Conflict Article

[MoffZen 760]

Well, I call it a Game because the thing says Game on the Box

 

Maybe the box is a lie !

One day I picked up my friend's deodorant and tried to chop down a tree. It didn't work.

[Drasnighta 26,831]

 

Well, I call it a Game because the thing says Game on the Box

 

Maybe the box is a lie !

One day I picked up my friend's deodorant and tried to chop down a tree. It didn't work.

 

 

Look, man, just because you didn't read the Instructions doesn't mean the things broken....  

Edited July 23, 2016 by Drasnighta

[MoffZen 760]

But it said Axe !

[skirmisher 92]

When DabDarkLighter first broke the news of this expansion I posted the following wish list. So far items 2/3/6/7 in bold seem to be included and I am optimisitic for the others. Spynet is at least nod toward intelligence, but  hopefully there will be some 'fog of war'. 

 

Can't wait to hear more about the campaign mechanisms. I wonder what the sheet shown on the right-hand side of the FFG page is? And why there are two numbers associated with a location? Major victory/close victory? Hmmmm....

 

 

"#1 Rules for escaping to hyperspace i.e. legitamately exiting the board, so you can carry out hit & run attacks and conserve forces for the next battle.

 

#2 Limited resources: once unique commander or ship is gone, its lost for the campaign.

 

#3 Repair rules: lightly dmaaged ships can re-appear in action sooner than heavily damaged ones.

 

#4 Uneven battles, where one side will have a local superiority in strength, due to strategic manoeuvres. A guerilla force will after all always seek to strike with superior force, but faces the cosntant threat of being cornered en masse by its stronger foe or getting bad intel and underestimating its target's defences.

 

#5 Random event cards e.g. Alliance High Command sends reinforcements, an Imperial defector provides intel, Hyperspace engine failure on a warship, etc, etc.

 

#6 Experience gained: new generic ace & ship commander/crew cards that can be earned (not bought) by a ship or squadron successfully participating in a battle.

 

#7:New objectives e.g. Orbital bombardment, troop landing, planetary evacuation, attack on space stations

 

#8 Abstract Intelligence aspect,  to determine where the enemies force are, and in what strength. E.g. Are you attacking a weak Rebel convoy or is it a major taskforce?

 

Above all naval battles given purpose by strategic campaign, so even a lost batltle might allows some units to escape while heroic ships fighting ot the death make the enemy pay a high price for victory and so have significance to the campaign."

 

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225046-correlian-conflict/page-4

[Drasnighta 26,831]

As its Title, not as its description....

 

 

But it said Axe !

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by Drasnighta

[LordTesla 287]

Could make taking large ships useful again. If damage stays after battle it would be nice to be have A) lots of health and B) high repair to get rid of those damage cards

[MoffZen 760]

So you are not a Drasnighta ?

[Drasnighta 26,831]

Can you even define Drasnighta?

 

[MoffZen 760]

Can you even define Drasnighta?

 

 

It's a good question. I tasked my buddy Hegel to think about it, but I'm afraid he might come up with additional questions that needs answering before he answers that question.

[ceejlekabeejle 473]

@HERO : I think the idea that we're getting table scraps compared to X wing is a bit misleading. Right now, X wing is getting more, but that's because it's 4 years old. Compare where X wing was and Armada will be about 18 months into their evolution, and there's not a massive amount between them: 4 waves each, 16 distinct products (ships or fighter packs) each. Really, the main difference between them will be that Armada will have a campaign.

What the local meta is like is a different question. I'm just trying to suggest that, in terms of output, we're doing fine in the Armada camp.

[ThatRobHuman 1,794]

Can you even define Drasnighta?

"Our kind of bats!@t crazy"

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,898]

@HERO : Take it easy, man. I get it that you love the game and are passionate about it, but you're accomplishing nothing by venting here

Hush!

I want to enjoy this flamewar.

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,898]

Personally, I find that there's a lot to be said with the concepts of Symmetry and Asymmetry...  However, once again, it comes down to the level of conflict you are involving...

 

Star Wars, on the Galactic, Political Scale...  Definitely Asymmetric.  Which is perfectly suited for the Rebellion side of things game wise...

