Jump to content

AdmiralYor

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AdmiralYor

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

455 profile views
  1. All this advice is probably still valid.
  2. What I'm most interested in is how they can release the Starhawk and still leave some space for the mc80l to have its own unique role in the game.
  3. When dealing with red dice based opponents you really only have a few options (against decent deployment and a six round limit): 1) Avoid engagement, either just to deny points or using fighters. If they want the points, make them change their game plan. 2) Do exactly what they want, and hope the red dice fail them. With your particular fleet: A) You are out activated. Either put in flotillas to go for more even parity, or ditch the idea and use Pryce to try to even the count. B) You are out deployed, by a ton. Combined with A, this is a loss in most cases, unless you have a Pryce. Flotillas, and more fighters are called for. C) Keep track of what upgrades/ships/squds you are not getting much use out of, for future iterations. For instance, in your case, you didn't get much of any use out of Screed, you might consider another commander. D) Accept that not every ship is going to do something in every matchup. If your Star Destroyer has to putz around being useless because you needed to deploy Demolisher last, so be it. You only have six rounds, the goal is to net as many points. Not throw all the ships into a blender and see what happens. That being said, it's much easier to say something like that in retrospective. P.S. Playing at higher or lower point levels has weird effects of the balance of the game.
  4. The real question isn't about the logic of clone wars era vs galactic civil war. It is whether FFG can make clone wars ships different and fun to play without making all existing ships obsolete.
  5. If we keep bumping, this will eventually be true right?
  6. For those squads their strength and weakness is that they are unique. For both factions, they are a nice way to burn a couple points if you don't care about your bid. Rebel, it was mostly to synergize with aces lists. Imperials? The best use I found was to add additional triggers to trip my opponent up. Forgetting the escort on black, or that gamma doesn't have heavy, etc, can turn the tables on a game. I never felt the rebel squads we're quite as good at that. As to making the special squads not unique? I think more squad models would be better. Just to avoid the confusion caused by the above point.
  7. The most important goal should be shortening the max game time. Armada is seriously handicapped by its long round times, which leads to long tournaments with very few games played. Consequently, quite frequently, your final placement in a tournament has more to do with 10-1 matches at lower tables than it does with your own outcome. My thoughts on two major places to save time. 1) Squadron rules. Find some way to speed up squad play. The current ruleset is slow, fiddly, and very boring to observers . The solution in casual play is to run by two rules, what is possible, and what you want to do. Running off of intent speeds up the squadron play considerably. At a minimum, codify that. Pie in the sky? Rewrite the rules to completely get rid of the range 1 rules. 2) Make objectives a bigger deal. In most cases, the vast majority of points in a match come from destruction of ships. This tends to lead to three options in a game, avoidance, attrition, or slaughter. If all the current objectives were scrapped and replaced with a system where players are competing directly for 11 points on the objective, which may or may not include destroying enemy ships. Once the fight over the 11 points is over, the game is done. With both of those I'm looking for a result, lower game time. I have not really put any thought into the details of implementation.
  8. You are seriously underestimating the annoyance of trying to fleet build on paper with a system where each upgrade can have a different cost on each variant, and theoretically, combinations of upgrades become more expensive. It's a system that is almost impossible to represent on paper, even at the number of ships that Armada has. FFGs main claim to fame in the miniatures world was making systems that don't require giant piles of paper and tedious record keeping. Would it be nice if Armada did a 2.0, sure. Not worth the pain of having to reprint a low selling game though. So really, I would be very surprised if they did it.
  9. Armada by its very definition is unfinished (we hope). Pretty much every card and miniature game on the market is unplayable out of the box. It will include rules of how to play a learning game and that's it. For Armada at least, there are meta breaking balance errata that mean that playing the game without is playing a completely different game. If you don't care about FAQ, errata, and such, why do you even care about point values at all? Build whatever you want with the cards and play the game. If you have no interest in a balanced game, why bother with balance at all? With xwing 2.0 I think FFG did it correctly. They made a fleet builder more or less required. However, they also made the system so complicated that honestly, I wouldn't WANT to do it without a builder. If you want to play out of the box, they give loadouts for that, with balance to be taken with a grain of salt. All that being said, I expect Armada is too young to scrap for a 2.0. I just expect mechanic changes and MAYBE some more complexity to the fleet building process.
  10. My thought has been to allow ships to fire either twice before they move or once after. Giving everyone a "lite" version of demolisher. While demolisher remains special because it can fire once before and once after. More activations can be used to your advantage, but it stills allows for the cinematic ISD jumping on to a little ship and ripping it to shreds.
  11. Stores do. Never underestimate the power of a FLGS owner/employee over the playerbase. Their interest lies towards what will make their store money. Games that have a fixed cost (board games), or a predicable collection cap (I put FFG minis/LCG games in the category.), don't keep the doors open unless you have engagement levels at the peak of xwing. At that point, there was more content out than your average player was going to be able to consume. Similar to a traditional mini's game or CCG. I believe a while back we discussed the economy of a store supporting Armada in 2018. The numbers, even with optimistic tournament attendance, milking the kits, 200 point fleets for 3 hour tournaments, etc.. Came out to a pitiful number. Are stores going to start throwing Armada players out? probably not. It will however, eventually, be kept under control like RPGs, obsolete games, and other activities that take up tons of space and generate minimal income. If your FLGS is willing to support a system that won't make any money, more power to them. Dollars to Doughnuts though, stores doing their 2018 accounting are going to have to seriously consider the viability of Armada.
  12. #BankruptMe2020 ? I'm convinced that despite the success of Xwing, FFG has probably decided that their concept of "own everything" miniature and card games has been a failure. Even most historical games release more plastic than any average player will ever buy, so being able to own everything is abnormal. Combined with the unreliable and sparse release schedule, even an Armada "whale" customer isn't worth much of anything to a store. This problem has been reflected across multiple of FFG's lines. To be successful, a game needs to give the "whales" something to spend money on, while still being accessible to the "casuals", additionally giving the "casuals" something to aspire to. It could be that the original idea was that during the dearth of content in one game, say the Star Wars LCG for example, players were supposed to get attracted to other FFG titles that just had content release, like xwing. In practice, I think the players just left the game when they got bored. At least I hope that was the idea, otherwise FFG has crashed and burned multiple titles due to lack of content and not adjusted anything.
  13. Also, I think an article about this process and how the rules came to be would be GREAT content we would all love to read. Obviously you can't share this, but it would be nice if you could pass it to someone with the authority to do so.
  14. I never said that being a warehouse worker was bad or made them a less intelligent person, I didn't even imply it. Just said that it wasn't relevant. Most articles for FFG don't have a bio, and the ones that do, don't read like that of Brooks'. For those of us that don't have the advantage of being a play tester, friends at FFG, and an inside track to information, we have to make due with the scraps that we are given. Oddities stand out. The bio is odd, period. It's a news starved community, we are going to rip into anything we get and analyze it completely wrong because, quite frankly, we have nothing better to do. You obviously do, congrats.
  15. Also, I would quite possibly drop Runewars from the list of credits. I can't imagine anyone wanting to associate themselves with that debacle until it has nostalgia credit.
×
×
  • Create New...