I really like both these titles but it feels a bit bad that they are associated fluff wise with only one particular ship.

I think they would have been better as a new vsd/neb b variant. Call them 'VSD - Harrow class refit' or something.

Vanguard with local fire control is great fun, id like the ability to run a couple in that config. The only problem with this idea is that in practice everyone would just use it to put flight controllers on yavaris...

Anyway, just a thought.

10 minutes ago, Ophion said:

I really like both these titles but it feels a bit bad that they are associated fluff wise with only one particular ship.

I think they would have been better as a new vsd/neb b variant. Call them 'VSD - Harrow class refit' or something.

Vanguard with local fire control is great fun, id like the ability to run a couple in that config. The only problem with this idea is that in practice everyone would just use it to put flight controllers on yavaris...

Anyway, just a thought.

I honestly am rather annoyed at the whole “Armada 1.5” concept. They were presented with an opportunity to accomplish a vast and sweeping 2.0 reboot which could have:

A) done points and upgrade slots online (like X-Wing; it’s a vastly superior model).

B) fixed even more broken/useless cards, commanders, and ships

C) also given us standard sized cards, evade token and squadron rules changes, and all the fixes and balance corrections they already gave us.

Instead, I feel like we got a half-assed effort that might make Leia, Konstantine and Tarkin a bit more playable, but didn’t do half of what it should have done.

Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it will be awesome once it’s all on the table. I hope that’s the case.

23 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I honestly am rather annoyed at the whole “Armada 1.5” concept. They were presented with an opportunity to accomplish a vast and sweeping 2.0 reboot which could have:

A) done points and upgrade slots online (like X-Wing; it’s a vastly superior model).

B) fixed even more broken/useless cards, commanders, and ships

C) also given us standard sized cards, evade token and squadron rules changes, and all the fixes and balance corrections they already gave us.

Instead, I feel like we got a half-assed effort that might make Leia, Konstantine and Tarkin a bit more playable, but didn’t do half of what it should have done.

Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it will be awesome once it’s all on the table. I hope that’s the case.

It also would have given them the option to introduce built in special rules for ships, Just like X-Wing 2.0 did. I'm still puzzled by their absence in both Armada and X-Wing 1.0.

31 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Maybe I’m wrong

You are. In my opinion of course.

Not to continue to hijack the original post, but to answer your take on 1.5:

We got a lot. Armada was already a great game. A 1.5 lets us keep the bones we love without wrecking everything all at once. It is already quite a lot:

Pass token activation changes and SA\Bail\Pryce elimination

Two new factions (That now have to be balanced in to the game forever more)

A living rules document(That may allow for quicker changes and errata and faq a la Legion)

Evade token changes

Ace Fleet building change

Intel change

Loads of upgrade changes (that EACH have to be balanced within the existing structure)

The thing I take most exception to is calling the effort 'half-assed' . There are always going to be some issues with things, but at this moment (with the exception of some physical issues with the product) the whole endeavor seems like a great success. I have never seen such excitement for the game locally or online.

5 hours ago, Ophion said:

I really like both these titles but it feels a bit bad that they are associated fluff wise with only one particular ship.

I think they would have been better as a new vsd/neb b variant. Call them 'VSD - Harrow class refit' or something.

Vanguard with local fire control is great fun, id like the ability to run a couple in that config. The only problem with this idea is that in practice everyone would just use it to put flight controllers on yavaris...

Anyway, just a thought.

Why?

I honestly don't understand.

Should Jaina's Light be a type of CR90?

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Why?

I honestly don't understand.

Should Jaina's Light be a type of CR90?

Demo class gladiator, or Profundity class MC75 Yes please.

I think not where do you draw the line, I agree not a great idea.

1 hour ago, XR8rGREAT said:

Demo class gladiator, or Profundity class MC75 Yes please.

I think not where do you draw the line, I agree not a great idea.

