Jump to content

darkknight109

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About darkknight109

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Disagree. Yes, things occasionally need to be rebalanced, but that should be a rare and one-time thing (and the number of ships/upgrades in Armada I can think of that would warrant that treatment is in the single digits). No game will ever be perfectly balanced, unless it is a chess-style game where both sides are completely identical. There will always be some cards/units/abilities that are stronger or more cost-effective than others. You can fiddle around with adding a point or two here or taking them away there, but beyond a certain level it doesn't really improve the end product and is more a nuisance than anything that makes the game more fun. And, in terms of balance, Armada is honestly probably one of the best games I've ever seen. Every single ship in Armada is viable in a competitive list. Sure, some are easier to build around than others, but there's no ships like the TIE Punisher or Firespray in X-Wing that are literally impossible to use competitively and are there just for collecting or to give yourself a handicap against a newbie. The number of games where I can say that I can put any unit I own on the field and still be able to make a good list around it is vanishingly small. About the worst thing I can say about balance in Armada is that if you want to run starfighters you are basically *required* to run Intel, but even then that's a matter of mechanics, not points; no amount of point adjustment on the Intel ships will change that, and making them more expensive won't cause people to run alternate starfighter builds, it will just cause them to stop running starfighters altogether because of how easy starfighter swarms are to lock down if there's no Intel keeping them moving. Points adjustments should not be thought of as a substitute for new editions, as the two are designed to do different things. Points adjustments are for balance, which, as previously mentioned, is an area Armada is already in pretty great shape on. New editions are to re-tool mechanics that aren't working or do a sweeping re-adjust of the game to deal with the bloat that inevitably gathers after years of continued development and new releases. For however badly I dislike what they did with X-Wing 2E, even I won't deny that the game needed a new edition by the end of 1E to deal with power-creep and for a redo on some cards/ships/mechanics that were created early in the game's lifecycle before FFG really knew what they were doing with the game. But for however much people talk about Armada 2E, I'm not seeing a dire need for that sort of intervention here. Starfighters are an oft-complained about part of the game and I agree that if there was a 2E that's probably the part of the game that needs the most attention, but beyond that I can't think of much beyond minor tweaks that I would want to see happen.
  2. Generally speaking, in all wargames - not just this one - I like running "Ace Custom" squads: small in number, but outfitted to the nines to make sure each unit is lethal in its own right. These sorts of lists tend to require careful planning, as you're almost always outnumbered, but when a plan goes off smoothly you can unload an outrageous amount of pain. Beyond that, I also tend to value durability - I love ships/units that can take a beating and still come out the other side ready to make a mess of whoever dared cross them. I also tend to gravitate more towards long range armies rather than up-close brawlers. If there's a unit that will let me safely tear apart my opponent's army while my units enjoy a spot of tea on the opposite corner of the table, I am most content. With both those traits in mind, my favourite ship in Armada is the ISD2 - especially with Motti, Tua/ECM, Seventh Fleet Star Destroyer and/or Shields to Maximum to make them even more survivable. Big, tanky, lots of upgrade slots and possessed with enough firepower to put anything that's foolish enough to be in its front arc in a world of hurt (and able to deliver its full payload at medium range to boot), it is pretty much my dream ship. The fact that it's reasonably speedy/manoeuvrable, unlike its little brother in the VSD, is just icing on the cake. I usually wind up building my lists around a Star Destroyer or two (usually a Cymoon and an ISD2), and I sometimes have to push myself to try out different fleet configurations just for the experience. Given my druthers, though, those two are always my staples.
  3. "Games Workshop does it" is probably the single-most convincing argument I can think of for why FFG shouldn't. I mean, look at how ridiculous their errata/FAQ/added content got in 40k 7E. Dataslates/Formations were published online, in White Dwarf, in campaign books or supplemental codices, to the point where I honestly think you could have created your own dataslate in Photoshop and brought it to a tournament and fooled about 80% of the people there.
