Jump to content

Dobbs Mottley

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dobbs Mottley

  1. Surely that's an argument for having both formats. That way, players with big collections from first edition can still use all their ships in Extended, while new players- like yourself- can be competitive in Hyperspace. The execution may be confused, but the concept isn't inherently bad.
  2. That's what I thought too...and in that case (and assuming you have the slot free), paying another 3 points for Ord Pods might give some added flexibility.
  3. I don't have enough practical playing experience to know if that would be a sensible combo, but my thinking is that LTT works well with a bonus anti-squadron attack, as you might not want to spend one of your regular attacks shooting against a single squadron. Is that capability worth the five extra points over DTT though?
  4. Could you combine LTT with Ordinance Pods to add those two bonus dice to the single black die?
  5. If this is enforced, it has some significant implications for the "should Armada go digital?" debate. On the one hand, if Armada loses its current list builders, that might strengthen support for an official app. On the other, a lot of opposition to the digitalisation of X-wing 2.0 was mitigated by the widespread use of 3rd party builders, which made up for the roughness of FFG's offering. I won't lie; I'd be a little concerned if we got a second edition where key information (cost, slots etc) was omitted from the cards, if the only realistic legal way to make sense of these things was through an official X-wing style app.
  6. Aside from a few cards, I have everything I need from it...no way I'm buying a whole set just for them!
  7. I have a small and rather idiosyncratic collection: Imperial 1x ISD (Chimaera) 2x VSD 1x GSD 1x Imperial Light Carrier (Quasar) 2x Imperial Light Cruiser (Arquitens) 2x Raider 2x Gozanti 6x Tie Fighter 1x Tie Interceptor 1x Tie Advanced 1x Tie Bomber 2x Lambda 1x Firespray 1x Jumpmaster 1x Aggressor 1x YV-666 2x Gauntlet Rebel 1x MC-80 (Liberty) 1x MC-75 1x Assault Frigate MK2 1x MC-30 1x Nebulon-B 1x Transport 2x X-wing 2x Y-Wing 2x A-Wing 2x B-Wing 2x Headhunter 2x Lancer As you can see, there are quite a few large gaps but if anything, my collection of upgrade cards is even patchier! I don't own a core set and only got into Armada when a friend and I bought and split a second-hand imperial fleet (along with the rebel contents of the core, which my friend took).
  8. What's the point of changing edition and reworking all the ships if we're going to carry over old grudges? Yes, I think all ships should be decent as a simple matter of principle. There's no question that the JM5K was overpowered/undercosted in 1st ed, but one of my great disappointments with 2.0 is that they didn't seem to make much of an effort to turn it into a viable-but-balanced ship.
  9. I'm not against new technology; I can remember what it was like before the internet and frankly I wouldn't want to go back to those days. An app could offer some advantages to Armada, but at the same time, it dilutes one of the key pleasures of a miniatures game: it's an analogue experience in an increasingly digital world. I suspect this simple emotion is behind a lot of the opposition to making Armada digital.
  10. I'm fairly ambivalent. While there are advantages to digitalising certain aspects of the game- for example, points costs- I do think it increases the temptation to make changes for gimmicky or commercial reasons, rather than balance and playability. Speaking as someone who tends to purchase ships and upgrades selectively, I'm probably less relaxed about sweeping changes to my purchases without there being a very good reason! Personally, I'm much more behind digitalisation when it adds features to a game that cannot be as easily handled through non-digital means, for example, solo-play or fully co-operative modes using an AI to play the opposing force. The app for Descent is a pretty good example of this and shows the possibilities for digital aids aiding narrative and campaign play.
  11. Pretty much summed up my feelings. Although I like the thematic idea of scum/pirate/third party factions, I think they work best as auxiliary fleets or in 200-250 pts skirmish battles. The prequel era is probably the best bet for fully-fledged new factions at this moment in time.
  12. No-one I know is still actively playing X-wing. I wouldn't say 2.0 is the cause of that- I get the impression many of the "standard format players" were already drifting away as 1.0 progressed- but instead of rejuvenating the scene, the new version seems to have killed off any lingering interest around here (our FLGS closing down really hasn't helped). It certainly has put paid to my own, small-scale efforts to introduce the game to new players.
  13. All of the above...for different reasons. If I was a Star Wars character, I'd be Scum or at least "unaligned" (okay, I'd probably be an Aleena or a blue Ortolan) and so I do have a personal leaning in that direction, although I don't think a "Scum" faction makes as much sense for Armada as it does for X-wing. Clone Wars seems like the most sensible route for adding new factions (which I feel is needed sooner or later), and hopefully will mean Dreadnoughts and Venators (which I'd buy regardless of which faction they're in). Resistance/FO suffer from the gigantism of the ST, but could still be made to work. Basically, I just want new stuff!
  14. Hmm...I have a lot of unpopular preferences but, the OP asked for opinions... 1. I don't think this forum is as fun and welcoming as it once was. 2. "Iconic" is an overused term around here: an iconic ship should not only be recognisable as "a Star Wars ship" even to people who aren't fans, but it should encapsulate something of the core essence of the franchise. Personally, I'd say only the X-wing, TIE fighter, Millenium Falcon and ISD are truly iconic.
  15. The simple answer to the OP is "most of us here haven't got a clue"! In gameplay terms, I don't think Armada needs a second edition, but that's only half the issue. I do feel though that something big (and I mean something bigger than a SSD even) is needed to break the current impasse. The well of easily-recognisable OT ships is drying up; FFG is clearly struggling with new releases and favouring other products it feels offer greater return on investment...and in the meantime, people on this forum are increasingly unhappy with the drought. Something has to give. I think it's going to take either a second edition (or my preferred option) the introduction of PT factions to restore some forward momentum. But that's just me and I know even less than Jon Snow.
