Jump to content
stonestokes

What I’d Love to See Released for ARMADA

Recommended Posts

I am not much interested in the Super Star Destroyer. It will be the first expansion for ARMADA that I won’t own. Had it been a campaign, I maybe would have bought it.

So, here are the things I would LOVE to see released for this game:

No, I haven’t thought long and hard about the balance of any of these additions. I don’t care. I want them because they are cool. ;)

Struggle For Lothal Campaign
This would be similar to the Corellian Conflict, except I would add in 2 squadrons, one for the Rebels, and one for the Imperials. (Really, this is two of each, since the cardboard plates are double-sided.)

Squadrons
REBEL
Fenn Rau / Protectorate Starfighter
These have Speed 5, 4 Hull, Counter 1, Swarm
Anti-squadron = 3 blue
Anti-ship = 1 blue
Fenn Rau has Scatter-Brace
Fenn’s Ability: While defending, during the spend defense tokens step, you may change one die result to a face with a CRIT.

IMPERIAL
Inquisitor / TIE Advanced Prototype
Speed 4, 4 Hull, Counter 1, Swarm
Anti-squadron = 3 blue
Anti-ship = 1 blue
Inquisitor has Scatter-Brace
Inquisitor’s Ability: While attacking, you may change one die result to a face with a HIT

I would also add in pilot cards / cardboard bases for other squadrons that are already in the game:
REBEL:
* Kanan Jarus (VCX-100)
* Lando (YT-1300)
* Phoenix Squadron (A-Wing)

IMPERIAL
* Vult Skerris (TIE Defender)
* TIE Defender Prototype (a weaker, cheaper version of the TIE Defender)
* TIE/rb (They are the right time period)
* Zeta-class shuttle

Titles:
Phoenix Nest
QUASAR FIRE
REBEL ONLY
This ship is available for Rebel fleets.
5 points?

Scorn
NEBULON-B
IMPERIAL ONLY
This ship is available for Imperial fleets
2 points

Broken Horn
GOZANTI
Either Faction
This will be a cheaper version of a Gozanti, without anti-ship armament, and with a different suite of upgrades available.
Alternatively, this could be a squadron version of a single Gozanti instead of a flotilla.

Other Things I Want
In no particular order:
* ARC-170s
* K-Wings (Bomber, with a SLAM ability)
* Assault Gunboats (Bomber, with a SLAM ability)
* TIE Punishers (Imperial version of B-Wing? Speed 3, blue-black bomber dice?)
* U-Wings (raid?)
* General Merrick X-Wing squadron
* Saw’s Parisans X-Wing squadron
* TIE/rb squadrons
* Dornean Gunship
* Another size Small Imperial ship
* Another size Medium Rebel ship
* A Clone Wars Republic Starter Box:
    * 1 Venator-Class SD
    * 1 Acclamator-Class Assault Ship
    * 1 VSD with extra titles specific to Republic
    * 1 Arquitens with extra titles specific to Republic
    * ARC-170s
    * Aethersprite Jedi Starfighters
* A Clone Wars Separatist Starter Box
    * 1 Subjugator-class heavy cruiser
    * 1 Munificent-class star frigate (with titles)
    * 1 Lucrehulk-class battleship
    * 1 Providence-class carrier/destroyer/dreadnought
    * Vulture droids

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, somerandomn00b said:

I'd definitely be on board for Imperial Nebulons.

Something that would be really cool would be a title that gives a (unique) Neb-B to the Imperials, and replaces a Brace token with a Redirect. 5 points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Dreadnaught Cruisers, Alpha Class Starwing Squads (The assault gunboat), and an Imperial Nebulon-B... I'd even be fine if they went with a Nebulon-B2 to keep it different from the Rebel version.
I would absolutely love to also get Escort Carriers and Vindicator cruisers, though the chances of that happening is pretty much nil.

For the Rebels I'd really like to see a DP-20 Corellian Gunship (possibly as a flotilla?) and a rebel Quasar light carrier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Audio Weasel said:

I second the DP-20.  Also, I'd like to see the Lancer class frigate.  Neither side has a real flak boat, in my opinion, and I'd like a ship designed to hunt squadrons.