 

But as you break down to smaller and smaller conflicts, it is entirely possible that those conflicts will either end up more and more symmetrical...  Or more woefully unsymmetrical...

 

I mean, the Imperial Fleet is Massive.  The Imperial Fleet is overwhelming...  But it can't be everywhere at once.  Or if it is, then its so scattered as to be unsupportive of itself...  This can allow smaller rebel fleets to engage when it is more symmetrical. in the long rung.

 

OF COURSE.  In Warfare, one always must be trying to make things as much in their favour at once before even considering engaging the enemy...

 

But when you are introducing warfare on smaller and smaller scales, and repeating such engagements as a game...  Then there's only so much Asymmetry that is fun...

 

By all means, have a higher scale thats asymmetric.  But for a game (rather than a simulation), keep things symmetrically fair as much as possible.

Quite so, but what about a campaign of games, which we're discussing here, where one major objective is to add narrative stakes set in the setting of Star Wars?

[Ginkapo 9,320]

Doesnt imperial assault have stormtroopers that can hit a target?

[Drasnighta 26,831]

 

Personally, I find that there's a lot to be said with the concepts of Symmetry and Asymmetry...  However, once again, it comes down to the level of conflict you are involving...

 

Star Wars, on the Galactic, Political Scale...  Definitely Asymmetric.  Which is perfectly suited for the Rebellion side of things game wise...

 

But as you break down to smaller and smaller conflicts, it is entirely possible that those conflicts will either end up more and more symmetrical...  Or more woefully unsymmetrical...

 

I mean, the Imperial Fleet is Massive.  The Imperial Fleet is overwhelming...  But it can't be everywhere at once.  Or if it is, then its so scattered as to be unsupportive of itself...  This can allow smaller rebel fleets to engage when it is more symmetrical. in the long rung.

 

OF COURSE.  In Warfare, one always must be trying to make things as much in their favour at once before even considering engaging the enemy...

 

But when you are introducing warfare on smaller and smaller scales, and repeating such engagements as a game...  Then there's only so much Asymmetry that is fun...

 

By all means, have a higher scale thats asymmetric.  But for a game (rather than a simulation), keep things symmetrically fair as much as possible.

Quite so, but what about a campaign of games, which we're discussing here, where one major objective is to add narrative stakes set in the setting of Star Wars?

 

 

You can have an Asymmetic campaign experience, based on symmetric games (or even mostly symmetric games)...

The symmetry is also a little unbalanced itself in the games we play...  Yes, there is a defined points level, but the asymmetry comes from the benefits for 1st/2nd, the Objectives, and so much and so far...  You to attempt to make things as much in your favour with your choices and decisions, but we can get some pretty asymmetrical matchups, and still be fair...  Just as we can get symmetrical matchups and be fair, too...

I do hope for some asymmetry on the campaign level...  But most of all, I want it to be fun...  I don't want to be starting situations where, for Example, the Empire has a virtually unassailable position and its all uphill for the Rebellion...  Its just not fun to slog away for tiny victories...  And because of that inherent bias, its hard to keep players playing.

What I want, is players playing.

 

I mean, I'll play because, well, it means I get to play!  But some people need convincing, and letting them know they have a fair chance of victory is one way to assuade fears.

[Ophion 932]

find another thread for it

[Drasnighta 26,831]

Nah, I'm pretty sure the OP is quite okay with the concepts of symmetry and asymmetry, as they apply to the Campaign that the article presented has shown...

Discussion on wether or not it is symmetrical is part of that campaign discussion...

 

 

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the OP is pretty cool with most discussions in the thread, so long as they are positive in nature

[Kiwi Rat 538]

One way of playing asymmetrical forces againt each other, I have thought of, is giving the smaller force a +50% extra point score based on the point difference handicap.

 

If I.e. a 300pts force plays against a 400pts force, then the 300pts fleet has a 100pts less = which means the 300pts Fleet has a +50pts point score advantage before the game begins.

Or If I.e. a 360pts force plays against a 400pts force, then the 360pts fleet has a 40pts less = which means the 360pts Fleet has a +20pts point score advantage before the game begins.

