Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yakface

  1. You need this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Flarestar-class_attack_shuttle And also Hondo crew or pilot at the same time Look at this amazing thread, there are a lot of scum shuttles:
  2. Rebels: N-1 starfighter (with Leia Pilot) or Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor (with Obi Wan Pilot) Imperial: Belbullab-22 starfighter (with Grievous Pilot) Scum: Rihkxyrk Assault Fighter or Ixiyen-class fast attack craft And also a Rebel Veterans pack is coming with E-Wing, Y-Wing and possibly a X-Wing fix (cards only).
  3. Rebels: N-1 starfighter or Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor Imperial: Ye-4 gunship or Belbullab-22 starfighter Scum: M22-T Krayt Gunship or Rihkxyrk Assault Fighter
  4. Hmm... I see the problem. But obviously you must have the torpedo or missile upgrade icon. Also I think the last sentence have to say: " You cannot equip this title if you already have at least 1 Tech upgrade icon." But, hey, thanks to all the replies, it's great to see some feedback. And I didn't make a modification card because it will be a real overpowered problem.
  5. Yes, again this post, sorry. It's just an idea I have. A Title, cost 0 : "Your upgrade bar loses 1 Torpedo or 1 Missile upgrade icon and gain 1 Tech upgrade icon. You cannot equip a Tech card that costs more than 3 squad points. You cannot equip this card if you already have at least 1 Tech upgrade icon." And that's all, fairly simple. X-wing, E-wing, Khiraxz, Firespray, Punisher, Starviper, even the z-95 and low PS pilots... all of them are "fixed". It's like a "refurbished" ship. Yes, it's possible to use it at other ships that doesn't need a fix, like the YV-666 or the Jumpmaster but it's not giving them an important advantage (just look at the tech upgrades), and you have to choose between the ship specific title or this new generic one.
  6. I find combat to be interesting enough to not really consider trying to change it. I'd say my biggest gripe is just the fact that you're supposed to re-shuffle the tactics decks after each combat. I've already house-ruled it to simply put the 'used' cards face up at the bottom of the tactics deck and then just re-shuffle it when you get to the bottom. I'm sure some savant could 'game' the system (knowing exactly which cards are in the tactics deck and knowing which ones are left), but since I'm not playing with anyone like that, I don't worry about it. I think if I *were* going to consider making one change, it would be to simply the combat a bit and get rid of the tactics decks all together. Instead, just say that each ROUND of combat, a player can spend any 'action symbols' they roll (whatever those symbols are called) to either block one damage or inflict one extra damage, up to the 'tactic' value of their leader. So for example, if Grand Moff Tarkin were your leader in that system (with his space combat tactic value of '2'), then during each round of space combat you could spend up to 2 'action symbols' you roll to block or inflict extra damage. The only issue with this system is you would have to reorganize the way rolling and damage are assigned to make sure both players had rolled first to see how many 'action symbols' they got before damage started to get assigned to individual ships (but honestly that wouldn't be that hard of a change to implement and overall I think would nicely simplify the combat for those looking for simplification). --- With all that said, I do think what you propose is overall better than what FFG ended up going with. I think the fact that they wanted to use their trademark tiny cards really limited how much interesting stuff they could fit onto those cards. Also, a couple potential issue I see with your system as currently written: It doesn't seem to use the 'action symbol' rolls at all, which is pretty important as those symbols are on the dice and need to do something. Since your system is pretty dependent upon the makeup of what units you have in the combat, and you don't draw tactics cards until after you're in the combat, that would be pretty frustrating to end up getting all cards that you can't do anything with. As such, I'd suggest that you make some sort of blanket rule that you can always do with any card, like spend a card to re-roll a single die, for example.
  7. That's not going to happen. Not only because I think the game is too complicated for a mobile app, but because I'm fairly certain FFG lacks both the license and the inclination for developing electronic apps. While you're probably dead-on for the second part (that FFG doesn't have the license to make digital versions of their SW games), I think the game could definitely be made into an awesome iOS port. The different hands of cards could be handled exactly like the different hands in the Lords of Waterdeep iOS version, and so much of the info of the game could be integrated so that it is actually more intuitive than even the tabletop version. For example, all the probe cards you've drawn as the Imperial player could automatically grey-out those systems. All the Imperial and Rebel forces in each system could be represented by tiny icons for each unit type with a 'number' in the corner to show how many of those units there are in the space and so on. The only thing that really kills digital boardgame conversions IMHO are mechanics where one player gets to interrupt another player, and there doesn't seem to be any of that in this game that I can think of off the top of my head. So the biggest pain would be resolving battles really, because you'd have to pass back and fort between players between each round of a space battle and again for each round of a ground battle. So that's certainly a little less than ideal. But especially for human vs. AI or for just local pass-and-play I think the game could be amazing as a digital conversion.
