Showing posts with label Special Modifications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Modifications. Show all posts

Sunday, September 14, 2025

Special Modifications, Part 5: Lock S-Foils in Attack Position

Welcome back to Special Modifications! 

Han Solo once said he’d made a few “special modifications” to the Falcon. Some good, some bad, all of them interesting. That’s the spirit behind this new series: exploring nonstandard Armada. Not just fleet lists or tournament meta, but the underlying strings that hold the game together. What if the designers had pulled them differently? What might have worked better? What happens when you tinker with the system in ways it was never quite built for?

Lock S-Foils in Attack Position

Let’s start with the Rebels — not just because they’re the OG squadron faction, but also because they received more boosts, patches, and fixes than anyone else to get their core squadrons into a good place. And yet… how often do you really see X-wings take center stage in anything but an obnoxious Biggs Ball? How often do you see B-wings in an alphabet soup? Generic A-wings in any number? Don’t you cry a little bit when you see GAR Y-wings with their blue-black anti-squad combo and realize what the Rebel version could have been? And then you just shrug and take Rogues instead? Yeah, me too.

That said, I don’t think Rebel generics are beyond saving. Far from it. We don’t need to redesign the whole system — just a few core tweaks to make them worth taking without leaning on a tower of support pieces.

And once we’ve looked at Rebels, we can assess the Empire in contrast — always keeping GAR and CIS in mind as the better-balanced baselines. Regarding costing, we're going to push the cost of generics down by a point or so, unless we give them a significant boost, in which case we'll do a more thorough reevaluation.


X-wing

The most iconic starfighter in Star Wars. And in Armada? Not bad, but lackluster — and overpriced to boot. You never just throw a couple of X-wings into a Rebel fleet. Never.

The biggest issue is speed. Armada’s X-wing is sluggish. It doesn’t stand out from other mid-speed squadrons, which means you can’t build a dynamic squadron game — you’re always reactive. A slow escort doesn’t even make much sense thematically.

If you're also an X-wing player, the X-wing's slow speed feels even weirder. In fact, using the closed S-foil Boost, it is FASTER than a TIE Fighter! Not A-wing or TIE Interceptor, but the X-wing can MOVE!

Back in the 2022 VASSAL Fantasy League, we tried giving the X-wing (and B-wing) a new keyword: S-foil, basically choose +1 speed on activation, but remove 1 attack die. It worked pretty well, but at Armada’s scale, it felt fiddly. 

A simpler fix: just make the X-wing Speed 4. Now it feels like an escort and space superiority fighter at the same time.

Next, its armament. Swap one blue for a black in the anti-squadron dice. This gives consistency and punch, and mixes up the pool — everything was “just blue” back in 2015, but Armada has moved toward more varied dice pools. (Also: Rebels don’t have much Swarm synergy, so a black die here helps.)

What about its anti-ship battery? Leave it as a single red. Yes, we could make it a black for more reliability, but that would crowd out the Y-wing’s role. And if we did that, then the Y-wing would need to become a two-die bomber, which would push its cost up and infringe on the B-wing’s niche. Slippery slope. Better to keep the X-wing as a secondary bomber at best.

Cost: 11 points. 

More speed AND a 2-point drop? Have you gone mad, I hear you say. Bear with me, not only because my given name literally means "Bear," but because it's an interesting line of reasoning:

  • 11 is the same as an FFG-priced Hyena, but that one is effectively a 2-die bomber, so a direct comparison is hard to make. 
  • In the space superiority role, the X-wing has to contend with TIE Ints and Tri-Fighters, both squadrons that hit as hard or harder, have more speed, and counter. But they are flimsy. So again, not easy to do a direct comparison.
  • The YT-2400 has more hull, Rogue, and essentially the same offensive profile. We know YTs are super competitive at 16. Is the extra hull and Rogue worth +5 points (Escort is relevant for the YT-2400, so no real loss there)? Or maybe the YT-2400 should be 15? Or what about the proposed tweak to Rogue? How does that impact the equation?

