Jump to content

Vogons

Members
  • Content Count

    507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vogons

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/01/1968
  1. Clear away the furniture, throw the cards in the middle of the room, and fight it out.
  2. I loved the books. I admit I'm afraid they'll screw it up with the series
  3. I really think most people are thinking of a roll maneuver. The ship simply rolling on it's axis to present the other side to the enemy. If they could find a way to keep track of which shield facing is where I think it would be a cool idea. Maybe a "Rolled" token to put on the ship to remind you port and starboard shield values are transposed until the ship rolls back. As far as I can see moving the shield values would be the only effect, which is why I think they didn't put it in the game.
  4. Armada is fun enough you shouldn't need to let the new player win. The beginner scenario in the book is there for a reason. It's really boring for an experienced player, but is designed to give a new player familiarity with the base game before you hit them with upgrade cards. Any new player will feel out of their depth when beginning to play Armada. Even for experienced X-wing players need to adjust to the difference in game order from X-wing and Armada. I don't play a the base starter scenario any more, but do keep it simple, usually 400 pts. an admiral, and keep to basic upgrades. Usually I start off with offensive and defensive upgrades only for the first game. The key is to keep it fun. I hat to admit that I lose more often then when, but the game is fun enough that I could care less.
  5. You'd need to keep port and starboard shield in a format so you can change their values as you roll. Make the roll maneuver cost a maneuver token or command. It takes place during a ships movement phase and you swap shield when you do it. The problem is what it does to game balance when rebels can get one broadside shot up, then roll to present an untouched shield. My guess is that this was looked at in the initial game development
  6. If that's all you want them for you my get more for your money with printed stuff like mel's and other sites. You'll have to do a little painting, but you won't be paying game piece prices to use for a craft piece
  7. For me it's the chance that APT's can hand out a crippling critical with each shot. If it was a face down damage they wouldn't be worth it, but that face up card can be worth more than another couple of points of damage.
  8. Seriously though, The Correllion Conflict is going to do a lot by adding campaign play. I could see groups setting up and playing it at conventions, and this will draw in people who don't want to deal with the hustle and bustle of tournaments. I'm willing to bet that as soon as they see how it does they'll have other campaigns out as well
  9. My guess it's more that he's frustrated that he doesn't know the cards and there effects. I know this aggravated me until I started using a fleet builder and could take my time and study the cards My suggestion would be to ask him to play a relatively "naked" game with no titles and a minimum of other upgrades. No one like to feel like they only know half the rules so give him a learning curve to get familiar with a few cards at a time
  10. Sorry if the last post seemed off the wall. That was a first thing in the morning while I was waking up thing
  11. I agree with everything you say. However, remember that the tech of star wars is supposed to have been essentially unchanged for untold years. Supposedly there's little difference between blasters, starfighters or capital ships from a hundred years old up to the most modern designs. Does it make sense? Nope I was under the impression that Civil war era tech was better, turbolasers did more damage and shields were stronger etc. Take the venator for example. It would be completely outclassed by an ISD or even a victory mark 2 in terms of firepower, armour and shields. The only way the venator really made up for the lack of these was its starfigther capacity. But in terms of in game I think that te Clone wars era ships would be less bang fo less buck really. They might cause and take less damage but they would also be cheaper to field. And a Venator would make a nice early imperial Carrier The problem with the idea of Clone wars Tech being better is the quality of the ships designed during the galactic civil war. The case in point would be the Death Star. If the tech to build this thing was wildly available many Bothians wouldn't have died. This was the result of an intensive ongoing imperial research and development program. If this wasn't new tech with better weapons and shields the rebels would have built their own version. It wouldn't have firepower to destroy a planet, maybe just enough to cripple a moon sized mobile space station. That's one example, but it embodies the idea. It's impossible to make bigger better without improved technology. In the modern world you can't simply take a destroyer and scale it up to battleship size.(I know battle ships aren't viable any more, just making a point.) The increase in size requires a bigger power plant, which requires more fuel and cooling. With bigger turbo lasers you might not need bigger ammo magazines, but you need an even bigger power plant and conduit that can contain that power on the way to the guns. It requires more power for shield for all the, so engine room grew again. finally amount of armor to cover all of this. Putting all of this into a package that is structurally stable requires even more Tech. The larger size of Galactic Civil War ships is itself the evidence of better Technology. If the most effective ship you can build is the size of a small cruiser then that's as big as you build. Look at the Iowa class BB in the US navy. Technology caught up to them. They could still do the same job as a guided missile cruiser, but why pay the extra upkeep for the battleships size. Tech is nipping at the heals of the cruisers and there are destroyers doing some of the jobs that people thought you had to have a CGM for. The point is that navies only build bigger when bigger definitively is better
  12. Anytime we get new ships it's all-good to me. If they want to give us separatist and clone ships that would be great, but don't expect anything mind blowing. I used to play WW2 ship miniatures, and every once in a while someone would set up scenarios that came out at the end of WW1. They were ok on the battle, but not a real force to be reckoned with. Look at the HMS Prince of Wales. It was the original, definitive battle cruiser or fast battleship. At the end of world war one it was the power at sea in the Atlantic. It the time between WW1 and WW2 a simple technological change, the trajectory of shells fired at longer ranges, meant that Prince of Wales had only wooden decks to protect it's magazines from the plunging fire that longer ranges created. This is the most famous example, but it's what a gamer should expect when older tech is faced off against cutting edge. I hope we get some clone wars ships, but I'm not expecting them to be any real powerhouses. Even upgrading the tech of ships won't make them the equivalent of there modern counterparts
  13. Does anyone know if FFG has any kind of program to reward us for collecting proof of purchase points? I just looked the other day and I'm starting to get a good pile of them.
×
×
  • Create New...