Objectives are one of the most important parts of Star Wars: Armada—not just for gameplay, but for how you design your fleets. A brilliant fleet idea can fall flat if you can’t find the objectives to support it. On the flip side, if your fleet can’t handle even one common objective type from your opponent’s suite, that’s a serious weakness.
And unless you're bidding hard, you need to be prepared to play as both first and second player. You can’t always rely on choosing whether you want to go first or second.
Food for thought (maybe we could talk about that another time): How would random initiative (at the start of the game, that is, not alternating) affect Armada list building? We briefly tested it in the VASSAL Fantasy League years ago, and there are both pros and cons.
Anyway. We’ve had the same 12 + 12 + 12 = 36 objectives for a long time now. That's quite a few. But let’s be honest: in each color, only a handful are competitively viable. A few others work in niche builds, and the rest are rarely touched. Worse, some fleet archetypes struggle to find a good objective in one category at all.
That’s not how it should be.
Not every fleet needs to find the perfect objective—that would make Second Player too strong. But there should be variety, and that variety should mean viable, balanced choices. The more objectives that can reasonably be played, the better the game is.
This is an Idea Bank, Not a Roadmap
The suggestions in this series aren’t a checklist for ARC to implement, nor are they a demand for sweeping change. Think of them as an idea bank—a set of thought experiments and “what ifs” designed to get the creative juices flowing about what objectives could be.
Some tweaks are small and surgical. Others are big and experimental. Many of them would never be implemented exactly as written, and that’s fine. The point is to comment on things that could make objectives more varied, more interactive, and more fun.
We're also deep in "the devil is in the details" territory. If we nerf MW just a tiny bit by banning flotillas as objective ships, that'll have a ripple effect across the red category. If we were to boost Precision Strike at the same time (hypothetically), that could lead to PS becoming THE red objective. So we need to tread carefully.
Pass Tokens Changed the Game
Pass Tokens introduced in Rules Reference 1.5 have made Second Player stronger than ever. This means going second and leveraging your own objectives is arguably more powerful now than at any other point in Armada’s history.
That’s not a bad thing—but it’s a piece of context worth keeping in mind when discussing balance tweaks. In some cases, Second Player doesn’t need more objective strength—just more variety in viable picks. Furthermore, while the fallout factor for Second Player is definitely a consideration, First Player counterplay is also relevant. It's not a good objective if there is no counterplay whatsoever.
🎯 Tactical vs. Scoring
Throughout this series, I’ll be evaluating objectives on two fronts:
-
Tactical Benefit – What advantage does this give the players (presumably Second more than First)?
-
Scoring Potential – How many points can realistically be earned (by both sides)?
Sometimes a huge tactical edge leads naturally to points. Other times, the tactical benefit is minor but scoring is steady. The strongest objectives tend to balance both—but when either side becomes too lopsided, problems start to emerge.
📉 Variable Rewards, Capped Scoring
One recurring issue with some objectives is how unbounded some of them are. When an objective can regularly score 100+ points—or more—it creates:
-
Sudden blowouts,
-
Feels-bad moments for the First Player, and
-
Narrow metagame trends where only certain fleets can risk playing them.
Going forward, ARC should seriously consider:
-
Flat bonuses instead of multipliers, and/or
-
Caps on total scoring per objective.
The “right” cap number is hard to pin down and will also depend on what, if any, structural changes are implemented in the rules.
Example:
-
Reducing the token value of Superior Positions from 15 to 10 might be fine… unless there’s also a hard scoring cap, in which case maybe 15 per token is still appropriate.
-
Contested Outpost can give up to 120 points, but usually less if the First Player knows what he's doing. That’s a lot, but acceptable in my view. More than 120? Definitely not. Less? Perhaps.
🛰️ A Note on Flotillas
Then there’s the flotilla "problem."
Several objectives let players assign a "key ship," and in practice, this often ends up being an 18 to 23-point flotilla. This neuters the intent of the card. It’s boring, non-interactive, and undermines any real decision-making.
Possible solutions:
-
A blanket rule: Flotillas cannot be objective ships.
-
Specific bans on cards like Most Wanted, Opening Salvo, etc.
-
Objective-specific text, though that adds bloat.
Anyway. On to the actual Core Set objectives.
⚔️ Assault Objectives (Red) – Core Set
These four cards were part of the original game launch—and they’ve held up surprisingly well. But each has its issues, and a few could use refinement.
Advanced Gunnery
Tactical: Huge swing.
Scoring: Can be game-breaking.
Play Rate: Rare, yet overpowered when it is taken
This objective is extreme. In the wrong fleet, it's a dud. In the right fleet, it’s nearly unplayable against. The scoring potential is huge, and First Player will almost never pick it.
Suggested tweaks:
-
Give both players a reduced tactical effect. Say GT-equivaltn for 1st, old 1st player effect for 2nd player. Make it work with the Gunnery Team upgrade.
-
Replace the score multiplier with a flat bonus for killing the objective ship.
➡ Verdict: Too binary. Could be made healthier by being less extreme.
Most Wanted
Tactical: Flexible, interactive.
Scoring: Too swingy.
Flotilla abuse: Rampant.
This is probably the most-played objective in the entire game—and it’s not hard to see why. It works in almost any fleet. But that’s part of the problem.
Flotillas completely neuter the card, and the double-score effect can feel ridiculous.
Fixes:
-
Ban flotillas as objective ships.