  8. Yeah, I should definitely mention that I've only considered this house rule based on the extent of the rules in the core set. I'm aware that there are squadrons with longer range, etc, and I'll definitely be taking a look at that stuff later and seeing if this house rule still makes sense in that context or needs to be tweaked. Although in general I'm personally okay with the overall trade-off this house rule brings in regards to abstraction vs. the positives I feel it brings (listed in the OP). Yeah, squadrons can/are able to move further than they would in the standard rules, but the trade-off is that to 'use' this ability your squadrons are also getting pulled out of potentially useful areas in many cases to do so. As I said in the OP, it is definitely a different game if you play this way. Whether or not you think it is better is entirely up to whether you agree with my initial assertion that there are things about the squadron rules that aren't as good as they could be. Obviously anyone who loves the squadron rules exactly as they are has no need to every contemplate ever trying out this house rule!
  9. It definitely changes things (I did say that in the OP), but I don't think it removes tactics, it just changes them. It makes you have to take careful consideration about which enemy squadron you choose to target (if you have a choice between two), knowing that doing so will pull you into contact with them. It also might even present a situation where you choose *not* to attack, so that you can keep two enemy squadrons locked down. In that way, you could even say that it adds more tactical choice to the game.
  10. I've played a few games of Armada now, and while I very much love the game, if I have any complaint it would definitely center around some aspects of squadrons. The 'issues' mainly center around: 1) At the scale the game is set, it doesn't feel quite right to me how far apart the squadrons are when they're fighting against each other (or attacking a ship for that matter). Instead, when they're actually in contact with each other, it just feels somehow more 'right' and looks more cinematic to me, as at that point it is super clear that they're all fighting against each other. 2) As squadrons do tend to stay a bit spread out, it also tends to clutter up the board making it increasingly hard to find a time where you can cleanly place the ship measurement tool on the table without either pushing some squadrons out of the way or holding the measurement tool above the models (which isn't ideal, for sure). 3) It is fairly easy for the position of a squadron to get bumped accidentally out of engagement range without anyone noticing, especially when you're reaching down to adjust their damage dial and/or their activation slider. But this can even happen to a different squadron stand when you're busy adjusting another one. Here is my suggested house rule to help alleviate some of these situations a bit. Note that this does in some cases fundamentally change the way the game works, so please don't read this as a 1-to-1 solution for these problems, but rather an alternate way to play Star Wars Armada for those who are so inclined that also happens to be kind of better in handling those above 'issues'. Anyway, here it is: When a squadron is performing an attack, after confirming range to its declared target, if the attacking squadron is not in contact with the target (in the case of a ship, this would be the specific hull zone that is being attacked) nor in contact with a friendly squadron that is in contact with that target, then it must immediately make a special attack run move before completing the attack. An attack run is a special move whereby the squadron is moved by the shortest distance possible in order to contact its target. An attack run must still be performed even when the attacking squadron is engaged. If the squadron cannot possibly contact its target with the attack run (due to other ships/squadrons completely surrounding it, for example), then it must be moved as close as possible (by the shortest distance possible) before completing the attack. So what does this accomplish? Well mainly it tends to get squadrons way more clumped up with each other when they attack each other. These clumps tend to accomplish a few things: 1) I think they look way more cinematic on the table (my personal taste). 2) They tend to keep the table in general more open, meaning its more likely that you'll have space to properly measure your capital ship's movements with the measuring tool on the table. 3) You're more likely to notice when a squadron gets bumped accidentally, cause its easier to notice when two models in contact with each other are suddenly not in contact with each other. 4) If you do need to pick up a squadron to temporarily move it out of the way of a ship measurement, for example, its a lot easier to know exactly where to put it back (in contact with the enemy squadron) without having to place down a marker or anything like that. So what do you think? Do you like it, hate it or what? Any interest in giving it a try?
  11. Yes. It's one of "The Golden Rules" on pg 1 of the RRG. "Cannot" supersedes "can" in all situations. Yep but strangely it specifies that it applies to the word on 'cards', so it leaves some people to think that it doesn't apply in any other situation (which it still does, just by the fundamental nature of how rules are written...it didn't really need to be specified).
  12. This is actually the problem with spelling out timing as clearly as FFG has in the rulebook. The more you explain, the more you manage to confuse completely clear concepts...there really is no solution except to put out FAQs. The fundamental nature of rules means that when you have a restriction, it must naturally override a permission. So if a rule says you 'can' do something and another rule says you 'cannot' do something, then the 'cannot' must always override the 'can' unless the 'can' actually goes out of its way to say that it overrides the 'cannot'. That is absolutely the ONLY way to write rules. So whether or not FFG explains if engagement is an effect or not, the fact is, being engaged means a squadron cannot move. The only way this can be overridden is by a rule that specifically says that it allows the squadron to move 'even when it is engaged'. Since the 'squadron' command rules do not say anything like this, they do not override the restriction.
  • Create New...