  4. Ugh. No. This is the exact thing that made me quit X-Wing when they went to 2E and pushed the companion app. When I play a tabletop game, it's because I want to get *away* from screens, not be glued to another one. And if a companion app houses the "latest" in terms of points value of everything, that promotes the exact same "release now, test and fix it later" mentality that has made modern video gaming such a pain in the posterior. If you want to use one of the (many) third-party apps that will help you build your fleet, be my guest. But, to my eye, the "official" version should *always* be the printed form, because it's so much easier for everyone to keep track of on the fly. Heck, I don't even like errata/FAQs for that exact reason - I recognize their necessity, but I think they should be released as little as possible, and significant effort should go into testing ships/cards in advance to ensure that they're not super-unbalanced (and Armada tends to be better than most at that - while cards like Rhymer and Demolisher were absolutely overpowered in their original forms, they remain the exception, not the rule, for how well-thought-out cards usually are).
  5. This, honestly. The only CW-era ships that immediately stick out in my mind are the Venator and the donut-ships that the Trade Federation fly. At this point, the ST-era has more room for expansion and is more likely to see new ships.
  6. I'd like a Scum faction first and foremost. Given Armada's limited release slate, one faction would be far easier to get up and running than two. Scum also offers some reasonably interesting options in terms of ships. If not those, then FO/Resistance. Designs are interesting and the lack of established ships could actually be a boon, because it gives FFG a chance to come up with their own stuff and get it introduced to the greater SW universe, much like what happened with the Raider. Not a fan of the Clone Wars. The ship design is all pretty blah and I never found it all that compelling of a conflict (kind of hard to get excited about the outcome of a battle when you realise that one guy is running both factions). Hard pass on that one for me.
  7. Some random rule ideas: TIE Avenger Squadron: Speed: 5 Hull: 5 Anti-Fighter: 2 red, 2 blue Anti-Ship: 1 Black Special Rules: Escort, Counter 2 Cost: 18 pts In lore the TIE Avenger was arguably the Empire's best pure interceptor ship (the Interceptor is less durable, the Advanced X1 is slower and less manoeuvrable, and the Defender is more of a fighter-bomber than a true interceptor), and one that outclasses any ship the Rebellion could bring to bear in the pre-New Republic days. With that in mind, this ship essentially combines the speed, strong anti-ship firepower and Counter of the Interceptor with the durability and Escort ability of the TIE Advanced. It is good at its job, with the downside being it is also more expensive than any vanilla squadron other than the Mando Gauntlet and the Decimator (which, again, is true to lore and a big reason why the Avenger never saw widespread use. Missile Boat: Speed: 3 Hull: 4 Anti-Fighter: 1 Black Anti-Ship: 2 Blue, 2 Black Special Rules: Bomber, Rogue, SLAM (you may move twice with this squadron when it is activated; if you do, it may not attack this turn). Cost: 20 pts Still not entirely sure how I feel about this one. I tried to make it faithful to fluff, minus the ridiculousness of it being able to take out entire fleets by itself, but while it seems suitably fluffy, I feel like a fighter being able to lay out four dice against an enemy ship *with* bomber might be overkill, especially since the next most effective is, I believe, the Decimator, which just has three blue dice in its anti-ship pool and no Bomber keyword. I tried to make the Missile Boat a pure bomber, whereas the Decimator is an all-round picket ship and can cause substantial pain to whatever is near, fighter or ship. For two points less, the Missile Boat loses half the hull and two dice out of the anti fighter-pool, but gains one dice (and swaps a blue for a black) in the anti-ship pool, and swaps Counter 1 and Heavy for Bomber and SLAM. Delta-class JV-7 Escort Shuttle Speed: 3 Hull: 7 Anti-Fighter: 3 Blue Anti-Ship: 1 Blue Special Rules: Heavy, Escort, Counter 2. Cost: 17 pts This one takes the Lambda shuttle and makes it slightly tougher, gives a little boost to anti-fighter armament and loses Relay and Strategic for Escort and Counter. Basically meant to be a very defensive fighter - Heavy means it won't lock anything down, but Escort, Counter, and a high hull value make it a prickly target for anything that does decide its wants to take the bait. Alpha-class XG-1 Star Wing squadron Speed: 3 Hull: 6 Anti-Fighter: 2 Blue Anti-Ship: 1 Blue, 1 Black Special Rules: Rogue, Jamming (at the start of each turn, you may choose an enemy ship or squadron at Range 1 and assign it a Jam token; whenever a ship or squadron with at least one Jam token makes an attack, you may force the opponent to re-roll one dice of your choosing. Remove all Jam tokens at the beginning of the Status Phase) Cost: 14 pts Another more defensive ship, but one that can make a nuisance of itself if it gets in close.
