Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About homedrone

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

831 profile views
  1. I don't think this is a full answer, but opportunity cost? If you take the Vader boarding card, you can't take the Admiral or Squad.
  2. It looks like the Unity title is only countered by squads with HEAVY actually printed on their card, not inherited by intel. Am I reading that right?
  3. I'm still a little unclear of how she works. My understanding is that you give the flagship an extra non scatter defense token, then when you are using your defense tokens, you can use one of your original token to do it's thing, flipping it to red. Then you could spend that token, to get the effect of the one you added as long as it was different. So if it was an MC30, you could add a brace. Then when you are using your tokens, you could flip a redirect to red for the redirect effect, then spend it for the brace effect. Is that what she does?
  4. Do we know how many of each card comes in the box? Edit: I see this has ready been asked above. Sorry for the redundancy.
  5. Those expert shield techs are interesting. Considering how common xi7 are, instead of only redirecting 1, you can just drop that damage instead. But they are crew, which is a competitive spot. And the xi7s are still doing what they want.. hmmm
  6. I also think perfect balance would be the best. But it's not going to happen. One of the sides will be stronger than the other. The bid mechanic softens that organically. If there are a number of objectives being chosen at a much higher rate than others, cutting those off could open up the variety a lot. As has been said, the second player might not be the desirable role in that world, but then that drives players to bid higher for first. leaving room for people who make lists work with their objectives to ignore the bid race. If the bids became crazy, and 1st was still crushing it.. then FFG would probably have to make some other kind of change. I just don't think it's that big a problem yet, and more variety would be great. All I REALLY want is the objectives to all be more equal in advantage to the second player to encourage more variety there. So re-doing the underused objectives would be awesome. That just hasn't been FFG's way of doing re balancing of things like that so far. If Armada got an App like X-wing did for point cost balancing, I'd hope objectives could also be adjusted in a similar way, but sometimes it can't be a simple number fix. They do do cycling though. I think it could open up the play variety here.
  7. One of the roles should be stronger. That's why the bid is there to self balance. If the weaker role is 2nd player because of rotation that opens up the number of objectives played, I'm ok with That.
  8. Something I'd like to see with the addition of new objectives, is the cycling out of some old ones, at least for tournaments. that way, new ones don't always have to be constantly competing with the most used ones to see use.
  9. I think it's 22+ hull and high engineering is the special rule that allows it to "ignore" overlapping objects
  10. If something like this was done, I'd kind want it to be that you can only have 1 generic design per squad type. So if you run X-wings, they need to be either all standard, or all Rogue Squad. Not a mix of them.
  11. I think part of the reason the Legion terrain stuff works for FFG is that it has objective cards as part of it, so it's not just terrain, it's part of army building, and thus much more enticing to players. I could maybe see Armada having an objective set of models that adds new objective cards that go with them.
  12. You are correct, I wasn't arguing for that, I was just suggesting that's the sort of change that would need to be made to clear this problem up. I figure the proportion of times the rule gets invoked by chasing ships vs some "abuse" of it would be lopsided. Imagine a fleet of 3 or 4 MC30s led by Madine. It kind makes them all have a demo like ability, not because they are chasing, but because they are curling around to the rear of all their targets. I dunno if this is really the intended effect of the rule, is it?
  13. I fear that the best use of this rule would end up not being for what it's intended. Both players are subjected to the same problem of chasing right now (demolisher aside) so it may be wonky, but I think to solve this problem properly would require a bigger change. Like, the turn sequence could be split once more into the "shoot phase" and "move phase".. everyone shoots before everyone moves. Lowers the effect of player skill on the game a bit tho.
  14. Another option to allow lopsided matches might be some kind of score multiplier for the smaller fleet. For example, if you were half the fleet points of the enemy, your total score at the end is doubled. Small fleet Final Score = score * (large fleet/small fleet)
  15. I think the basic set up of a campaign should be that winning sides don't get anything but Victory Points that contribute to the overall win, but losing sides get the means to come back to the fight.
  • Create New...