All valid points, but let's take a step back and focus: the X-wing is one of THE core squadrons of the game, doesn't get much more iconic than this. So instead of looking around at what other squadrons (currently) cost, let's shift focus. Let's use 10 points as the baseline for a "good generic squadron" and compare the X-wing to that:

The X-wing has good(ish) speed, good(ish) hull (but not exceptional), goodish AS, mid battery with Bomber, and the Escort keyword (that is usually good, but means you'll die first too). IMO this sounds like the very definition of a slightly above average space superiority fighter. 

I'd say my gut instinct is to put it at 12 points within the current costing paradigm. It came down in cost and gained speed, so now it offers good value for points, right? It does. But we wanted an overall reduction of generic squadron cost, didn't we? Thus, we push the X-wing down to 11. At least for now. If we later see that 11 is too low, we can shift back to 12, no problem.

So, not only is 11 the cost of our Xw-ing, it'll serve as our baseline going forward. We'll have to establish more baselines; one isn't going to cut it in the long run, but it's a solid foundation: build around the iconic X-wing.


Y-wing

This old workhorse has the same problem as the X-wing: not bad, but lackluster. Slow, Heavy, a single-die bomber that’s tankier than an X-wing but worse at dogfighting. Outside of high hull, which admittedly is quite important in a game with a fixed number of rounds, it doesn’t bring much. No, that's too harsh. It brings something, but it has no exceptional characteristics.

Making every Y-wing into Gold Squadron (double-die bomber) would be too much. It would drive the price up quite a bit and crowd out the B-wing’s role. So let’s keep it as a cheap, single-die bomber. I think that fits quite well thematically as well. These are old ships, relics of a more civilized era, so to speak.

As for changes, let's adjust its anti-squadron armament to blue + black, just like the GAR version. We know this combo is a lot more useful than 2 blue. Sure, it'll give fewer ACCs (but so will the X-wing), but with such small dice pools, getting at least 1 damage on the target is more important. Suddenly, the Y-wing isn't a total dead weight in squadron fights.

Cost: 9 points. 

If we do a comparison with the only squadron thus far detailed, we see they are 2 cheaper than X-wings, which doesn't seem like a lot, but in percentage terms, about 20%, it's rather significant. You can have 4 Y-wings for 36 points (24 hull) or 3 X-wings for 33 points (15 hull), and you toss 4 black Bomber dice instead of 3 red. The X-wings hit harder in AS mode (12 vs 8 die across 3 vs 4 attacks), have Escort, and are faster. That sounds like the right tradeoff.

Let's do an isolated study to see if the cost makes sense. 9 sounds like a mid squadron. Is the Y-wing mid? I would say yes. Black bomber dice (forget about PDIC, it's not part of the equation) are solid, so the battery part is above average (but not exceptional). AS is decidedly mid — but not horrible, we know that from GAR. Speed 3 is the definition of mid. Heavy is a negative trait, but not a dealbreaker since you should run other non-heavy squads alongside your Y-wings. Thus far, we're trending down to 8, but hull 6 is massive, offering resilience to AS and flak both, so that brings it to 9.

One final note before we move on: on paper, the Y-wing looks like a squadron that could remain on the table to the endgame if properly escorted, but will struggle if sent in without support. Kind of thematic!


B-wing

The B-wing is, and should remain, the elite Rebel bomber. A two-die bomber with teeth. But its usability is hamstrung by speed, and its hull is mid for a bomber. Back in the day, B-wings were good because they could double-tap with Yavaris. Later, they could be FCT-pushed and got BCC. Almost like the designers realized they had created a rather flawed squadron...