I think his reasoning is just that the titles essentially just have the effect of shifting stats around (defense tokens, upgrade slots, yaw, etc), so probably not applicable to any of those other ones.

At the same time, each really just is too much of a departure from the usual two options. I'm all for more varied ship-types for each mini, but there's literally no precedent for changing yaw or defense tokens between types. It's too much variation and, especially for Harrow, holds the danger of just outright rendering the original two ship-types completely obsolete. Really, they work just fine as upgrades that can apply to exactly 1 ship of the specified type each.

8 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

You are. In my opinion of course.

Not to continue to hijack the original post, but to answer your take on 1.5:

We got a lot. Armada was already a great game. A 1.5 lets us keep the bones we love without wrecking everything all at once. It is already quite a lot:

Pass token activation changes and SA\Bail\Pryce elimination

Two new factions (That now have to be balanced in to the game forever more)

A living rules document(That may allow for quicker changes and errata and faq a la Legion)

Evade token changes

Ace Fleet building change

Intel change

Loads of upgrade changes (that EACH have to be balanced within the existing structure)

The thing I take most exception to is calling the effort 'half-assed' . There are always going to be some issues with things, but at this moment (with the exception of some physical issues with the product) the whole endeavor seems like a great success. I have never seen such excitement for the game locally or online.

The fact that they’re still putting points costs on the cards makes the whole thing feel misguided to me. I used to think it was a bad idea, but having spent lockdown learning and playing X-Wing, it’s really the only way to go.

They also didn’t erase the ‘crippled’ rules for huge ships, nor did they institute ‘crippled’ rules for all ships, and I’m pretty sure one of those two things would improve the game immensely.

I’m skeptical of the new pass token rules. I’ll wait to see how this one plays out, but I’m not sure it helps mitigate activation advantage enough. In some cases, it actually leaves the fleet with fewer ships in worse shape than before, which seems a very poor move.

They fixed lots of things that needed fixing, and changed some things that needed changing, and I’m fine with slightly nerfed Mon Karren, Avenger, ACM, APT, etc. But a lot of things that could have used changing didn’t get it, or didn’t get enough of it. Rieekan should be closer to 40 points. Vader should be slightly cheaper, as should Madine, and even post-buff, Tagge should be cheaper as well. But again, all this stuff should be adjustable on the fly, because the points should be digital. We all use fleet builder apps anyway. Why print the numbers on the card, and lock in your mistakes when you don’t need to?

5 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I’m skeptical of the new pass token rules. I’ll wait to see how this one plays out, but I’m not sure it helps mitigate activation advantage enough. In some cases, it actually leaves the fleet with fewer ships in worse shape than before, which seems a very poor move.

Please give examples of these cases. I cannot conceive of such.

27 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

I think his reasoning is just that the titles essentially just have the effect of shifting stats around (defense tokens, upgrade slots, yaw, etc), so probably not applicable to any of those other ones.

At the same time, each really just is too much of a departure from the usual two options. I'm all for more varied ship-types for each mini, but there's literally no precedent for changing yaw or defense tokens between types. It's too much variation and, especially for Harrow, holds the danger of just outright rendering the original two ship-types completely obsolete. Really, they work just fine as upgrades that can apply to exactly 1 ship of the specified type each.

Really the Harrow ought to have been an upgrade which can only be applied to Victories. “Post-Clone Wars Engine Refit,” or something. It should cost what Harrow costs, and do what Harrow does, and just be non-unique. I could also see something similar for Vanguard.

To go against the flow of the thread and build on top of the OP's post :

They did a lot of things to fix the VSD. Jerjerrod, Harrow...

I believe they could have taken the opportunity to create new version of the VSD & the Mark 2, two ships that are less popular because of their aged design (I believe).

35 minutes ago, LTD said:

Please give examples of these cases. I cannot conceive of such.

Really? This one is easy, if I read the rules correctly...

In the old rules, my SSD had one pass per turn, out-activated or not.