  16. A limited edition alternative sculpt/paint job is only an issue if you 1) really like it and 2) can't reasonably attend the event it's being sold at! I do have some sympathy for people in this particular boat, as it's only human to be unhappy if something you really want is tantalisingly out of reach. As to whether I want to see one for Armada...on balance, I'd say no. I'd like to see that time and effort devoted to actual new product we can all enjoy, instead of what amounts to a marketing gimmick.
  17. Blah. Which is probably the most meaningful thing I've said all month!
  18. Your guess is as good as mine...but I suspect they are trying to do a lot with minimal staffing levels. Like so many companies these days! As I said, I'm just presenting a possible line of reasoning that may explain FFG's thought processes; whether that reasoning is valid is another matter entirely! I just don't have enough information to judge the strength of Armada's sales in any meaningful way and in any case, what matters more is how the game is perceived to be performing relative to other product lines. Agreed! Considering that the Venator and Dreadnought both regularly feature heavily in "most wanted ship" lists, there's decent anecdotal evidence to suggest that new content/factions built around those ships would do well. And I suspect a few people wouldn't say no to a Lucrehulk or two either...
  19. I've heard it said that the majority of a player's expenditure on a new miniatures game occurs within the first year or so, which sort of makes sense. We usually need to buy a core set and several expansions to get established and after that, we either lose interest and move on or, if we enjoy it, our collection fairly quickly reaches a saturation level where we have everything we really need (and probably a lot more). From there on, it gets harder for companies like FFG to extract money from us. Yes, they can crank out expansions, but as the sheer volume of content builds up, it must get proportionally harder to design new product that players will buy, but which doesn't completely break the game. At some point, there must be a strong temptation to say "screw this, it's easier to create a new game and build a new playerbase than coax any more cash from those guys". Now to be clear, I'm not defending this reasoning...I suspect it's just the way economics work (or are perceived as working). This is one reason why I agree with the view that Armada needs to embrace the Clone Wars or something similar in order to break the current impasse.
  20. Not to mention that if Chess was the same age as Armada, you can virtually bet some of its fans would be asking for expansions and new pieces! Comparing Chess to Armada is rather unfair, as the games have evolved in very different circumstances and their players consequently have different expectations. Aside from the fact that both are strategy games played with a variety of distinct physical, 3D pieces...do they really have that much else in common? If you showed up to your LGS looking to play a game of Armada and someone offered you a chess match instead, would you regard that as an good substitute? I'm not being sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious as to how many players regard the two as near-interchangeable experiences.
  21. FFG is counting on this. The article says it all: "stand out from the pack"...it's all about owning an "exclusive" model that other players won't have. Now I agree with others who have suggested that a special model like this will make a nice memento of the event and I also agree that without different cards, it's not an issue mechanically. But that isn't what FFG is selling this on. I would tend to agree. Something like this really isn't a big thing...until it's an alt paintjob you adore on a ship you love flying! I know I bought a couple of the 1.0 aces packs at least partly on the strength of new colour schemes (that gorgeous red TIE Defender...mmm!).
  22. $20, sure...but the downed AT-ST is being listed for $49.95 and that seems to me a bit expensive for what it's bringing to the table.
  23. I'd not say no to generic commanders. That said, we are in a different spot to Legion...we're still waiting for our next expansion and they're getting wrecked vehicles! 😂
  24. This is something I'd really like to see too! As to how I'd implement it...well the easiest solution is to "re-skin" existing commanders/squadrons/crew in casual games. Alternatively, there were some ideas floating around this forum for Aturi-esque systems where you "level up" your commander and flagship with traits, which also allows you to build a narrative over several games. I'd go further and say that encouraging "your dudes" isn't on FFG's radar. X-wing seems keen to prioritise named pilots over generics, Legion has only recently added generic officers and even in games like Imperial Assault or Descent, you're still playing pre-written characters instead of creating your own. It's interesting to me that a number of Legion players have been quite vocal about not wanting generic officers, as they want the game to be all about "iconic" named characters. I just don't think what we're looking for is part of the commercial landscape, sadly...and nothing I've seen has given me hope that this will change. Nor is this trend restricted to FFG...even GW seems to be pushing named characters at the expense of "your dudes".
  25. A little part of me dies anytime I see an existing franchise receive a "dark and gritty" makeover! That doesn't mean I dislike dark and gritty stories- far from it; I just feel it's being done too often and to franchises that (in my view) really don't support a harder tone. "Dark and gritty" does not automatically equal "better", as some writers/execs/fans seem to think. Star Wars has always had dark moments. In Episode IV, you are treated to a view of the incinerated remains of Luke's aunt and uncle, not to mention the obliteration of an entire planet and the deaths of numerous minor (and a few major) characters. At its heart, it's a war film and war is pretty dark! But grimdark? I don't think Star Wars should or needs to go there. The whole point of grimdark, versus dark, is that it turns that darkness up to eleven...and then plugs in a few extra speakers for good measure. For me at least, that would feel out of place with Star Wars' fairly clean-cut "good versus evil" fantasy feel. So...in my opinion, no I don't think Star Wars has much room for true grimdark.
  • Create New...