Why Speed 2? Your way of keeping up with a Victory is… being overlapped by it? That’s lame. Outside of rare exceptions, Speed 2 generics are a mistake. The ARC-170 is one of the few acceptable cases — it has 7 hull and Counter, so its slowness is offset by sheer staying power. The B-wing doesn’t have that and should not be a Speed 2 squadron. As an X-wing player, it also annoys me that it's slower than a Y-wing. They are the same speed, but the B-wing is not only a bomber, but also a competent knife-fighter (without the Heavy keyword).

Hull 5 is also problematic for a bomber. They are going to be the primary target of enemy interceptors and must expect to eat a bit of flak too, so 5 hull points is a substantial downgrade from the Y-wing's 6. Yes, it's only 1 point, but that point matters. A lot. If we again look at the X-wing game, the B-wing is the better-protected one, with a better shield-to-hull ratio and a much better positioning game (and dodge) than the Y-wing. Sure, the Y-wing can load up on R2 units and regen shields, but even then, the B-wing is the better defender.

In short: let's make the B-wing Speed 3, Hull 6. It can keep pace with Y-wings. While it can still benefit from some speed tech, it isn't absolutely vital. High hull lets it stay the distance.

For anti-squadron, swap to 1 red + 1 blue + 1 blackIt's not a space superiority fighter, but a decent enough dogfighter if pressed.

For bombing dice, we will switch to red + blue instead of blue + black. That keeps it powerful but less oppressive. You can still deal 3 damage, but it's only half as likely, and there are no HIT/CRITs on red dice.

Cost: 13 points. 

That’s two more than an X-wing (almost 20% more), four more than a Y-wing (in the 40% more range). You can field 4 Y-wings for 36 or 3 B-wings for 39. Y-wings deliver 4 black bomber dice (average dmg 4), B-wings 3 red + 3 blue (average damage 4.5). Y-wings bring 4 blue + 4 black AS across 4 attacks (5 dmg on average), B-wings bring 9 total dice (5.25 on average) over 3 attacks. The B-wings concentrate firepower; the Y-wings spread it out across more hulls and hull points. Spreading out or concentrating, each has its pros and cons, but in terms of value per activation, concentration wins out. The Y-wing is Heavy, the B-wing isn't. Which is the better value for points? Hopefully both, escorted by X-wings!

If we cost this on its own merits, we see it has none of the weaknesses of the Y-wing and the same excellent hull. Its AS armament is not amazing, but it's serviceable. But the big draw here is the valuable 2-dice battery armament. That alone would make it 12 points, but with no flaws and high hull, it's clearly in the 13-point range.


A-wing

The A-wing is the outlier. Already good out of the box: fast, Counter 2, self-sufficient. But cost and ace pricing made them awkward. Tycho at 16 or Shara at 17 felt like obvious upgrades over a generic A-wing at 11.

We could give them Swarm (very similar to what they are in X-wing), or turn their black non-bomber die into a blue Bomber. But I’d rather keep their identity: fast, independent, not very synergistic.

So: bump their anti-squad to 2 blue + 1 black, same reasoning and faction identity as previously discussed.

Cost: 10 points. 

Compared to the X-wing, it is faster but has less hull, hits a bit less hard in offense — but Counter 2 more than makes up for that — and a steady battery armament of 1 non-bomber black. So is this guy really worth 1 point less than the X-wing? The speed and Counter say otherwise, but the hull is a clear downgrade, although Counter will often make it attract less AS fire. In the end, the lack of bomber synergy, or really any synergy whatsoever (beyond acting as a long-range threat that is), with the other squadrons brings its cost down by a fraction. I would also say that the existence of a Speed 4 X-wing makes its high speed slightly less than a draw than before.

On its own merit, the A-wing boasts excellent speed, mid hull, and decent AS, along with a decent battery (although not a Bomber). Counter 2 is a plus, of course, even without Swarm. You might argue 11 points for it, but as a throwaway interceptor/screen, 10 will be fine. I'd expect it to be screening any Rebel fleet not running a bomber setup. At this cost, if we also tweak stuff like Tycho and Shara up a hair, the generic A-wing should be the go-to, not purely the aces.


