Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Drasnighta

Conflict Article

Recommended Posts

To put it this way: I hope I never have to up DT in one of my lists for a looong time, just because it's the least worse Blue...and fully expect to play it most of the time. DT = most boring objective ever.

I can't put any DT in any list. . . It's not a strong enough blue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snipa,

You have a habit of jumping to bad conclusions and stating them without even processing the assumptions or checking validity. Everything in my post was easily defensible. You should have left one post sooner, if not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

Edited by mcworrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is, just like how I have 3 choices right now for mission cards.  I mean, what good is Advanced Gunnery if no one ever wants to play it because of my list.  I'm hoping this stigma goes away entirely because of the new mission cards, but there's always a chance they will not.

I think sometimes this could be a case by case issue, you can give your opponent a poor choice and lead them to make a choice of 1 of 2 missions. I like the idea of Most Wanted and a Flotilla. So perhaps the question is can we give our opponent an equally as bad a choice for all three missions? As we only know 3+3/4 (We are missing the text hidden on the card on the box back) it is very hard to know for certain. The new Squadrons are also quite an unknown quality, we have seen 3 of the 16, and what we have seen looks quite interesting.

 

I think, I am equally as excited to see a whole new batch of stuff that'll change things. More choice will never get bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

I must be missing some posts. . . I have no idea what the issue it is this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Nope nope nope. This thread just got back on track.

 

Are you more excited about the new squadrons or the mission cards?

Mission cards. I hope they are well crafted. The ones I've seen so far look good. And not just because new ways to play are great, although they are.

I feel like for a lot of fleets right now, you take three objectives and your opponent has a clear and obvious choice which one is going to work best for him either because he built a fleet that one happens to work for (like he has a bunch of bombers/apt's and you took precision strike) or one just doesn't confer a real advantage to second player (almost any fleet that can't make real use of Superior Positions. I exaggerate a bit but you know what I mean). It is my fervent hope that these new objectives will allow different archtypes to do a better job of leveraging the second player advantage through objective inclusion.

I'm also hoping that maybe some objectives that rarely see play now might get played more because players will be able to force the choice with the right combination of objectives. Right now I feel red objectives in general are rarely chosen, because they often confer really easy to understand and leverage tactical advantages to the second player. We see it sometimes, sure, but I've played a whole mess of contested outpost and not so much advanced gunnery in wave 2. Hopefully the new blood breathes some life into some of the lesser used objectives we already have as well.

Also, at a glance things like station assault might breathe some life into VSD's, as though Konstantine wasn't gonna do that already.

Really looking forward to that preview article.

 

Right.  This point right here covers this point exactly.  The way that missions are currently is that I never, and I really do mean never, feel that my opponent will have to think hard about which mission that will be most optimal for him.

 

If the decision was much more difficult or the lines more blurred, maybe it will even subtlety reduce the need for initiative bids (which I feel are absolutely huge in this game).

There are a few squadron fleets that manage to do it. Truthiness runs a rieekan aces fleet which forces rhe choice between gunnery, fire lanes and supeior positions where there is an actual choice to be made. But as I said already, on the whole I agree. So often the decision of which objective i want takes all of 20 seconds.

You say this like Advanced Gunnery is that much better than Most Wanted. AG is really not that impressive and in several scenarios makes first player MUCH better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Nope nope nope. This thread just got back on track.

 

Are you more excited about the new squadrons or the mission cards?

Mission cards. I hope they are well crafted. The ones I've seen so far look good. And not just because new ways to play are great, although they are.

I feel like for a lot of fleets right now, you take three objectives and your opponent has a clear and obvious choice which one is going to work best for him either because he built a fleet that one happens to work for (like he has a bunch of bombers/apt's and you took precision strike) or one just doesn't confer a real advantage to second player (almost any fleet that can't make real use of Superior Positions. I exaggerate a bit but you know what I mean). It is my fervent hope that these new objectives will allow different archtypes to do a better job of leveraging the second player advantage through objective inclusion.

I'm also hoping that maybe some objectives that rarely see play now might get played more because players will be able to force the choice with the right combination of objectives. Right now I feel red objectives in general are rarely chosen, because they often confer really easy to understand and leverage tactical advantages to the second player. We see it sometimes, sure, but I've played a whole mess of contested outpost and not so much advanced gunnery in wave 2. Hopefully the new blood breathes some life into some of the lesser used objectives we already have as well.

Also, at a glance things like station assault might breathe some life into VSD's, as though Konstantine wasn't gonna do that already.

Really looking forward to that preview article.

 

Right.  This point right here covers this point exactly.  The way that missions are currently is that I never, and I really do mean never, feel that my opponent will have to think hard about which mission that will be most optimal for him.

 

If the decision was much more difficult or the lines more blurred, maybe it will even subtlety reduce the need for initiative bids (which I feel are absolutely huge in this game).

There are a few squadron fleets that manage to do it. Truthiness runs a rieekan aces fleet which forces rhe choice between gunnery, fire lanes and supeior positions where there is an actual choice to be made. But as I said already, on the whole I agree. So often the decision of which objective i want takes all of 20 seconds.