Now, if you’re flying two MC-80’s, and I’m flying an Executor, I get one non-renewable pass token per game. That’s worse!

I think they could have taken the opportunity to:

1) make some minor modifications to the main ship cards of the bastard children that really do suffer and are hidden in the card binder: neb Bs really needed 2 shields on its sides or a redirect ( those sides are two big and one shield two little). Victory just needs an extra click and the interdiction just needed a wee bit more damage output to justify the cost.

2) create some more generic titles like seventh fleet if your doing msu it would be nice to have generic title cards that give a small benefit to multiple corvettes.....x fleet etc.

As for a full reboot like xwing, they were forced to do that for xwing as the game balance was essentially broken and you could play to win with a meta driven by complete imbalance. Armada has never had that imbalance, yes some fleet builds seem to win a bit more but people still have fleets with wave one ships and if you go to a big event every list will be different....

18 minutes ago, Coranhann said:

To go against the flow of the thread and build on top of the OP's post :

They did a lot of things to fix the VSD. Jerjerrod, Harrow...

I believe they could have taken the opportunity to create new version of the VSD & the Mark 2, two ships that are less popular because of their aged design (I believe).

The problem with the Jerjerrod “fix” is that he’s practically essential for using several Imperial ships.

For that matter, is anyone running the SSD with anyone but Jerjerrod? They did nothing to fix that either.

6 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

For that matter, is anyone running the SSD with anyone but Jerjerrod? They did nothing to fix that either.

Have you heard of Piett? He's nearly essential for good SSD running. Not that that matters much anymore as they're rather running uphill in tourneys these days, even before Wave 8 dropped.

11 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

The problem with the Jerjerrod “fix” is that he’s practically essential for using several Imperial ships.

For that matter, is anyone running the SSD with anyone but Jerjerrod? They did nothing to fix that either.

Yeah, that's the risk with fix done through upgrade. If it's good enough for the bad ships, it's good for the good one too. One way of avoiding that is using titles, but then we circle back to OP's point.

20 minutes ago, player3691565 said:

I think they could have taken the opportunity to:

1) make some minor modifications to the main ship cards of the bastard children that really do suffer and are hidden in the card binder: neb Bs really needed 2 shields on its sides or a redirect ( those sides are two big and one shield two little). Victory just needs an extra click and the interdiction just needed a wee bit more damage output to justify the cost.

2) create some more generic titles like seventh fleet if your doing msu it would be nice to have generic title cards that give a small benefit to multiple corvettes.....x fleet etc.

As for a full reboot like xwing, they were forced to do that for xwing as the game balance was essentially broken and you could play to win with a meta driven by complete imbalance. Armada has never had that imbalance, yes some fleet builds seem to win a bit more but people still have fleets with wave one ships and if you go to a big event every list will be different....

There are other good reasons for a second edition of a game. One of the best is when you release lots of new rules that weren’t present at launch. To name just a few, Salvo tokens, Raid, Relay,

The SSD should have native Salvo tokens. It ought not have to spend points and an upgrade slot on getting one.

What I’m mostly annoyed by is that they told us to think about this as Armada 1.5. That indicates that they’re seeing this as a progression that will eventually end up at 2.0, but instead of doing that work (and god knows, they’ve had time), they did an incomplete 1.5 pass, which they’re selling us now, and they’re gonna do another revision in a year or two and sell us another.

It’s not the money. I love this game, and I can and will pay for it. It’s that we all know there’s more work to be done, and they knew it, and they didn’t do it. They. Have. Had. Time.

15 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Have you heard of Piett? He's nearly essential for good SSD running. Not that that matters much anymore as they're rather running uphill in tourneys these days, even before Wave 8 dropped.

Interesting take. I wanted to be a Piett fan, but all of my group’s testing just indicated that he’s fine, but Jerjerrod is much better.

Of course, my group’s testing also indicated that the SSD basically doesn’t win, or narrowly scrapes out wins, because it always ends the game crippled.