Other Rebel Generics

Technically out of scope for this article, but let's take a very quick look at other Rebel non-Irregular squadrons:
  • Z-95s: Mostly fine as-is, but swap the AS dice around a bit. The very low cost (it would have to be 6 points) might be an issue, so perhaps making it a speed 3, hull 4 squadron — sort of an inverse TIE - might be a better idea?

  • E-wings: Trickier. With X-wings now at Speed 4, what’s the E-wing’s niche? In lore, they’re A-wing fast, so Speed 5 + Snipe 3 makes sense — basically a generic Saber Squadron. But no Swarm, no Howlrunner, so not oppressive given their high cost. Alternatively, keep them Speed 4 with Snipe 3 but at a lower cost. Or we could introduce a "Restricted" rule, akin to X-wing, where we cap them at 2–3 per fleet to reflect rarity (just add 2-3 dots and an RRG entry to clarify how it works). The same logic could be applied to generic Defenders and Phantoms.

Other Rebel squadrons are all Irregular types and are best saved for another post.


With the Rebels adjusted into something resembling a proper baseline — generalist fighters with real bomber teeth — we can turn to the Empire. Their problem wasn’t mediocrity propped up by synergies, but fragility, specialization, and being overshadowed by aces.

Next Up on Special Modifications: Empire generics. Can we retain their specialized nature without resorting to Sloane and plug-ins like Maarekdon? That's what we'll try to answer.


Thursday, September 11, 2025

Special Modifications, Part 4: What Good are Snub-fighters Against That?

Welcome back to Special Modifications! 

Han Solo once said he’d made a few “special modifications” to the Falcon. Some good, some bad, all of them interesting. That’s the spirit behind this new series: exploring nonstandard Armada. Not just fleet lists or tournament meta, but the underlying strings that hold the game together. What if the designers had pulled them differently? What might have worked better? What happens when you tinker with the system in ways it was never quite built for?

What Good are Snub-fighters Against That?

Before we tear into Rebel generics, we need to hit pause. Squadrons don’t exist in a vacuum — they’re inseparable from a handful of critical upgrade cards and keywords that shaped the entire squadron game. I wasn't going to address this directly, but when writing the other entries, I realized that without addressing these tools first, any rework risks sounding half-baked, or worse, confusing.

This post is about establishing the baseline: the three most important upgrades, the most warping keywords, and a quick look at the economics of generics. Once that foundation is set, we’ll have the language we need to start cutting and tuning.


The Big Three Upgrades

Yes, there are lots of upgrades that affect squadrons. But if you really boil it down, three cards tower above the rest:

Flight Controllers

  • Currently: add 1 blue die to all friendly squadrons activated by this ship.

  • Problem: rewards “ALL THE SQUADS AT ONCE” activations, where one carrier supercharges an entire wing, wipes out the opposition, and we're left wondering where the counterplay went.

  • Fix: Cap at 3 squadrons per ship. This is consistent with modern design (see Sniper Ahsoka and other “max 3” caps). Now the card still rewards squadron commands, but encourages spreading activations across multiple ships instead of piling everything into one mega-activation.

Bomber Command Center

  • Currently: aura reroll for bombers.

  • Problem: a patch for single-die bombers being underwhelming. It works, but it’s clunky, repetitive, and warps design space.

  • Fix: Total redesign. BCC becomes a Weapons Team/Offensive Retrofit double-slot Modification. Instead of rerolls, it adds 1 blue die to up to 3 bombers commanded by that ship. Basically Flight Controllers, but for bombing.

  • Effect: No more reroll spam. Bombers get a direct firepower boost, but only when actively commanded. Few ships can take both FC and BCC; the Quasar-II (and Rebel Providence) can, but that’s fine — it’s a carrier by design. And since it can’t also pack Boosted Comms or Expanded Hangars, tradeoffs remain (well, the Rebel Providence could, but that ship has other issues).