You say this like Advanced Gunnery is that much better than Most Wanted. AG is really not that impressive and in several scenarios makes first player MUCH better.

No I don't. I cite an example of a fleet which managed to build to use all three objectives to its advantage going second, citing it as an exception to the rule. At no point do I draw a comparison of any kind between Gunnery and Most Wanted.

I guess in my original post I mentioned playing contested outpost a lot and not gunnery. But it was just what came to mind, in the lists I included it no one touched it. No one took Most Wanted when I included it either. As I stated then, pretty much never play a red objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cactus : Definitely agree with you there !

 

I've seen a game where an AG XI7 ISD2 coudn't do much against the Ackbar MC80 Assault with XI7. The way the Rebel fleet was set up, there was no way he wouldn't be able to give the Rebel player a double shot. Pretty, pretty strong build !

 

There's a huge risk in running pretty much any of the Assault Objectives, considering that if you haven't got the proper build for it, you might give the opponent some pretty strong advantage !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The missions only come into play if the player chooses to play it.

Ergh, what? There is no choice

 

 

Yes there is, just like how I have 3 choices right now for mission cards.  I mean, what good is Advanced Gunnery if no one ever wants to play it because of my list.  I'm hoping this stigma goes away entirely because of the new mission cards, but there's always a chance they will not.

 

There is also the choice to play with out a mission card, with unlimited turns and first player changes every turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

Nonsense like that doesn't help. If you don't like arguments, stay off the web. If you think someone said something offensive then quote it, criticize it, and do it without attacking anyone. If you try to attack without getting involved, you aren't helping anything except the trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

Nonsense like that doesn't help. If you don't like arguments, stay off the web. If you think someone said something offensive then quote it, criticize it, and do it without attacking anyone. If you try to attack without getting involved, you aren't helping anything except the trolls.
The nonsense that doesn't help is the three of you arguing the same points over and over again, just wording everthing a little differently. You have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about the new campaign and turned it into a petty argument, which also spilled over into another thread. Like someone mentioned on the other post, take it to private messages and get back on topic.

I'm moving on.

Edited by mcworrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that I look forward to the most, other then the new stuff, is the whole campaign and the fact that each battle builds on the others and nothing happens in isolation. That named squadron that you lose on the last shot of the last round now has even more significance then just the points you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just what's happened when you loose someone like Darth Vader in is squadron form. Say "adios" to Vader as a amiral for the rest of the campaign?

 

This could have a great impact on the game and the timing when you are using some unique squadrons or admirals.

 

I hope we will have some informations sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

Nonsense like that doesn't help. If you don't like arguments, stay off the web. If you think someone said something offensive then quote it, criticize it, and do it without attacking anyone. If you try to attack without getting involved, you aren't helping anything except the trolls.
The nonsense that doesn't help is the three of you arguing the same points over and over again, just wording everthing a little differently. You have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about the new campaign and turned it into a petty argument, which also spilled over into another thread. Like someone mentioned on the other post, take it to private messages and get back on topic.

I'm moving on.

Thank you for your version of shaming and condemnation. Can we get back on topic with Armada's first out of wave expansion?

So far it looks like this well be a blast but I am worried about replay value. My velcro lamination idea has value but we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about what some of the famous uniques squadrons we might have and here are some thoughts I've come up with.

 

Grey Squadron: Bomber, counter. due to y-wing turrets

Green Squadron: Counter, escort. What little research I did suggested many of green squads missions were protection of other squads.

Gamma squadron: bomber, grit. Imps lack a grit bomber at the moment but possible Tie bomber options can be scary as it means strong buddies for the rhymerball

Tempest/Storm squadron: swaps a blue for black in AS and visversa in ship battery maybe gain rogue. Storm is suggested to have more prowerful wepeons on adv. also the ship is know to have hyperdrive which means possble operations away from fleet structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time since I joined these boards where the snark started to be boarder line rude. Correction...the Admiral did his fair share.

We as a community are better then this....agree to disagree and move on. Enough already.

Let's focus on this awesome looking campaign and keep the discussion on that.

Nonsense like that doesn't help. If you don't like arguments, stay off the web. If you think someone said something offensive then quote it, criticize it, and do it without attacking anyone. If you try to attack without getting involved, you aren't helping anything except the trolls.

I'm just going to quote this so the trolls know to stay away from this thread. Trolls are mean. Trolls derail threads. I don't like trolls. Good thing there are none around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I ran a Warhammer Fantasy campaign a few years ago, what we did was set up the hex tiles for the map, convert it to PDF, then use various layers to chart the progress of all the players' armies week by week.  We posted this image on a FB group so that players could chart out their progress week to week.  The physical map was left up so that during the weekly meetings the players could crowd around it to plan their moves.  Every player had different colored flags and dragon tears or chits to represent various resources or forces.  If the map is card stock like the Rebellion map, it should be simple enough to photocopy the stickers and use blu-tac to affix them in place for replay value or to keep whatever the stickers are supposed to be affixed to pristine.