A real flak boat would have at least 3 anti-squadron dice. Plus a new offensive retrofit upgrade:

Flak cannons
Modification
Small ship only
When attacking a squadron, you may add one die to your attack pool. That die must be of a color that is already in the attack pool.
7 points

So you could realistically roll 5 anti squadron dice with a CF command. Of course there is always the possibility that the enemy has no squadrons to fire at, big risk big reward.

I'd also like to see:
MC-80 variants, similar to what we got with the Chimera. Maybe the wingless liberty as a model that can go in place of either current version. And at least one variant with a fleet command slot.
Another campaign with more objectives, upgrades and aces.
In the same vein, I want the heroes of the rebellion more available (like Vader and Palpy). Luke, Han Solo, Chewbacca and Lando should all be pilots, officers, and boarding parties (and Luke, Han and Lando should be commanders).
A space station model with new objectives and several variants. You know, like the Golan defense platforms...
And of course, Dreadnoughts. Dual faction dreadnoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, thestag said:

So you could realistically roll 5 anti squadron dice with a CF command. Of course there is always the possibility that the enemy has no squadrons to fire at, big risk big reward.

Big risk moderate reward.  It’s inherently hard to answer squadrons with flak alone, because you need to catch them or have a lot of points locked behind your flak build (which, SSD aside, has a substantial opportunity cost.)  Stuff like Sloane aces, especially with initiative, will just dance around a flak boat for the duration of the game until they get well behind it. Not that I would have any objection to punishing a Rebel ace fortress... but the Aceholes archetype is potentially flexible enough to just incorporate said flak boat into its design for more squadron superiority instead.

Edited by The Jabbawookie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LostFleet said:

Apart from fine listed ships mentioned above,

I would love to see new mats released, Tatooine, Jakku, Coruscant, Naboo, Kessler, Mustafar, Geonosis, Bajor ( oops ignore the last one ) anyway many many more mats, 

 

They’ve kept most of those as exclusive system open prizes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 2, 2019 at 6:48 PM, stonestokes said:

I think I speak for everybody when I say "me too."

Broad statement, and incorrect. I'm not particularly wanting anything on your list. I'm specially not wanting anything from the Clone Wars.

in contrast, I'm stoked for the SSD and I'm considering getting two. 

Instead of any clone wars stuff, I rather see a Resurgent class...but that'd be too large, I think. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather a rules update. Though my wish list is a bit extreme.

-Ban flotillas from organized play

-Ban Pryce and Bail from OP

-Allow fleet command slots to equip fleet support.

-Make Bomber command require spending a squadron token to activate like fleet commands

-Replace the Weapons team slot in the Cymoon with... anything else?

That would about be enough to make me feel better about Organize Play. Less activations, removing the BS cards that make the competitive game about last/firsting, and nerfing the ISD variant that is (as far as I can see) seeing disproportionately more table time. 

 

 

If we we are limiting wishes to expansions, then I want Mon Remonda. I know it won’t happen as it is Legends, but I still want it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I have played 1-3 and fought them, and I think they're outright bad compared to an ISD-II, frankly.  Probably a meta-related viewpoint...

 

Cymoons are the Imps' version of the LMC80. Plexiglas Cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important goal should be shortening the max game time.  Armada is seriously handicapped by its long round times, which leads to long tournaments with very few games played.  Consequently, quite frequently, your final placement in a tournament has more to do with 10-1 matches at lower tables than it does with your own outcome.

My thoughts on two major places to save time.

1) Squadron rules.  Find some way to speed up squad play.  The current ruleset is slow, fiddly, and very boring to observers .  The solution in casual play is to run by two rules, what is possible, and what you want to do.  Running off of intent speeds up the squadron play considerably.  At a minimum, codify that.  Pie in the sky?  Rewrite the rules to completely get rid of the range 1 rules.

