Conflict Article

[BrobaFett 4,209]

Magnets was my initial thought too since I have a ton of spare mini mags sitting around, but velcro seems so much easier to set up/tear down/transport.

[Baltanok 558]

I remember buying thin sheets of magnets from Tapp plastics back when I was autocrossing. If there's a plastic supply shop near you, that might work. Not sure if its strong enough to go through the campaign map.

[Sybreed 1,110]

 

I understand the point HERO is trying to bring with numbers and all the fact that is bringing but one thing is sure for me, X-Wing and Armada have the same "Origin" but that where it's finish. Stop trying to make comparaison, like it was already said in this tread, you try to compared two thing's that are different in so many aspect just because the came from the same place. The commitment to play a game of Armada is't the same that for X-Wing. We prefer the complexity for the strategy and the tactics and the time shreader (2-3 hours) versus a good tactic game that you can run in 30-45 minutes.

 

Different fun... that's it! If you love both, play both and enjoy it

 

 

<sarcasm> Yup, Armada is getting table scraps compared to XWing.  All we get around here is a campaign against factions, with content that works both casually and for the tournament people.  The XWing community hasn't wanted that and certainly aren't wishing for it right now.  And it's too bad we don't have any announced ships on top of that... </sarcasm>

 

XWing and Armada aren't the same game, nor do they 100% overlap in their potential player base.  XWing has been the hotness for FFG (along with Netrunner, for those keeping track) for the last few years - OF COURSE they have more interested people right now compared to Armada.  FFG is not a charity - if they aren't happy with the revenue or profit from a product line, they'll start cancelling products.  

 

 

Wtf is going on in this thread? Some thoughts;

1. I don't understand why we should care what is going on with X-Wing compared to Armada, provided Armada is both still fun to play and is continuing to be supported.

2. X-Wing is always going to have the wider playerbase, because it is simply a more accessible game. There are more people who I can get to sit down to play a game of Settlers then either, and I feel like thats just as relevant of a stupid ass comment to make on an Armada board. Armada appeals to a smaller niche of the gamer demographic, which is fine. As someone who has been to plenty of gaming events in my life, I appreciate the amount of people who actually shower I find at Armada events. Its been a pleasant change of pace.

3. The fact there are people bemoaning the "lack of support" Armada gets given the releases announced over the past two months is excellent proof that you cannot please everyone. I'm on these boards all the time and they've given us pretty much all the most requested toys. And for the folks complaining about fighter upgrades only in the campaign box, take heart that there was no squadron pack for you to buy in waves 3/4.

4. Telling people to build their community is silly. I'm pretty sure we all have jobs. We don't need a second one nobody is paying us for. The people who make the money are in charge of getting the community hyped. Not being able to find a game is a legitimate concern if one is frequenting gaming stores. I haven't been able to find a game of "Give Mad A Million Bucks" yet and its really making it hard to have faith it will ever be supported. But I'm gonna hang in cuz I'm sure if I can just find one other player it will be worth the wait.

5. Waves 3 and 4 are seperate waves. Close proximity does not make them the same thing. For example, my right and left testicles are distinctly different despite being right the **** next to each other. One is where I get my courage, the other does most of my thinking. Neither have worked in some time. Actually you know what, maybe it is one wave.

I agree with all of you. Like i said prior, grapes to watermelons.

 

Armada is there for those gamers who want an indepth, high tactical game. These are usually 40k, Warmachine, Dropzone Commander, etc. X-WIng has a bigger draw because it is a faster game and there is already a large community established.

 

I don't know how many times I have pitched Armada but have had people go, "but my friends play X-Wing". That happens to me more than people bemoaning the core set's price. That is fine, out of the dozen or so X-WIng players I have taught the game to many have bought into Armada. Seems like an overall win to me.

 

 

IMO (I know I'm a bit late to the party), a good comparison would be that X-Wing is to Armada as League of Legends is to DotA 2 (for those who played MOBAs).

 

The first one is the big commercial hit, but everyone knows the 2nd one is deeper, more complex, has more strategic depth and will keep you teaching stuff 5 years after you started playing it.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I understand the point HERO is trying to bring with numbers and all the fact that is bringing but one thing is sure for me, X-Wing and Armada have the same "Origin" but that where it's finish. Stop trying to make comparaison, like it was already said in this tread, you try to compared two thing's that are different in so many aspect just because the came from the same place. The commitment to play a game of Armada is't the same that for X-Wing. We prefer the complexity for the strategy and the tactics and the time shreader (2-3 hours) versus a good tactic game that you can run in 30-45 minutes.