Boosted Comms

  • Currently: cheap, near-mandatory aura extender.

  • Problem: lets carriers sit at the back, issuing commands from safety.

  • Fix: Becomes more expensive and “Comms only.” Partially to make ship tags an integrated part of the game, but also to encourage ships to work alongside squadrons rather than away from them, as was the case in the early days. Some ships, such as the Quasar and Munificent, will still play at standoff range, and that’s fine as it's part of their carrier identity.

There are other cards that are important, of course, there are, but I just wanted to touch upon the three I feel are the most game-warping.


Squadron Keywords

Keywords are the other half of the equation. Most are fine (Swarm, Escort, Counter). Others warp the game around them. Here are the ones we need to talk about:

AI

  • Currently: “Add 1 die of a color you already have.”

  • Problem: massively warps design space. A black-die droid bomber with AI? Instantly busted. Even the humble Vulture with AI is basically 1 blue + 2 black with Swarm out of the gate. Compare that to a TIE Fighter and… ouch.

  • Fix: AI = Add 1 blue. Cleaner, safer, less abusive. I suppose AI was designed the way it is to differentiate it from other card effects, but it doesn't help the game. Make AI blue only, problem fixed.

  • Example: Let's assume the Hyena is still a 1 die red bomber with AI: Battery 1. Not it chucks 1 red + 1 blue, instead of 2 reds. More consistent, lower roof, works with the revised BCC without breaking the game (said BCC would for example fit the Providence DN version, and be capped at 3 squads per activation).

Rogue

  • Currently: full activation in Squadron Phase, but also commandable by ships.

  • Problem: too efficient. They “rogue last, then command first” with no counterplay in between. It’s why Rogues are everywhere.

  • Fix: Rogues cannot be activated by squadron commands (Han would still be an exception since his card text overrides the general rules). They still act independently in the Squadron Phase, but no more "double-dipping". This makes them good, but no longer no-brainer auto-includes, and might even affect the price of some generic rogues.

Intel / Grit

  • Grit is currently too weak. Allowing one move while engaged is fine, but it rarely comes up.

  • Fix: Stackable Grit, up to 3. Suddenly multiple sources matter, and Intel becomes worth fielding again, even in the guise of multiple generics (which obviously need some rework themselves). Squadron fights loosen up, but don’t revert to the “no-counterplay” of old Intel.

  • Alternative (not preferred): Grit = “may move even while engaged.” But this is dangerously close to old Intel, especially for fast squads, and I’d avoid it.

Dodge

  • Currently: useless against flak. Which makes squadrons like the Delta-7 eternally overpriced.

  • Fix: Dodge works against flak too. Suddenly it’s a real keyword, and priced squadrons can justify having it. (No, Deltakin doesn’t get to keep Dodge under this fix. Sorry.)

We could also discuss stuff like Assault (let CRITS be spent), Cloak (what about Dodge added to squads with Cloak?), and that damn Strategic, but let's do that separately as they don't impace the overall squad game to the same extent.


The Economics of Generics

A quick reminder of the numbers:

  • 400-point game = 134 squadron points max.

  • In practice, most fleets bring 60–80 points of true generics, sometimes up to 100. Rarely the full 134.

  • “Generiques” (uniques without defense tokens) blur the line — stronger than generics, not ace-capped, and often crowd out the true baseline.

  • The ace cap (4) was bolted on because aces were too cheap compared to generics. Ideally, everything should be costed properly so no cap is needed. In practice, the cap is probably here to stay — but we design toward the ideal of a cap-less game.

And here’s the key point: generics need to be slightly cheaper.

  • Mass is their value. They only shine when you can bring enough of them.

  • Aces are better in small numbers; generics are better in bulk. But only if bulk is affordable.

  • GAR and CIS proved this: better generics → more mass → healthier squadron game.