 

As far as larger, interconnected campaigns utilizing the other games, I like the notion of using IA for boarding actions or X wing for recon.  The A wing was often used to Hyperspace in, get a reading on Imperial positions and jet out again before being caught.  It would be easy enough to use X wing to represent that with the recon patrol hitting a picket line of TIEs, getting in a brief fight, and if the Rebels win, they can get initiative for the next fight or some other advantage.  The X wing game could also be used to fly escort for an assault team going to a station.  If X wing succeeds, the assault team then plays out a game of IA in the station.  If the assault team succeeds, you can turn an Armed station to an unarmed one, destroy it, or take control of it (all depending on how the Assault went or which objective they were able to make it to.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what other campaign boxes can ffg throw at us!

Super stoked! I hope this isn't a one time thing, but is like the aces packs from x wing!

(Aka a series focusing on improving the game and THIS IS 10X BETTER THAN I WAS EXPECTING WOOOOO)

 

Something leading up the Battle of Endor!!!

 

With special rules for the DS2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Nope nope nope. This thread just got back on track.

 

Are you more excited about the new squadrons or the mission cards?

Mission cards. I hope they are well crafted. The ones I've seen so far look good. And not just because new ways to play are great, although they are.

I feel like for a lot of fleets right now, you take three objectives and your opponent has a clear and obvious choice which one is going to work best for him either because he built a fleet that one happens to work for (like he has a bunch of bombers/apt's and you took precision strike) or one just doesn't confer a real advantage to second player (almost any fleet that can't make real use of Superior Positions. I exaggerate a bit but you know what I mean). It is my fervent hope that these new objectives will allow different archtypes to do a better job of leveraging the second player advantage through objective inclusion.

I'm also hoping that maybe some objectives that rarely see play now might get played more because players will be able to force the choice with the right combination of objectives. Right now I feel red objectives in general are rarely chosen, because they often confer really easy to understand and leverage tactical advantages to the second player. We see it sometimes, sure, but I've played a whole mess of contested outpost and not so much advanced gunnery in wave 2. Hopefully the new blood breathes some life into some of the lesser used objectives we already have as well.

Also, at a glance things like station assault might breathe some life into VSD's, as though Konstantine wasn't gonna do that already.

Really looking forward to that preview article.

 

Right.  This point right here covers this point exactly.  The way that missions are currently is that I never, and I really do mean never, feel that my opponent will have to think hard about which mission that will be most optimal for him.

 

If the decision was much more difficult or the lines more blurred, maybe it will even subtlety reduce the need for initiative bids (which I feel are absolutely huge in this game).

There are a few squadron fleets that manage to do it. Truthiness runs a rieekan aces fleet which forces rhe choice between gunnery, fire lanes and supeior positions where there is an actual choice to be made. But as I said already, on the whole I agree. So often the decision of which objective i want takes all of 20 seconds.

If he runs Superior Positions with potential zombie Rieekan ships to score from, he's braver than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This intergalactic pissing match has been quite entertaining.  I am just glad I can see it from work.  Passes the midnight hours well.  I am looking forward to the damage carry over rules and how FFG intends to work the system.   I am curious if it will be a fixed repair value, a percentage value, a time dependent/number of games per point, or something else.

 

 

I have a lot of hope for the campaign.  I think this is just what the players looking for the narrative play experience are looking for and it will reinvigorate the standard format players as well by giving everyone new challenges to work out.  I also truly hope that the rules are written in such away that we as a player/fan base can easily adapt them to other sectors in the Star Wars Universe.  In our local area we have been toying with the idea of narrative play and infact the annoucment of the CC came on the day we sat down to start work on our own campaign rules. 

 

All in all I think this is going to be great.  oh and....

 

 

DEATH TO THE REBEL SCUM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that I look forward to the most, other then the new stuff, is the whole campaign and the fact that each battle builds on the others and nothing happens in isolation. That named squadron that you lose on the last shot of the last round now has even more significance then just the points you lose.

 

This is what I'm excited about, the balancing of long-term and short-term success. I love the fact that ships will leave the battlefield (what do you call it in space?!) with damage that they carry forward into the next fight. I've had lots of games where the difference between victory or defeat has been a ship that managed to limp away with one or two hull, where a different dice roll would have finished it off. I'm not complaining, that's tournament play, and you adjust your strategy to it. In this, however, you don't have to feel quite so robbed, because you know that, if you face that ship in the next game, it's already coming in below strength.

 

Regardless of questions of asymmetry, of it being thematic and genuinely "Star Wars" etc, the campaign is inevitably going to have a narrative to it that I think will feel really authentic and engaging. And, with different targets and objectives etc., there's really going to be a feeling that no two games are identical.

 

I can't wait. I've been watching the Heroes of the Aturi Cluster at our local store with envy - now we get something that looks just as good, and that adds to the wider game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×