I’d love it if you PM’ed or posted a list of some decent Piett build.

Another of the things that annoys me the most is that they took two years to release the bloody SSD, and when it finally arrived, it was narrow and weak. And it got very little help in this 1.5 pass.

SSD Assault Prototype (250)
• Admiral Piett (22)
• Captain Brunson (9)
• Damage Control Officer (5)
• Intel Officer (7)
• Gunnery Team (7)
• Quad Laser Turrets (5)
• Point-Defense Reroute (5)
• Leading Shots (6)
• Heavy Ion Emplacements (9)
• H9 Turbolasers (8)
• XI7 Turbolasers (6)
• Ravager (4)
= 343 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Darth Vader (1)
• Comms Net (2)
= 26 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Hondo Ohnaka (2)
• Comms Net (2)
= 27 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 396

That's the best I can get at this point. However, it tends to only get large wins when the opponent makes a mistake. You need to bid for 2nd and try to force them to engage you.

As for the rest of your complaints, I find them without merit.

47 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Really? This one is easy, if I read the rules correctly...

In the old rules, my SSD had one pass per turn, out-activated or not.

Now, if you’re flying two MC-80’s, and I’m flying an Executor, I get one non-renewable pass token per game. That’s worse!

That is a valid case of “worse” under 1.5. I’ve never flown an SSD and never faced one in a tournament, so I never considered that. Of course, the SSD only gets the token if it is second player.

Is there another case you can think of?

41 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Have you heard of Piett? He's nearly essential for good SSD running. Not that that matters much anymore as they're rather running uphill in tourneys these days, even before Wave 8 dropped.

(Citation needed)

1 hour ago, Cruzer said:

At the same time, each really just is too much of a departure from the usual two options. I'm all for more varied ship-types for each mini, but there's literally no precedent for changing yaw or defense tokens between types. It's too much variation and, especially for Harrow, holds the danger of just outright rendering the original two ship-types completely obsolete . Really, they work just fine as upgrades that can apply to exactly 1 ship of the specified type each.

This. As someone who fields VSDs quite often (I own three of them, and not a single ISD), I can tell you: if I could run multiple VSDs with Support Team built in and a Speed 1 yaw value of 2, I would never run a VSD-I or II again.

13 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

SSD Assault Prototype (250)
• Admiral Piett (22)
• Captain Brunson (9)
• Damage Control Officer (5)
• Intel Officer (7)
• Gunnery Team (7)
• Quad Laser Turrets (5)
• Point-Defense Reroute (5)
• Leading Shots (6)
• Heavy Ion Emplacements (9)
• H9 Turbolasers (8)
• XI7 Turbolasers (6)
• Ravager (4)
= 343 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Darth Vader (1)
• Comms Net (2)
= 26 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Hondo Ohnaka (2)
• Comms Net (2)
= 27 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 396

That's the best I can get at this point. However, it tends to only get large wins when the opponent makes a mistake. You need to bid for 2nd and try to force them to engage you.

As for the rest of your complaints, I find them without merit.

In the same breath, you show me a list that comes to 396, then tell me you “need” to bid for second?

4 points is not a bid. Show me 14, NOW we’re bidding. 4 points is obviously an “I don’t care about bidding” bid, and means you should just jam a 3-4 point upgrade in there.

And honestly, I’m rusty, but I see *nothing* in this list that really requires Piett, or which (for that matter) wouldn’t work better with Jerjerrod at the helm.

I find little to agree with you on here.

No, first I gave you the most deadly Piett SSD I've managed. You say you can't see the use of Piett, and yet you also claim that you keep winding up with your SSD scarred. The two might be related.

Bidding for 2nd is just general best practice for an SSD (unless mirror match, of course). And you don't need wild bids to get 2nd. It's not like bidding for first at all.

@Cpt ObVus Have you considered starting your own thread?