-
Maybe switch to a flat bonus for destroying the marked ship. Or cap the bonus points.
➡ Verdict: Still great, but needs cleanup.
Opening Salvo
Tactical: Decent early-game punch.
Scoring: None.
Flotilla abuse: Again.
Another victim of flotilla objective ship nonsense. Also, with Ignition attacks now in the game, the card’s wording should be revisited.
Suggested fixes:
-
Ban flotillas as objective ships.
-
Disallow Ignition attacks using the bonus dice.
➡ Verdict: A fun option with some minor rules fixes needed.
Precision Strike
Tactical: Squad-focused, thematic.
Scoring: Can be out of control, but usually evens out.
Play Rate: Low, better options exist
It can work, and can become a snowball if the squad ball gets rolling. On the other hand, it can end up doing nothing compared to another squad-heavy. And indeed, it can backfire big time.
Tweaks:
-
Let Second Player pick Squadron or CF tokens during setup.
-
Reduce point value to 10 per token.
-
Cap tokens to 1 per attack, and maybe cap total scored.
➡ Verdict: Needs a rework, but still salvageable.
🚢 Navigation Objectives (Yellow) – Core Set
These objectives generally focus on positioning, deployment, and maneuvering. That’s core to Armada—yet only two of these are widely played today.
Contested Outpost
Tactical: Modest edge.
Scoring: Steady and strong.
Flotilla abuse: Possible.
This is the Most Wanted of Yellow. It shows up all the time—and it’s frequently played. Why? Because it offers just enough scoring to matter, without handing Second Player an overwhelming advantage.
That’s a good place to be.
Potential tweaks:
-
Ban flotillas from scoring.
-
Consider banning Ignition attacks vs. ships at Distance 1 of the station.
➡ Verdict: Excellent design. Minimal changes needed.
Fire Lanes
Tactical: Poorly protected.
Scoring: Easily abused.
Playability: Currently unplayable.
Strategic squadrons broke this card. You can flip the tokens far too easily, and GAR/CIS don’t even have Strategic access, making it borderline unfair for them.
Fixes:
-
Tokens must start farther apart and never move closer than Distance 1.
-
Reduce scoring to 10 per token.
-
Update rules to ban token hiding under squadrons or ships, and placing squadrons on top of tokens.
➡ Verdict: Needs a full rework or major rules support to become viable again.
Fleet Ambush
Tactical: A trap.
Scoring: N/A.
Playability: The worst in the game?
This card has always been terrible. It sounds clever but plays like a self-inflicted wound. Even newer players figure this out the hard way.
Possible rescue mission:
-
First Player may only deploy squadrons in the ambush zone on odd-numbered deployments.
-
First Player must pass their first turn without using a pass token.
➡ Verdict: Currently a noob trap. Only salvageable with major changes.
Hyperspace Assault
Tactical: Good in the right fleet.
Scoring: None.
Balance: Acceptable.
This one still works. It's fun, thematic, and effective when paired with the right ships.
Minor upgrades:
-
Let set-aside ships/squads count as “deployed” for deployment rules.
-
Maybe let tokens be moved up to distance 1-2.
-
Consider applying the overlap rules if you jump in on an obstacle.
➡ Verdict: Still solid. Minor tweaks only.
🛡️ Defense Objectives (Blue) – Core Set
The Blue category is about control, disruption, and area denial. Some of these have aged well. Others... not so much.
Dangerous Territory
Tactical: Weak.
Scoring: Modest.
Play Rate: Nearly extinct.
Used to be a second-rate pick—now it’s just underwhelming. There's no real bite to it, and smarter obstacle manipulation tools have moved on.
Tweaks:
-
Obstacles must go into the center zone (like Fleet Ambush).
-
Tokens can only move with the obstacle (e.g., via Grav Shift) not using Strategic.
-
First Player can’t ignore obstacle effects via Jaina’s Light, Chart Officer, etc.
➡ Verdict: Needs tuning to matter again.
Intel Sweep
Tactical: Fair.
Scoring: Modest but reliable.
Balance: Acceptable.
Still a decent pick for certain fleets. It rewards movement and planning, and has enough counterplay to feel interactive.
Suggested tweak:
-
If token count is tied at the end, Second Player gets 40 points.
➡ Verdict: Still viable. A small boost makes it better.
Minefields
Tactical: Punitive and inflexible.
Scoring: None.
Playability: Weak.
This one feels.. weird. Setup is rigid and often harms the Second Player as much as the First and limits his movement.
Alternative setup:
-
Second Player places all obstacles, each at Distance 3+ (not 5+) from the others.
-
Then place 6 objective tokens, each within Distance 1–2 of an obstacle and beyond Distance 1 of all other tokens.
Still… not great.
➡ Verdict: Needs a redesign or it’ll stay on the shelf.
Superior Positions
Tactical: Excellent.
Scoring: Can snowball.
Balance: Still competitive.
This is the gold standard for Blue objectives—encouraging maneuvering, flanking, and aggressive play. It still sees play across all factions.
Possible adjustment:
-
Reduce tokens to 10 points each.
-
Add a scoring cap (e.g., max 90 or 120 points).
➡ Verdict: Still great. Just needs guardrails.
🧭 What’s Next?
In Part 2, we’ll look at the Corellian Conflict objectives—a set that introduced some genuine standouts and a few... not-so-stellar additions. Can Targeting Beacons be redeemed? What about Nav Hazards?
Stay tuned.