  • In the 2022 VASSAL Fantasy League (450-point fleets, 150 squad cap, cheaper generics), people actually brought lots of generics. And they were good. Not broken, not oppressive — just viable through numbers.

What does “slightly cheaper” mean? Think of a Rebel Y-wing dropping from 10 to 9 points. Not a huge change, but if every generic across the board receives that same nudge, suddenly there’s room for more mass — enough to feel impactful. It’s about making squadrons worth taking in numbers, instead of as filler behind aces.


How Low Is Too Low?

One fair question: how cheap can squadrons go before things break?

Take the Z-95. It’s 7 points today, and it’s definitely not dominating. That tells us one of two things: either it needs to get better at the same price, or it can drop to 6 without causing issues. With only 3 hull and middling firepower, Z-95s live and die by mass. Even at 6, the sheer number of squad commands you’d need to keep them relevant acts as a built-in limiter.

What about TIE Fighters at 7 points? Same story. Fragile, dependent on commands, and only scary in a swarm. Cheap doesn’t automatically mean good — not when a single flak volley or squadron counterattack can wipe them out in chunks.

So while we need to be careful at the bottom end of the scale, there’s good reason to believe that 6–7 point generics wouldn’t break the game. If anything, they’d finally deliver on the fantasy of true swarms — overwhelming in numbers, but brittle and heavily reliant on carriers.


Where This Leaves Us

With upgrades streamlined, keywords clarified, and the economics of generics rebalanced, we now have the foundation we need.

The principle is simple:

  • Generics get slightly cheaper across the board.

  • Aces may get nudged upward in some cases, but the ace-vs-generic gap widens even without this.

  • Carriers still matter, but they no longer supercharge “all the squads at once,” and we encourage the "combat carriers" to head into the thick of the action.

  • Keywords open design space instead of closing it.

Next Up: We’ll finally put this to work by rebuilding the Rebel lineup from the ground up — starting with the most iconic fighter of all: the X-wing.


Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Special Modifications, Part 3: All Wings Report In

Welcome back to Special Modifications! 

Han Solo once said he’d made a few “special modifications” to the Falcon. Some good, some bad, all of them interesting. That’s the spirit behind this new series: exploring nonstandard Armada. Not just fleet lists or tournament meta, but the underlying strings that hold the game together. What if the designers had pulled them differently? What might have worked better? What happens when you tinker with the system in ways it was never quite built for?


All Wings Report In

Armada’s squadron game has always been… complicated. It isn’t just ships shooting at each other — it’s a full subgame layered on top of ship-to-ship combat, with interactions between squadrons, ships, upgrades, and keywords all tangled together. 

Some players dislike the entire subsystem and would rather play with ships only, while the rest of us enjoy the combined-arms feel that squadrons provide. But that's not today's topic, so let's move on.

Perhaps because of this layered complexity, the initial design (and costing) of generic squadrons didn’t quite land where it needed to. It's not unique to squadrons of course — the cost of the Victory-II or Grand Moff Tarkin anyone?

But back to the snubfighters. From the very beginning, Rebel players in particular had to stack layer upon layer of support pieces to make their squadrons work…

Think about it: Bomber Command Center, Jan Ors, Biggs Darklighter, Norra Wexley, the humble speed-2 YT-1300 acting as a sacrificial escort, and external supports like Jamming Fields, Gallant Haven, and Yavaris. Each piece fills a hole, each props up a weakness. We even got Hera (X-wing) and Fenn Rau (relatively) recently!

Together they formed a precarious house of cards — and that house of cards is what let Rebel squadron play function at all. And then, when everything came together with Rieekan acting as the glue, it became a dominant fleet archetype that persisted for a long time.

Compare that to A-wings, which needed basically zero support. They were fast, self-sufficient, and useful out of the box. And yet — their cost relative to aces, plus their lack of synergy with the Rebel support suite, often left generics by the wayside.