 

Different fun... that's it! If you love both, play both and enjoy it

 

 

<sarcasm> Yup, Armada is getting table scraps compared to XWing.  All we get around here is a campaign against factions, with content that works both casually and for the tournament people.  The XWing community hasn't wanted that and certainly aren't wishing for it right now.  And it's too bad we don't have any announced ships on top of that... </sarcasm>

 

XWing and Armada aren't the same game, nor do they 100% overlap in their potential player base.  XWing has been the hotness for FFG (along with Netrunner, for those keeping track) for the last few years - OF COURSE they have more interested people right now compared to Armada.  FFG is not a charity - if they aren't happy with the revenue or profit from a product line, they'll start cancelling products.  

 

 

Wtf is going on in this thread? Some thoughts;

1. I don't understand why we should care what is going on with X-Wing compared to Armada, provided Armada is both still fun to play and is continuing to be supported.

2. X-Wing is always going to have the wider playerbase, because it is simply a more accessible game. There are more people who I can get to sit down to play a game of Settlers then either, and I feel like thats just as relevant of a stupid ass comment to make on an Armada board. Armada appeals to a smaller niche of the gamer demographic, which is fine. As someone who has been to plenty of gaming events in my life, I appreciate the amount of people who actually shower I find at Armada events. Its been a pleasant change of pace.

3. The fact there are people bemoaning the "lack of support" Armada gets given the releases announced over the past two months is excellent proof that you cannot please everyone. I'm on these boards all the time and they've given us pretty much all the most requested toys. And for the folks complaining about fighter upgrades only in the campaign box, take heart that there was no squadron pack for you to buy in waves 3/4.

4. Telling people to build their community is silly. I'm pretty sure we all have jobs. We don't need a second one nobody is paying us for. The people who make the money are in charge of getting the community hyped. Not being able to find a game is a legitimate concern if one is frequenting gaming stores. I haven't been able to find a game of "Give Mad A Million Bucks" yet and its really making it hard to have faith it will ever be supported. But I'm gonna hang in cuz I'm sure if I can just find one other player it will be worth the wait.

5. Waves 3 and 4 are seperate waves. Close proximity does not make them the same thing. For example, my right and left testicles are distinctly different despite being right the **** next to each other. One is where I get my courage, the other does most of my thinking. Neither have worked in some time. Actually you know what, maybe it is one wave.

I agree with all of you. Like i said prior, grapes to watermelons.

 

Armada is there for those gamers who want an indepth, high tactical game. These are usually 40k, Warmachine, Dropzone Commander, etc. X-WIng has a bigger draw because it is a faster game and there is already a large community established.

 

I don't know how many times I have pitched Armada but have had people go, "but my friends play X-Wing". That happens to me more than people bemoaning the core set's price. That is fine, out of the dozen or so X-WIng players I have taught the game to many have bought into Armada. Seems like an overall win to me.

 

IMO (I know I'm a bit late to the party), a good comparison would be that X-Wing is to Armada as League of Legends is to DotA 2 (for those who played MOBAs).

 

The first one is the big commercial hit, but everyone knows the 2nd one is deeper, more complex, has more strategic depth and will keep you teaching stuff 5 years after you started playing it.

Sort of but they are still similar in their ways. Armada and X-Wing are really only linked by Star Wars.

It is more like the MMO WoW and the computer game RTS World of Warcraft. They share a history, a title, but they are just games seperated by oceans of difference.

[HERO 842]

 

 

 

I understand the point HERO is trying to bring with numbers and all the fact that is bringing but one thing is sure for me, X-Wing and Armada have the same "Origin" but that where it's finish. Stop trying to make comparaison, like it was already said in this tread, you try to compared two thing's that are different in so many aspect just because the came from the same place. The commitment to play a game of Armada is't the same that for X-Wing. We prefer the complexity for the strategy and the tactics and the time shreader (2-3 hours) versus a good tactic game that you can run in 30-45 minutes.

 

Different fun... that's it! If you love both, play both and enjoy it

 

 

<sarcasm> Yup, Armada is getting table scraps compared to XWing.  All we get around here is a campaign against factions, with content that works both casually and for the tournament people.  The XWing community hasn't wanted that and certainly aren't wishing for it right now.  And it's too bad we don't have any announced ships on top of that... </sarcasm>

 

XWing and Armada aren't the same game, nor do they 100% overlap in their potential player base.  XWing has been the hotness for FFG (along with Netrunner, for those keeping track) for the last few years - OF COURSE they have more interested people right now compared to Armada.  FFG is not a charity - if they aren't happy with the revenue or profit from a product line, they'll start cancelling products.  

 

 

Wtf is going on in this thread? Some thoughts;

1. I don't understand why we should care what is going on with X-Wing compared to Armada, provided Armada is both still fun to play and is continuing to be supported.