 

This would give the larger force a bigger incitament to chase down the smaller force as its X pts behind. And it would be an incitament to the smaller force to keep that point gab difference by avoiding too heavy casualties or inflicting damage on the large force.

 

But if the smaller force is tabled then the larger force will still get 400pts, as if they have destroyed a 400pts fleet, so "bidding" to low by the smaller force player can also be risky, as the smaller his force is,thus easier it is to completely destroy, than a 400pts fleet.

 

[Lyraeus 4,759]

 

 

 

 

Can always need more plastic!

I mean, since we got Wave 2, X-Wing has received:

Ghost Expansion Pack

Inquisitor's TIE Expansion Pack

Mist Hunter Expansion Pack

Punishing One Expansion Pack

T-70 X-Wing Expansion Pack

TIE/fo Fighter Expansion Pack

Imperial Veterans Expansion Pack

 

with these coming in Q3 2016:ARC-170 Expansion Pack

Special Forces TIE Expansion Pack

Protectorate Starfighter Expansion Pack

Shadow Caster Expansion Pack

Heroes of the Resistance Expansion Pack

Ya feel me?  Not gonna lie, but I got kinda bored of the meta and desperately craving something new.

Which is fine for a 4 year old game.

You do understand that we need less to get more right? Our 2 waves and 1 campaign box is far more versatility, than X-Wing is getting this year.

We now have 4 new ships, each with maybe a dozen or so different build options and a campaign with new Squadrons, objectives, and a campaign (that every X-Wing only player I know is crying that they want) that also increases the strategic and tactical depth of the game.

 

You gotta be kidding with your patronizing "you do understand" bull.

 

Also, you're wrong.

The inclusion of the Ghost actually give Rebels another big ship to play with rather than the Falcon and Dash that has been the meta staple for years.

Inquisitor gives Palp aces another ace which also increases meta diversity.

Punishing One single-handily changed the meta and tournament landscape for months.

The expansions for T-70 gave Integrated Astromech which made T-70s semi-viable for competitive play, and the TIE/fo gave Juke and Omega Leader to add to the ace landscape.

Protectorate Fighter will replace the aging and unused Star Viper while the ARC-170 has amazing upgrades and versatility rivaling the K-Wing.

 

It doesn't matter that it's a 4-year old game, and that Armada is whatever, you can clearly tell by now which one gets more attention from the design team.  That's not OK with me, and for many others its not.  There's 1 Armada event here in SoCal for every 10.  Weekly gaming sessions are pumped filled with X-Wing.  Forums are rampant.  The health of the game is not in a good place with this 1 update per year cycle they have going.  It's one of the reasons myself and several others have stopped playing, and we were once the biggest proprietors for the game.

So they changed the diversity of the Meta by adding in new ships. That's nice.

Do you understand what adding in just 1 new set of objectives does for us? Not to mention whole new objective mechanics! That not only changes the diversity of Armada it changes theeta completely. Now people have far more to consider when they build their lists.

Let's go with ships now.

The flotillas alone can be many different ships for us. They can be squadrons support, control options, fleet support options, CAP control, and that is the tip of that iceberg.

The Liberty can be many things as well, same with the Interdictor. So where you complain that an older game with a bigger player base is getting more things when in reality they are not. I have no idea what you are talking about.

X-Wing is linear. They add a ship and it can do only a few things. As it should becuase they are usually small squadrons with a rough dedicated purpose.

While in Armada a ships roll can change just on how you command and build your list. This means that 1 ship can be used in 3+ different rolls and it has varying flexibility in each of those rolls through the use of squadrons.

So I don't understand what the issue is. I would rather pay for less ships and get more value put of them than pay for more things that I may or may not ever use.

HERO, what recruiting have you done? In Portland Oregon and Vancouver Washington we have 2 games stores that play Armada twice a week with still growing numbers.

If you want Armada to grow, do more about it. That's the only way it will grow.

 

 

What recruiting have I done?  Practically the entirety of the SoCal meta, with 6 different gaming clubs across a 50-mile radius. This also includes personal sponsored tournaments, rewards (I have too many ships so I give some away), I also won quite a few tournaments not of my own running so I give prizes away as well, blog support, and social media planned events.