2) Make objectives a bigger deal.  In most cases, the vast majority of points in a match come from destruction of ships.  This tends to lead to three options in a game, avoidance, attrition, or slaughter.  If all the current objectives were scrapped and replaced with a system where players are competing directly for 11 points on the objective, which may or may not include destroying enemy ships.  Once the fight over the 11 points is over, the game is done.

With both of those I'm looking for a result, lower game time.  I have not really put any thought into the details of implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AdmiralYor said:

The most important goal should be shortening the max game time.  Armada is seriously handicapped by its long round times, which leads to long tournaments with very few games played.  Consequently, quite frequently, your final placement in a tournament has more to do with 10-1 matches at lower tables than it does with your own outcome.

My thoughts on two major places to save time.

1) Squadron rules.  Find some way to speed up squad play.  The current ruleset is slow, fiddly, and very boring to observers .  The solution in casual play is to run by two rules, what is possible, and what you want to do.  Running off of intent speeds up the squadron play considerably.  At a minimum, codify that.  Pie in the sky?  Rewrite the rules to completely get rid of the range 1 rules.

2) Make objectives a bigger deal.  In most cases, the vast majority of points in a match come from destruction of ships.  This tends to lead to three options in a game, avoidance, attrition, or slaughter.  If all the current objectives were scrapped and replaced with a system where players are competing directly for 11 points on the objective, which may or may not include destroying enemy ships.  Once the fight over the 11 points is over, the game is done.

With both of those I'm looking for a result, lower game time.  I have not really put any thought into the details of implementation.

First off I am not sure that I agree with the basic premise, but then again I am not a tournament player.

 

My thought on your two ideas.

1) Squadrons, I think the best way to fix squadrons is to do two things. First change Rogue so that they go in the Ship phase as if given a squadron command. Second make it so that all squadrons can move and shoot, as to me that is one of the least desirable rules, I think it is one of the major things that slows down the squadron phase, and makes the least sense to me.

2) Objectives, as I said I am not a tournament player more a campaign/narrative player. So we do not even track points most of the time, it is more about accomplishing the objective and losing as little on your side as you can. Having said that if they come out with new objectives I would be fine with that like they did for the Corellian Conflict, just not sure about saying that you can not use the old ones anymore.

Updated - The other thought that I had after posting this is have it so that only the points from objectives count, it does not matter if you kill 90% of his stuff and do not lose a thing if he got all six objective tokens. He played to the mission and won. This makes me think of three other games that I played. First years ago was playing Flames of War and my objective was to get half my force across the board and into the stating area of the other player. Well I was using a company of M3 Stuarts and he had two King Tigers. I could not hurt him no matter what I did, but he could not kill me fast enough to keep me from crossing the board. So this objective was not balanced because he went with the biggest baddest thing he could, he could have fielded a more balanced force and been able to do the objective, however he was playing to kill not complete the objective.
Second was playing Pirates of the Spanish Main in a tournament and everyone I played was just trying to kill the other player, however the objective was to get the gold. At the start of the tournament it was put out that the amount of gold you had at the end would be used to bid on the prizes offered this was balanced and anyone could have won. By playing to the objective I was able to have enough gold at the end that I could have taken every prize by biding one more than the next highest player had, but to not be a prick I bid all my gold on the one prize I wanted. It was a case of not playing to the objective and just doing what they wanted, mostly they were younger kids so I did not take all the prizes.
Third back in the day of 3rd edition 40K I went to a tournament and the mission was to capture a point in the middle of the field and this was done by having a unit not engaged in combat on the objective. I was playing Tau and my opponent was Korn. He was able to get there first turn, so I had to keep throwing units in to fight him hand to hand just to keep him from winning, but I had no chance of beating him in had to hand. So this was not balanced as my force could not complete the objective against that force regardless of the units I took.

So summing it up, if they are balanced either by both sides being able to complete the objective or each side having different things that they have to do to win the objective than I think it could be a good way to go. However if only one player has a reasonable chance of completing the objective than it is a bad way to go.

Edited by CDAT
Updated thought.

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

×