2. X-Wing is always going to have the wider playerbase, because it is simply a more accessible game. There are more people who I can get to sit down to play a game of Settlers then either, and I feel like thats just as relevant of a stupid ass comment to make on an Armada board. Armada appeals to a smaller niche of the gamer demographic, which is fine. As someone who has been to plenty of gaming events in my life, I appreciate the amount of people who actually shower I find at Armada events. Its been a pleasant change of pace.

3. The fact there are people bemoaning the "lack of support" Armada gets given the releases announced over the past two months is excellent proof that you cannot please everyone. I'm on these boards all the time and they've given us pretty much all the most requested toys. And for the folks complaining about fighter upgrades only in the campaign box, take heart that there was no squadron pack for you to buy in waves 3/4.

4. Telling people to build their community is silly. I'm pretty sure we all have jobs. We don't need a second one nobody is paying us for. The people who make the money are in charge of getting the community hyped. Not being able to find a game is a legitimate concern if one is frequenting gaming stores. I haven't been able to find a game of "Give Mad A Million Bucks" yet and its really making it hard to have faith it will ever be supported. But I'm gonna hang in cuz I'm sure if I can just find one other player it will be worth the wait.

5. Waves 3 and 4 are seperate waves. Close proximity does not make them the same thing. For example, my right and left testicles are distinctly different despite being right the **** next to each other. One is where I get my courage, the other does most of my thinking. Neither have worked in some time. Actually you know what, maybe it is one wave.

I agree with all of you. Like i said prior, grapes to watermelons.

 

Armada is there for those gamers who want an indepth, high tactical game. These are usually 40k, Warmachine, Dropzone Commander, etc. X-WIng has a bigger draw because it is a faster game and there is already a large community established.

 

I don't know how many times I have pitched Armada but have had people go, "but my friends play X-Wing". That happens to me more than people bemoaning the core set's price. That is fine, out of the dozen or so X-WIng players I have taught the game to many have bought into Armada. Seems like an overall win to me.

 

IMO (I know I'm a bit late to the party), a good comparison would be that X-Wing is to Armada as League of Legends is to DotA 2 (for those who played MOBAs).

 

The first one is the big commercial hit, but everyone knows the 2nd one is deeper, more complex, has more strategic depth and will keep you teaching stuff 5 years after you started playing it.

Sort of but they are still similar in their ways. Armada and X-Wing are really only linked by Star Wars.

It is more like the MMO WoW and the computer game RTS World of Warcraft. They share a history, a title, but they are just games seperated by oceans of difference.

 

 

topkek

 

Watching this dude argue in circles while screaming the same moot point is hilarious to behold.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

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

[Flavorabledeez 456]

I hope they carry on with the idea of campaigns into different games. I thought they were going to build on cinema play for X-wing, but it feels like that idea is being shelved. The dream would be to combine Armada, X-wing, and Imperial Assault into one massive campaign. I can see Armada and IA coming together, it would just be tough to wedge in the fighter combat.

Or you know, just make another game that lets me get my ground fix as well as being able to call in an orbital strike. Something kind of Drop...ish Zone...ish Commander...ish, but having T-47 speeders and AT-ATs, perhaps? As well as air support like Y-wings and TIE Bombers, maychance? With fighter cover as well with transports bringing in troops and things, perchance? With cheap cardboard foldup terrain buildings, maybe-stance?

You guys know what I'm talking about?

You guys know what I'm talking about.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

I hope they carry on with the idea of campaigns into different games. I thought they were going to build on cinema play for X-wing, but it feels like that idea is being shelved. The dream would be to combine Armada, X-wing, and Imperial Assault into one massive campaign. I can see Armada and IA coming together, it would just be tough to wedge in the fighter combat.

Or you know, just make another game that lets me get my ground fix as well as being able to call in an orbital strike. Something kind of Drop...ish Zone...ish Commander...ish, but having T-47 speeders and AT-ATs, perhaps? As well as air support like Y-wings and TIE Bombers, maychance? With fighter cover as well with transports bringing in troops and things, perchance? With cheap cardboard foldup terrain buildings, maybe-stance?

You guys know what I'm talking about?

You guys know what I'm talking about.

I don't play those other games, and would probably never get the chance to enjoy this idea. But for the people who do, I think this has the potential to be one of those gaming experiences you remember forever, like the first time I played Halo on LAN or making out with the neighbor girl during manhunt.

[HERO 842]

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

 

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

[Sybreed 1,110]

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

 

aw sorry it's my fault :S

 

I'm more excited about the new objective cards. Station Assault looks like a lot of fun.

[Sybreed 1,110]

 

Dust cloud? How in the heck am I supposed to model that?

