Ok, I don't mind the T-65 vs T-70 destinction (didn't know they had an official model for those abortions of an xwing remake). The point I was pushing is the "A-wing" pictured above isn't the standard A-wing model from RoTJ or this game we all play. That is glaringly obvious. If you want to say it's a different model type in the A-wing ship class that's fine, just like the T-70 is a newer (and much uglier) X-wing.

This came up in a recent game...but do you measure closest to closest in leu of arc? So if there is an obstacle just outside of your Fire arc but other de between you and the target, is the line traced along your arc or through obstacle? We reasoned arc overrides arbitrary closest to closest. Also range might happen that a part you can't see is range 1 but your arc LoS is range 2.

The blasters alone are enough to show this is incorrect. The hull geometry and a few other minor issues add to it: the engines with maneuvering vanes are too canted, the whole ship is too "bubbly" or rounded, the canopy is a little small. @WarTurtle - That's awesome, actually. I love when fictional world makers have this sense of lore and wonder about their universe. J. Michael Straczynski is probably the best, ever, at this factor in his show Babylon 5. However, It's awesome to keep seeing these things in Star Wars: the Victory model was apparently the original concept for the ISD...so why waste these drawings? The R-22 is a prefect example, as to any learned Star Wars fan that ship is absolutely NOT an A-Wing..it just looks like it. I also had a line of toys when i was younger that actually had some of the concept versions of ships (X-Wing, Y-Wing, Snow Speeder, AT-AT). So a lot of that stuff had different itterations, but they look sufficiently different to not be the same ship.

They aren't A-Wings. At least not OUR A-wings. Pheonix Squadron were flying R-22 Spearheads...the ship the A-Wing Interceptors were based on. The confussion is because the flyboys called the R-22s "A-Wings", so Dodonna used the nickname for the new craft. This...the "A-Wings" in the screenshot above are very obviously NOT A-Wings. That would be the above mentioned R-22. The fun thing about the "EU cannon is no longer cannon" is that it's a very misleading sentiment. They mean that they don't have to adhere to it in any way they wish to deviate (I'm going to wager Vector Prime and friends are a huge reason for that). However, if FFG and Rebels have shown us...they are very happy to pull from the EU and actually make it cannon. Why ignore stuff that works well?

X-Wings will be boosted up to compare to Bs and this guy as soon as the new movies come out. I would even wager that the delays in both games are directly linked to development of new-movie release items. X-Wings will get their aces pack with models of the new (to me, much uglier) X-Wing model from the movies with a title to "fix" them exactly like the TIE-A got.

That's asstounding...I can't wait for wave2 to stick expanded launchers on my Vic-1...I'm gunna maul all the ISDs!

Perhaps an admiral or officer (vader?) for the empire that allows a ship(s) to do this would make sense? Someone expensive like Tarkin. Would help make empire anti-squad Fire better vs rebel squads. The issue being mirrors and how TIEs could be one-shot by raiders and ISDs...of course that isn't game-breaking alone, would add an edge to want to avoid certain areas with fighters, kinda like avoiding the front arc of SDs with smaller ships.

Two 75% dice or a 75% and 50% shot is, indeed, solid. Those 3 health ties really go down to anti-squad.

I'm betting, at least, a title card will make the raider use crits to damage squadrons...it's constantly dubbed as an anti-fighter ship and that would be a pretty groovy title to push that focus.

Cuban Boy nailed it.

Doubt it'll be speed 4. Also, black dice are better...

heres a good way to frame the differences in play style: Take your favorite list and try to replicate it in the other faction. The closest I got was using a neb escort as my victory for a slow-fire-base. And the AFMKII as my gladiator hammer. The problem is, both ships are more hammer/anvil than a heavier anvil and hammer distinction. Also, both ships prefer fighting from afar. Squadrons are simply unreplicatable. The strongest setup for Rebs seems to just take all named pilots and escort your ships till they can jump into enemy ships and blast their ships. The MC30 will make this more accurate, but then I'll need to find how to anchor my ships, maybe with an MC80, and still it's always broadsides.

Advanced Gunnery is the worst thing your opponent could pick...one of your shops would get to double shoot its front arc, and the other two would get to use their fronts at all times. Intel sweep or outpost is the obvious choice depending on how your opponent wanted to engage you. I chose outpost in a list like this so I knew where he'd be so I could just smash into his ships and unload my dice as fast as I could. This type of list seems like points denial with objectives and an opportunity kill is its best tactic: it has lower mobility, but massive health, and good damage. I'd worry about not getting my 10-0 due to all the health I'd have to burn through. Of course these are my strategic concerns, yours could trump mine and you murder me. Wonder if it'll be worse to see trip-ISD lists after wave 2, or if these types of lists are, indeed, flawed. Time will tell.

I wonder which Bounty Hunter will bypass escort?

I played a similar list using only 2 VSDs with Outpost mission (He opted for second player). Seemed simple enough to delete one vic then the other. Might be harder if it was deployed in a wedge formation so my glad would have to dash past the lead ship into the front arc of another vic. Be an interesting game.

