Jump to content

lagomorph

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    lagomorph reacted to Quarrel in rules answers: arc & line of sight diagrams   
    Armada's rules for establishing firing arcs, firing ranges, and lines of sight are somewhat complicated. I've thrown a few diagrams together that (I hope) explain them better than the rulebook does.
    The full album is here: http://imgur.com/a/fs1ni

    (EDIT 4/20/2015: Combined images into one. Clarified range/LoS not arc-bound.)
    (EDIT 5/8/2015: Range measurements restricted to arc as per new errata.)
    (EDIT 12/20/2016: Blocked range check lines also block LoS and attacks, per an old FAQ that I missed.)
    (EDIT 2/5/2018: address blocked range checks more directly)
  2. Like
    lagomorph got a reaction from Jochmann in I really love SW-Armada, I really do. But….   
    signed in to say I agree with OP and would love to see a campaign-based strategic metagame developed (by fans).
     
    I agree that the "canned" battles of armada feel contrived and a bit lifeless compared to the rich universe many of us love and experience in the novels and EU. I would love to see battles over planets, mining operations, transports and freighters, and blockades as a part of a massive meta game. 
  3. Like
    lagomorph reacted to Aminar in I really love SW-Armada, I really do. But….   
    Long Dead Heroes like Dutch and Mauler Mithel returned to the field inexplicably. Luke waited, wishing his dear friend Biggs would resurface as well. Instead Darth Vader reappeared, allied with the empire once more.
  4. Like
    lagomorph reacted to Aminar in I really love SW-Armada, I really do. But….   
    I agree. We can do what we want with narrative. We're creative people. They've given us plenty of tools to make scenarios.
    But a focus on tournament play creates a relatable experience for everyone and by having regular events, keeps players involved.
    You want narrative. Make it. The same as Role Players have been doing for decades. You don't need modules. You don't need official FFG stories. Just make them up and go.
    And as for the six turn limit, I'd prefer a casualty point. Something like the first player to gain 200 victory points forces his opponent from the field, but 6 turns is a good balance point. It lets games play out without dragging.
  5. Like
    lagomorph reacted to TheVillageIdiot in I really love SW-Armada, I really do. But….   
    I really love Armada because - as a game - it ticks all the boxes for me:
    Good component quality Pre-painted figures (I loathe, yes loathe painting) Very good rules It ‘feels’ as space combat It breathes Star Wars IP   If you were wondering, I do not have reservations about the price. I bought 2 cores, the first pre-ordered at my LGS at 76€ (about 87$) due to preordering before the worsening exchange rate, the second at 102€ (about 116$) after release. While not cheap, I do not feel gouged at all. Quality has its price (and sometimes forgotten: the IP also costs money!). Note: when comparing to US prices, do not forget the 21% VAT!   And now the ‘but': It is probably me, but I do fear about replayability. Let me explain: I think the focus on tournaments is limiting this game a lot. This game screams for something more memorable than ‘Create fleet, choose objectives, play 6 turns, wrap up, forget - Rinse and repeat’! There is more possible, much more.  Some of you will say: but we have the objectives. Yes we have. But these are so gamey; unnatural mechanisms to create something resembling a scenario. I find these fail miserably and are - imho - created to try and bring the game to a higher level. They failed.  Also, the 6 turn limit (linked of course to the aforementioned objectives) st**ks. Why six turns? How gamey can you get.       What Armada needs to lift it from very good to a classic is all of the following Real scenarios. Not those BS objectives, but real scenarios. You know, with a premise and a goal to achieve. A campaign game. And the existing tournament rules for, well, tournaments and/or quick play. —> Check   This campaign could either be a string of aforementioned scenarios (FFG is able to do this: look what they did with Imperial Assault) and/or a space supremacy setting. Something like: you have a map of 10 (or whatever) star systems, buy fleets totalling 3000 points (or whatever) and go for a planet grab. Add some basic, generic economic and diplomatic rules, some missions (raiding, planet assault, harassment, station assault, …), add in some guidelines about how to move on the strategic map and how to assign fleets to missions… et voila!   Of course, some extras would be needed. Transport vessels for one would help in defining missions. Space stations of different sizes with appropriate rules (other than repair 1 damage), either as figurines or as counters. And so on...   What do you think?  Am I all alone in this thinking, and do all of you feel more than content with the tournament-only play setting?  Or, do you also feel that this game could be so much richer and deeper?    
  6. Like
    lagomorph reacted to KineticOperator in Interdictor; how would it work   
    So, another couple of thoughts.
     
    Interdictor could restrict the deployment zone of the opponent, and/or the deployment order.  A few examples off the top of my head:
     
    1 - Hyperspace Assault.  Your opponent may only place his hyperspace/objective tokens in his deployment zone, and they cannot move.  Or maybe they are placed normally but just cannot move.
    2 - Your opponent's deployment zone is restricted to the center 2' rather than the center 4' of his table edge.
    3 - Your opponent must "move on" to the table on turn one somewhere within his deployment zone.
    4 - Your opponent must deploy all of his forces before you do.
     
    And so on.  There are a lot of different effects it could have.  Perhaps it would allow you to be Second Player regardless of point totals, but still pick the objective from your opponent's pile?  There are just too many ways to simulate the tactical advantage given by the jammer to rule it out.
×
×
  • Create New...