  8. 3 Rebels, 2 Imperials, to go with the one Imperial I already have for three of each.
  9. From a purely fluff perspective, the ones I'd most like to see are: Rebels: K-Wing T-Wing R-41 Starchaser U-Wing Imperials: Assault Gunboat TIE Avenger Escort Shuttle Sentinel Landing Craft
  10. Both Rebel and Imperial squads are available for order at TheWarStore https://www.thewarstore.com/star-wars-armada-miniature.html
  11. Not mine, but my opponent had appalling dice luck at the apex of one of our battles. He had an MC30 that he managed to tuck in next to my ISD2 flagship and absolutely ream - between earlier damage and an amazing double arc attack, ISD was stripped of shields and dropped to three hull points (and this was carrying Motti) - before zipping off into my rear arc. Worse, he had an LMC80 in prime position (front arc, medium range) ready to finish the job. Said MC80 proceeds to *completely* flub its attack. Just a flurry of accuracies and blanks, plus a single hit hit that I was able to negate with the use of the Seventh Fleet Star Destroyer title. Even better, when the next turn rolls around (and I had initiative), I proceeded to use that Star Destroyer to go on a rampage. I slapped down the MC30 with my rear guns (it had no rear shields due to a redirect from earlier in the game), and blasted apart the MC80 with my front arc, then - just for good measure - in the movement phase I managed to *just* sideswipe a nearby HMC80 that had a single hull point left in order to finish it off. Three kills in one turn basically crippled his fleet and was thoroughly satisfying for me.
  12. ...with heavy sarcasm implied. A regular gaming partner of mine wants to get me in on Warhammer fantasy (he hates AoS with a passion, so I'm unclear as to whether we'll be playing 8E or 9th Age, but I don't have a dog in that race so I'm happy with either), so I've been busy putting together a WFB army I've had kicking around my model bench for yonk's years. Said collection is, natch, a Chaos Dwarfs army, which I invested a bit in back when Forge World released the new line for them, mostly because I thought said models looked spectacular and I thought their lore was some of the most interesting out of any army in the setting. Welp, naturally, the line apparently sold horribly and was never supported by GW so some of the models have now just been flat-out discontinued (the mould on one of their siege engines broke last year and FW has said they're not going to replace it) and it's impossible to find the book that has their old rules in it for 8th Edition (Tamurkhan: Throne of Chaos). Plus it runs into the charmingly retro problem that not all their models have rules and not all their rules have models. The only upside is that several other companies took... *ahem*... some modest inspiration from GW's Chaos Dwarfs, both old and new, and released models of their own which range from meh to pretty amazing. I'm still loving the look of the army, but man, trying to pull an army together *and* find rules for them is such a chore...
  13. "Slots" meaning upgrade types?
  14. Somewhat unrelated, but - and forgive my n00bishness on this one - what exactly is this "10/1" scale? I've seen it posted a few other places, but I'm not sure what it translates to in actual game terms.