Indeed. I'm actually looking forward to trying out the Neb-B if I ever get a chance to play Rebs. It looks like a ship that's hard to use well...something I love.

This is all incorrect. The attacker picks his hull zone and the defenders hull zone. That is all. He rolls his dice, they are what they are. The attacker may now use commands, upgrades and accuracy dice to MODIFY the result. The defender uses his tokens, if he uses a brace he halves the damage, that is all. (The attacker assigns nothing nor does he pick anything.) Nothing you have said is right, that is not how it works. This is the rules forum and you should be able to explain the rules correctly. This. The only thing I do "inaccurately" is pull dice from the pool when they brace or evade to keep it simple at the table. The actual effects are as quoted above.

mxlm pretty much hit it, as well as a few others: Rebels favor broadsides at long-medium range, with evasion for defense with some tanky tokens tossed in. Empire favors forward fire at medium-short range with very tanky defenses, hull and tokens. The GSD and MC30 being the most overlap in ship roles, but even there you can see the differences in that GSDs have 3 shields fore and 1 aft compared to 2's all over for the MC30. This lends the MC30 to slightly different tactical considerations...though, granted, not that many from that change alone. Also, the severe short-range restriction on GSDs doesn't seem to hold as strongly on MC30s...plus upgrades. I see both factions with very unique configurations, but as is natural they have their own ships that can fulfill the same TYPES of roles in a battle: fast flankers, speedy close-range brawlers, heavy bricks to hold the line, etc. The rebels even have the nebulon that is pretty uniquely theirs and has no counter in the empire, or mirror.

I noticed playing a game with my brother, that just looking at the game while you're playing is a blast. It's thematically amazing and it plays like a dream. As for your game, I think the situation that arrised helps to illustrate the point people have been making about 4-ship builds...they just don't have the power to represent their seemingly strong presence. I'm going to assume his list was AFMKII, Neb, and a vette with fighter support, as that seems the most likely. He, essentially, traded one big ship and downgraded a warship to a flanker and used those points to empower his remaining ships and buy some fighter coverage. That your objective did a pretty decent amount of damage for you, and you stiil didn't obliterate his paper-thin ships with your behemoths, I feel at least, shows the importance of giving your ships you buy some form of empowerment. Of course, he could have only won due to your navigation error like you said, but would that have swung it much more the other-way? Again, the game is new, so I'm in no way saying you're an idiot or bad as we're all still working out a little bit of how the game works. Meta's shift over time afterall. Just pointing out how I see the game working, and with the base costs of ships being MUCH higher relatively than compared to X-Wing, it tends to point us in the direction of actually upgrading ships than buying 4 naked B-Wings and essentially being able to annihilate anything.

As stated, when ship is deployed. The reason is the "transparency" of strategy in Armada compared to, say, X-Wing. You are expected to make strategic and tactic decisions..not play poker. This is why pre-measuring is defacto allowed carte blanche. To illustrate, take Fleet Ambush. Player 1 must deploy their first ship in the ambush zone, it is trivially easy to tell how fast it's going with your own ships, so he sets the speed, allowing player two to see if he's running or making a stand. It directs the play extremely well and removes the guess-work that detracts from X-Wing. Also, the tokens vs defense dice take out more randomness...so the game plays like a tactical/strategy dream, instead of favoring people with good spacial sense on a board and good insight

That's my point kami689, which alikens to ScottieATF's point: It's pretty clear that you can do either thing with a Demolisher, as all conditions are clearly met. The point is that people don't like that it's a thing so try to argue that it's not clear...when it really is. I guess I prefer to be precise and am open to being "an ass" to people who argue things based on their beliefs of how they would like things rather than using evidence. For instance, the TO at the local tourney (granted we're all new) tried to rule that Superior Position damage for points only stemmed from Damage cards. I had to point out to him that that was incorrect...and found the rule for him fairly easy. Like I was saying, FFG is infinitely better than other table-top companies with rules. There are genuine arguments about what is doable in things like Warhammer (especially in that game where trained monkeys seem to write half the rules), but as far as I've seen with my experiences in X-Wing and Armada: FFG doesn't make many of those errors and quickly fixes them if they do.

Well, this is FFG, not Games Workshop...so from my experience there is little interpretation in FFG games. Though the concept you talk about is a thing...just not in demolishers case: pretty clear you can move and/or shot after your manuever

Yes. The interesting thing about this game is how the points interact. due to the large buy-in of ships, and low cost of powerful upgrades, a fraction of their points can multiply their power. If I took my list and wanted to add a second gladiator I'd have to dump all my upgrades and some of my squads...is the extra ship that just took all my upgrades away able to provide as much power as said upgrades and fighters? Maybe, maybe not. Prob not tbh.

Hehe, maybe. Though the title is a maybe just to add overwhelming firepower. I was over costing my ship too, as I forgot is gave to drop flight controllers to get gunnery team, so E Launchers and that is only 14 points. I really really want to see the new upgrade cards :/

Oh, thought we were talking about their cards Ya, I'm considering outpost to replace ambush...but so far ambush has been good for me.