 

**** man, 2 game stores.  Great.  It's about the same over here, but we're getting table-scrappings compared to how many players stay with X-Wing.

 

I mean, from what I see, you're content with FFG's table-scrappings, and is determined to undermine my argument that XYZ changes the meta with your "you do understand" horseshit.  I guess I need to educate you that when it comes to games, the earlier metas have a dramatically larger impact than additions later when the game has matured.  This is why you see the changes now being more impactful vs. X-Wing, but I thought hit was pretty common sense.  I mean, look what the Falcon did to the X-Wing meta early on vs. meta changes now.

 

But hey, their system can't please everyone.  While I think you're too easily pleased, and are content with flotillas, 2 capitals and a bunch of squadrons, I'm not as pleased.  This is 2 years running now, and while I think last year was a bit pre-mature to start talking ****, I'm very comfortable doing it now because they've followed the same trend.

 

Table scrapings? Oh and 2 years running? really? I did not know Armada was out in 2014. Maybe you should go in Hiatus again. Personally, all you are doing is complaining without even attempting to try things out. 

 

You know there was a time I defended you against those people who spouted that you got like this on BoLS. I thought that you had potential to be a pillar of your community but all you want to do is complain about the game. It is like you don't understand the difference between X-Wing and Armada. Sad really. 

 

As for your stores in southern california. 6 you say and you are getting overwhelmed by X-Wing? Seems like you are stretched thin if you cant even get a weekly game in between 6 stores. Hell I get 3-5 games in a week and if i wanted to have far less sleep I could make it to a couple other stores as well to get even more games. Right now, it is possible in the Portland Vancouver area to get a game in Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Want to know how many stores that is? 3. Yup, thats right 3 stores. 

 

So how are you having issues with 6 stores not being able to get a weekly game in? Maybe you should stop comparing X-Wing to Armada since that is like comparing grapes to watermelons.

 

Time to make this a bit TL:DR for you but lets do a release comparison!

 

Core Releases:

X-Wing started with a core set which had just an X-Wing and TIE Fighters. (Armada had the CR90, Neb, and VSD)

 

2-3 so far and I did not even count the squadrons!

 

Wave 1:

X-Wing had the X-Wing, TIE Fighter, TIE Advanced (did not work right), and the Y-WIng

 

Armada had the VSD, GSD, Neb, CR90, Assault Frigate, Rebel Squadron Pack, and Imperial Squadron pack.

 

So far for those not keeping track, that is X-Wing 6, Armada 10

 

On to Wave 2!

X-Wing had the YT1300,A-Wing, Firespray and TIE Interceptor

 

Armada had the ISD, Raider, MC80 Cruiser, MC30, AND the Rogues and Villians Pack

 

So far that makes it 10 to 15 

 

Wave 3! Time for X-WIng to catch up I think!

X-Wing had the HWK-290, B-Wing, Lambda Shuttle and TIE Bomber

 

Armada has the Gozanti and GR-75

 

So 14 to 17! OH NO THEY ARE CATCHING US!

 

Sadly. . . I cant do X-Wing wave 4. . . they did not get that until 2014 June which was 21 months after release and Armada is currently on 16 months, with the early release of Wave 3 and 4 it will be 17 months so Armada is in the LEAD! 

 

BUT lets say we do wave 4 shall we?

 

Wave 4

X-Wing  was the TIE Defender (did not work) and the TIE Phantom (was initially broken I hear), Z-95 Headhunter and the E-WIng

 

Armada is the Liberty Battlecruiser and the Interdictor

 

Which brings us to a total of 18 to 19.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm How could armada lose SOOO BADLY. . . . wait. . . wait. . . I guess not!

 

X-Wing did not see an Epic Expansion until April 2014 which was 19 months after release and did not see an Aces expansion until March 2014 which was 17 months after release. Which it seems that the Campaign release will be our equivalent of the Aces Expansion possibly or something new! 

