Jump to content

homedrone

Members
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About homedrone

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

521 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I think it's 22+ hull and high engineering is the special rule that allows it to "ignore" overlapping objects
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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)
  10. 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.
  11. I don't think either Rotj or R1 were presented in realtime. There are jumps of time between cuts so we can't say for certain how long the battles were. I think triangular is right. The gm should play it by ear. A general target of 5 to 10 min seems ok tho. Maybe the bigger the scale, the longer the time.
  12. Maybe she'd get into it more if she did list building as well.
  13. I think there's room to make it a medium and stat if such that it has a role unique to itself. Like make it a largely blue dice ship? Personally I want it. I want it to be a ship that I would take 3 of and have room for a couple other things and squads, or 2 and a large base with some squads.
  14. Theres the wingless liberty type mc80s as well.. Maybe as a medium sized ship? Dunno what role it would have.. but they should be in a cannon list.
  15. I used QTC on a liberty with H9 back in the flotilla hey day. It was expensive but quite effective.
×
×
  • Create New...