  15. That's actually a really good idea. I think I like that better than what I have now. Fair points. I play with a gaming group where people don't mind sitting out a round and watching (and you would generally know if your fleet is going to see action, given that the attackers are the ones who decide when and where combat happens). It's true, though, that the battles aren't always anywhere close to competitive, so that might be a limiting factor and we have had some campaigns where individual fleets never saw a major battle from the campaign's open to its end. Actually, with that in mind, I think the ideal size for this in terms of players would be 2-3 players per team, so that there's more likely to be multiple fleets per player, increasing the chance of an exciting battle. I guess I'm looking at this from a different angle. To contrast it with CC, I find CC takes mostly-normal Armada games and tries to add significance to them, while Galactic Conquest takes a greater campaign and uses Armada as a vehicle to make it run. In essence, in CC the Armada games are the main attraction with the campaign as a secondary "minigame", while in GC the campaign itself is the main focus, with the Armada games being of less importance. Honestly, I'm intently curious to see how it feels to actually play out one of these. In the old GC systems, when combat was essentially automated, your input ended at the build-and-move stage. You could be organizing a major run at the enemy capital that had the chance to make or break the entire campaign, which was super exciting, but you were basically the officer in the command centre wishing the fleet luck as it entered hyperspace and talking amongst the rest of the admiralty and saying, "Well, hope this works out," while the GM was busy simming combat for the turn (sidenote - we ran this on a forum, with campaign turns occurring every other night and planning happening in between; on combat nights, it was always fun because everyone on the campaign would be online nervously talking about the results and then would flood the thread the GM posted with the results before quickly retreating back to their own factional forums to plan out the next turn). How much more amazing will it feel to be in the driver's seat, to actually be commanding your fleet to victory or defeat above the planet (and potentially listening in on the guys the next table over having an equally important match)? They're actually not all that different than what was listed here. As mentioned, we would typically use a computer game with the AI playing both sides to simulate combat results (usually Rebellion - we started with X-Wing Alliance, but it was awful for what we were trying to use it for). I did have a pen-and-paper method for combat resolution, but it was tremendously clunky with lots of pointless math that made it a chore to actually run and while it was functional, I would never, ever use it again or recommend it to anyone else. The pertinent differences were: The game always had a GM that could see both sides, verify purchases, see if fleets overlapped each other, etc. That allowed us to use things like fleets with Interdictors blocking pathways to key worlds, etc., but honestly those almost never came up (I think there were all of three times across 10-ish campaigns where something like that happened that required the use of a GM). There was no lasting battle damage. Any ship that took hull damage or any squadrons that lost more than half their starting strength were counted as destroyed at battle's conclusion. As above, planetary garrisons could not move or flee. Player fleets would flee if it looked like they were losing the battle (with the GM basically "eyeballing" at what point they called the battle). Squadrons were a bit different. Each ship had a squad value between 0 and 6 (10-12 for the huge ships like the SSD or the Bulwark Battlecruiser) and could only carry that many squadrons from place to place. Planetary garrisons were not affected by these restrictions and could house an unlimited number of starfighters (with the logic being that the fighters were garrisoned in planetary or orbital hangars). We later tried campaigns with more complex rules. These included: Terrain features that were meant to increase the defender's ability to predict where an attacking fleet might go. Hyperlanes between specific planets allowed fleets to move faster and, concordantly, created strategically-valuable choke-point planets, while asteroids slowed fleets down and supernovae or black holes damaged fleets and prevented movement. Tech trees that allowed players to research more advanced ships to purchase and bring to battle. Tech automatically advanced by a certain amount each campaign turn, but you could improve it by investing some of your income into it instead. Deployable defences like minefields or planetary ion cannons Bonuses tied to specific worlds (e.g. if the Empire held Kuat they got a discount on Star Destroyers; if the Rebels seized Honoghr, the next turn a random number of Imperial fleets would be prevented from acting as their admirals were attacked by Noghri assassins, etc.) We had long sought to introduce a ground element to the game, but we never came up with a way that wasn't stupidly complicated and/or pointless. That was honestly pretty much it. The only things I've changed for this iteration was removing the GM, swapping out "Use Rebellion to determine outcome of combat" with Armada-specific rules and using Armada's points values instead of the credit costs we'd used in the Rebellion system.
×
×
  • Create New...