 

 

So for all you who want to state that Armada does not get ANY love from FFG we are actually RIGHT ON TRACK to continue getting the BEST support from FFG because we have more than X-Wing did at the same time AND EVERYTHING of ours works with no need for fixes.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Lyraeus

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Netrunner is an example of an asymmetric, competitive game produced by FFG.

It is a great aspect but it is balanced in its own way. It would be hard to translate they style of Asymmetry to something like Armada

[thecactusman17 3,192]

@HERO : I think the idea that we're getting table scraps compared to X wing is a bit misleading. Right now, X wing is getting more, but that's because it's 4 years old. Compare where X wing was and Armada will be about 18 months into their evolution, and there's not a massive amount between them: 4 waves each, 16 distinct products (ships or fighter packs) each. Really, the main difference between them will be that Armada will have a campaign.

What the local meta is like is a different question. I'm just trying to suggest that, in terms of output, we're doing fine in the Armada camp.

 

Armada has 3 waves.  Waves 3/4 are NOT separate waves, they're both coming out next month.  Possibly on different days, but together.  They were also created together, in fact the large ships were created before the Flotillas and rumors were circulating about beta testers being asked to test the Interdictor clear back last year just as Wave 2 was finally getting to stores.

 

We do know that there is another wave coming, as evidenced by a new ship appearing on the Corellian Conflict packaging and the skipping of a full 5 new product codes in the Armada range.

 

And make no mistake, Armada is getting scraps next to X-Wing, which I don't fault FFG for.  

 

X-Wing is a massively popular game that is at peak demand with dozens or even hundreds of players showing up to even relatively minor tournaments.  Armada is just taking off.  But players jumping into X-Wing play one game with dozens of products to choose from, and see Armada with less than 10 large ships after the new wave and three squadron offerings.  This really is an optics problem for an expanding game.  

 

If you're seeing Armada groups expand in your region, you should be immensely happy.  Players have steadily been pulling out of Armada in the Bay Area and elsewhere especially on the American West Coast, as X-Wing players invest more and more of their time and money into that game system.  I don't think there's been an Armada tournament in the Bay Area since the end of Store Championships, except for the one I hosted at KublaCon.  It got 4 players.  Most of whom were not store regulars.

X-Wing North American Championships at GenCon will have just under 300 players this year, split into two groups of 144 players each.  Every ticket is sold.  Armada will have space for 100 players, and less than two weeks from launch day there are 20 tickets left across 2 start days.  

 

This is basic mathematics.

 

Asking that FFG give Armada a slightly bigger share of the release schedule is a good thing.  New products attract attention, indicates support, and gets game stores to promote the game to their players in anticipation of future sales.  Unsold old product needs to be removed and new products need to be ignored to focus on profitable games.  If players don't have a reason to get new stuff periodically, the game store doesn't have a reason to keep selling it.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

 

@HERO : I think the idea that we're getting table scraps compared to X wing is a bit misleading. Right now, X wing is getting more, but that's because it's 4 years old. Compare where X wing was and Armada will be about 18 months into their evolution, and there's not a massive amount between them: 4 waves each, 16 distinct products (ships or fighter packs) each. Really, the main difference between them will be that Armada will have a campaign.

What the local meta is like is a different question. I'm just trying to suggest that, in terms of output, we're doing fine in the Armada camp.

 

Armada has 3 waves.  Waves 3/4 are NOT separate waves, they're both coming out next month.  Possibly on different days, but together.  They were also created together, in fact the large ships were created before the Flotillas and rumors were circulating about beta testers being asked to test the Interdictor clear back last year just as Wave 2 was finally getting to stores.

 

We do know that there is another wave coming, as evidenced by a new ship appearing on the Corellian Conflict packaging and the skipping of a full 5 new product codes in the Armada range.

 

And make no mistake, Armada is getting scraps next to X-Wing, which I don't fault FFG for.  

 

X-Wing is a massively popular game that is at peak demand with dozens or even hundreds of players showing up to even relatively minor tournaments.  Armada is just taking off.  But players jumping into X-Wing play one game with dozens of products to choose from, and see Armada with less than 10 large ships after the new wave and three squadron offerings.  This really is an optics problem for an expanding game.  

