legion cause you're not choosing one objective at all rather than three scenario rules: deployment, point scoring and "conditions". Actually, you don't even pick those cards. They are chosen randomly. I acknowledge that it may have changed and I could be wrong about some specifics but while a fun mechanic, it's fun for Legion cause it is balanced some other ways. But for Armada, Legion system makes no sense. First player already have advantage over the second player cause the color limitation, any change if done would be made to buff second player I think. In the line of what you suggest I would keep it at it is already and instead of first player making the final choice, they could alternate discard so the second player gets to play the second best choice instead of the 3rd

32 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I know how it works. And it's worse.

Right now second player choose three and the first player discard two of the choices by picking the one it's gonna be played.

The way you suggest the second player choose six (so the pool of options for the first to choose the less harmful is bigger, remember that the first player already has got her advantage). Then the first player starts to remove and so on.

So the second player choose the objectives in order of the advantage they provide to her. 1sr the best, 6th the worse. Then we start: 1sr out, 6th out, 2nd out, 5th out, 3rd out, 4th is played.

While right now, the second player choose the 3 best and they play the 3rd.

That's worse for the second player right away. But, wait, it get even worse. The second player didn't choose the 3 best objectives in fact cause he is already limited by the color of them. Also what is better or worse for the first player may vary while it doesn't for the second. Why is that? Cause the second player chose the objectives for her list without knowing what he was gonna face. This means that even if the first player doesn't discard the three best for you, he does cause they're also good for him.

This system makes sense for Legion cause you're not choosing one objective at all rather than three scenario rules: deployment, point scoring and "conditions". Actually, you don't even pick those cards. They are chosen randomly. I acknowledge that it may have changed and I could be wrong about some specifics but while a fun mechanic, it's fun for Legion cause it is balanced some other ways. But for Armada, Legion system makes no sense. First player already have advantage over the second player cause the color limitation, any change if done would be made to buff second player I think. In the line of what you suggest I would keep it at it is already and instead of first player making the final choice, they could alternate discard so the second player gets to play the second best choice instead of the 3rd

That would work nicely with the 3 objectives, so 1st player only gets to toss the 'worst' objective to play and then 2nd player is actually choosing which objective between the remaining two.

Sounds very reasonable and fair.

4 hours ago, eliteone said:

I think it could be cool to pick objectives similiar in a way to Legion,

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I know how it works. And it's worse.

So our local group started working on a house rule to create the Legion Condition/Deploy/Objective system for Armada.

What we realized is that because of the inherent power of first player, the Legion system wouldn't work unless the the initiative system was also adopted. Which meant the pip card system must be adopted, which meant orders and commander abilities had to be reworked. Then, the objectives had to be modified to eliminate the 2nd player advantage since 1st player advantage was removed. On and on.

It was messy.

In theory, if it could be done (if someone was willing to devote that much time and effort) I believe it would make Armada an even better game. Allowing for less similarity between matches.

-By eliminating a set 1st/2nd player mechanic (armada) and replacing for a competitive initiative each round (Legion). The need to bid for 1st or 2nd is dissolved and the power of a set 1st player reduced to what the player could win each round.

-This would allow for many more deploy choices, condition choices and objective choices, competitively chosen by both players because the advantages of the 1st/2nd system were neutralized.

This was all the further we ever made it:

6 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I believe it would make Armada an even better game.

I like the Legion system but I'm not sure if it would make Armada better. Just different. The first-second thing in Armada is not a mistake made designing the game. It is a choice that provides strategic decisions from the fleet building to the initiative choice.

"Unbalance" comes from specific situations and/or the objective pool but not from the mechanic and Legion isn't immune to that either.

However it's a fun system the Legion one as I said. You can use it for Armada with all the changes you said and still be fun. I see some inherent differences, even with those changes. For example, the deployment choice. Armada's ships may not move as freely as Legion units so while increasing the strategic interest (and I'd love more deployment options) it may also reduce the player play a lot, which wouldn't be good.

I'd change Sloane's usage to once per ship activation.

Station models including defence platforms, cargo ships for missions (protect a convoy, run the gauntlet etc).

And an extra title or 2 for each ship.