 

 

Cotton wool painted.

 

  

 

 

wow, so Donald Trump's toupet can be used as a gaming asset?

[HERO 842]

 

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

 

aw sorry it's my fault :S

 

I'm more excited about the new objective cards. Station Assault looks like a lot of fun.

 

Do you think the new objective cards will change up the game more than the new squadrons?

I think from a gameplay perspective, the squadrons make more of a impact.  The missions only come into play if the player chooses to play it.

[Swusn 461]

Probably the cheapest and most effective way. Could get a press together laminating sheet and a stripe of velcro for like $10 at an office store. Boom unlimited replay.

 

 

You sir are a genius.

[Green Knight 9,731]

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

 

aw sorry it's my fault :S

 

I'm more excited about the new objective cards. Station Assault looks like a lot of fun.

Do you think the new objective cards will change up the game more than the new squadrons?

I think from a gameplay perspective, the squadrons make more of a impact.  The missions only come into play if the player chooses to play it.

I really hope some of the new ones will be playable. And I have a vague hope that some of the old ones will improve a tad with the new stuff. Not overly optimistic about the latter.

[Ginkapo 9,320]

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

Ergh, what? There is no choice

[Madaghmire 7,274]

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.

[HERO 842]

 

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.

[Flavorabledeez 456]

I hope they carry on with the idea of campaigns into different games. I thought they were going to build on cinema play for X-wing, but it feels like that idea is being shelved. The dream would be to combine Armada, X-wing, and Imperial Assault into one massive campaign. I can see Armada and IA coming together, it would just be tough to wedge in the fighter combat.

Or you know, just make another game that lets me get my ground fix as well as being able to call in an orbital strike. Something kind of Drop...ish Zone...ish Commander...ish, but having T-47 speeders and AT-ATs, perhaps? As well as air support like Y-wings and TIE Bombers, maychance? With fighter cover as well with transports bringing in troops and things, perchance? With cheap cardboard foldup terrain buildings, maybe-stance?

You guys know what I'm talking about?

You guys know what I'm talking about.

I don't play those other games, and would probably never get the chance to enjoy this idea. But for the people who do, I think this has the potential to be one of those gaming experiences you remember forever, like the first time I played Halo on LAN or making out with the neighbor girl during manhunt.

Sounds like she won the game of "manhunt."

Heyoooooo!!

[HERO 842]

 

 

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).

Edited July 25, 2016 by HERO

[Madaghmire 7,274]

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

 

aw sorry it's my fault :S

 

I'm more excited about the new objective cards. Station Assault looks like a lot of fun.

Do you think the new objective cards will change up the game more than the new squadrons?

I think from a gameplay perspective, the squadrons make more of a impact.  The missions only come into play if the player chooses to play it.

This is true of squadrons also, Shera Bey isn't helping me from her home in my Feldor Bag.

I do get what you are saying though, in that the objectives, once I've brought them are still subject to my opponents' choice.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

I hope they carry on with the idea of campaigns into different games. I thought they were going to build on cinema play for X-wing, but it feels like that idea is being shelved. The dream would be to combine Armada, X-wing, and Imperial Assault into one massive campaign. I can see Armada and IA coming together, it would just be tough to wedge in the fighter combat.

Or you know, just make another game that lets me get my ground fix as well as being able to call in an orbital strike. Something kind of Drop...ish Zone...ish Commander...ish, but having T-47 speeders and AT-ATs, perhaps? As well as air support like Y-wings and TIE Bombers, maychance? With fighter cover as well with transports bringing in troops and things, perchance? With cheap cardboard foldup terrain buildings, maybe-stance?

You guys know what I'm talking about?

You guys know what I'm talking about.

I don't play those other games, and would probably never get the chance to enjoy this idea. But for the people who do, I think this has the potential to be one of those gaming experiences you remember forever, like the first time I played Halo on LAN or making out with the neighbor girl during manhunt.

Sounds like she won the game of "manhunt."

Heyoooooo!!

I like to think we both won.

But we didn't, we got caught.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

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.

[HERO 842]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Coincidence that we're getting new squadrons in a campaign where missions are more diverse and varied the more squadrons you take?  I think not!

[Lyraeus 4,759]

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.

Simple. I have taken down more ISD's and MC80's who had Advanced Gunnery than I have lost ships to. I know many others on here who love picking that objective because it is an easy 106+ points pretty much every time.

People need to come up with new Tactics and strategies but it is rater simple to take down those bloated targets.

I have seen 1st players take Fire Lanes and dominate the field because they know how to deal with that objective. No objective is off limits. It's on you as the player to learn to deal with them all.

[Green Knight 9,731]

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.