 

If you're seeing Armada groups expand in your region, you should be immensely happy.  Players have steadily been pulling out of Armada in the Bay Area and elsewhere especially on the American West Coast, as X-Wing players invest more and more of their time and money into that game system.  I don't think there's been an Armada tournament in the Bay Area since the end of Store Championships, except for the one I hosted at KublaCon.  It got 4 players.  Most of whom were not store regulars.

X-Wing North American Championships at GenCon will have just under 300 players this year, split into two groups of 144 players each.  Every ticket is sold.  Armada will have space for 100 players, and less than two weeks from launch day there are 20 tickets left across 2 start days.  

 

This is basic mathematics.

 

Asking that FFG give Armada a slightly bigger share of the release schedule is a good thing.  New products attract attention, indicates support, and gets game stores to promote the game to their players in anticipation of future sales.  Unsold old product needs to be removed and new products need to be ignored to focus on profitable games.  If players don't have a reason to get new stuff periodically, the game store doesn't have a reason to keep selling it.

 

Actually, I can forsee FFG letting both go early and then separating them out a month or 2 so that they are separate waves. As I have shown, Armada has far more product than X-Wing had in the same time periods.

 

Simple fix for more tournaments. Schedule more of them.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Lyraeus

[Vykes 1,927]

Man these conversations drift a lot, don't they?  Anyhow, I reject the notion of being fed crumbs, this is clearly a delicious crumble. 

 

We're already starting to get one campaign together for at least one store, looking into getting it supported by a second, and I'm certainly buying one for my reclusive group in order to translate Ceknell into something of the sort.  That, new players in town, and the first tournament since regionals being scheduled are all making me pretty happy right now.  That little supply hiccup seems to have been resolved.  And for the record, I do think that's almost been symbolic of Armada's 'problem': the content is good but the distribution had been fraught with issues causing sporadic releases, which in turn makes the game appear periodically neglected.    

 

Now, maybe I can cajole some people into turning this campaign into a type of league with tournament kit prizing. We don't have any leagues here which is too bad.  Hothgary certainly does but they also seem to have a more centralized playerbase where as ours is more dispersed. I just wonder how the campaign point accumulation will work as that might be an interesting method for league scoring over traditional VP or outright wins/losses. Might be fun and add a degree of internal politics for taking 'prized' targets. 

[Drasnighta 26,831]

You'll still have to buy that Cape, too...  Oh Administrator of E-Cloud City.

[HERO 842]

FYI, you can't be a pillar of the community without a community.  I did my share to build it up, but it's moving way too slow for me to invest time, energy and money.

 

The NorCal and SoCal regions are actually one of the biggest and most active FFG-loving communities in the world.  It was somewhere on the X-Wing forum that someone did a comparison and the areas that are within driving distance and the numbers across America and Europe on X-Wing list juggler and the numbers are truly astounding.  Therefore, your analysis when comparing your area vs. my area is a completely moot point, especially when population is considered.

 

I don't need you to defend me on BoLS, lol where did this even come from?  I write opinionated pieces on there, just like I do on my blog.  It's also my opinion that you have FFG's **** so far down your throat you can't even choke up the raw numbers of X-Wing players vs. Armada.  You can, like cactusman, provide some raw numbers instead of Wave releases.  You know, metrics that actually matter, like player gain over time, or player retention over waves, or # of participants in store tournaments over time.

 

The only numbers that can I provide is that in both NorCal and SoCal, including Arizona and Nevada, have ~6:1 the amount of X-Wing events vs. Armada, 4:1 during Store Championship season, 6:1 the number of average participants (in the last couple of stores, we saw an average of ~10 player show whereas X-Wing was 60+), and the numbers keep growing (I have metrics on all our FB pages as well as locale store pages).  My friends on the East Coast are reporting similar numbers, with one Store Champ having to be canceled because 2 players showed for Armada, whereas 45 showed for X-Wing.

 

I like this game, I really do, but to say this game has more going for it than X-Wing every release is just horseshit on fire.  The numbers don't lie.  You keep saying that I don't understand, but I honestly, the more you type, the more public it becomes that you are the one who's truly lost/confused/brainwashed/something.