On the Imperial side, the “solution” looked very different. Instead of spreading the load across a dozen support effects, the Empire got one big fix: Admiral Sloane. She transformed their anti-squadron generics into token-stripping monsters while retaining the speed and striking range that Imperial squadrons were already good at. 

Where the Rebels had to glue together half their card pool to get squadrons running, the Empire just stapled Sloane to a fleet and called it a day.

And in her own way, Sloane made for some rather oppressive experiences when you leveraged her with multiple flotillas, unlimited relay, and a sky full of scatter aces...

These experiences tell us something important: many of the base generics were poorly designed or poorly costed.

Fast-forward to the Clone Wars factions, and you can see the contrast. More thought clearly went into the design of GAR and CIS generics, and for the most part, it worked. A fun comparison: the Rebel Y-wing vs the GAR Y-wing. Nearly identical on paper — but the GAR version is considered good, while the Rebel version only ever shines as Gold Squadron. Then again, GAR might be the least-played faction overall, so maybe “good” doesn’t mean quite as much as it should. And those pesky Hyenas are a real menace because they are by far the cheapest — and fastest — generic double-dice bombers. Makes you think: what if ALL rebel Y-wings were like Gold or the TIE Bomber could chuck two reds?

Before we dive in, a quick disclaimer: we’ll be looking at these squadrons in relative isolation. Of course we’re aware that upgrades, commanders, and squadron synergies exist — but we’ve already covered how much of that was bolted on over time to patch holes or rein in excess. For this exercise, we need to strip it back. If the X-wing had been better (and cheaper) from the start, maybe the need for Biggs and Jan Ors would have been reduced — or maybe they would have needed a cost increase or rework. The point is to think about the squadrons themselves, while still keeping overall faction identity in mind.

And to be clear: synergy itself isn’t a bad thing. Armada thrives on clever interactions, layered buffs, and listbuilding puzzles. The problem is when synergy becomes primarily about propping up weaknesses or serving as a stopgap for underpowered units. That’s where Rebel squadron design went astray.

We also need to acknowledge the role of squadron keywords. They’re one of the biggest differentiators between various generics. Some are relatively weak — Grit, for example, is useful but not exactly game-breaking, and could probably stand to be stronger (maybe stacking, or ignoring Heavy squadrons entirely). Dodge can save your hide in niche cases, but since it doesn’t work against flak, it leaves generics like the Delta-7 eternally overpriced. On the other end of the spectrum, Rogue is hugely impactful — it opened up an entirely new way to play squadrons, though it also created the odd timing puzzle of “rogues act last one round, then regular squadrons first the next round,” which has very little counterplay. And of course, Intel used to be borderline broken (or at least it didn't offer enough counterplay) in its original form, while its 1.5 rework just hands out Grit — which is perhaps too weak. Finally, some keywords are worth less because they are on the "wrong" platform. Belbullabs and Screen anyone? Now imagine Hyenas having Screen instead. See my point?

We won’t go into detail on every keyword here — that’s probably a post of its own — but keep in mind that they’re part of the reason some generics shine while others never quite justify their points.

And we need to mention one other structural issue: single-die bombers. Right out of the gate, they felt underpowered. Their anti-squadron firepower is bad, and against ships their damage output is only moderate. Compare that to the punch of a two-dice bomber, and the gap is massive. That doesn’t mean the answer is to just make everything a two-dice bomber — that would be going overboard. But it’s worth considering, case by case. For example: what would be the pros and cons of making every Y-wing as good as the aforementioned Gold Squadron? We’ll come back to that when relevant.

And then there’s the bulk freighter in the hangar: the relatively small cost gap between generics and aces with defense tokens. That small difference in points value was a big reason we eventually saw the “ace cap” of four per fleet. (That’s a topic for another post, but it’s critical context here.) Ideally, both aces and generics should be costed appropriately, but that’s just not where Armada ended up. If a generic A-wing is 11 points, there’s no way Tycho Celchu at 16 is correctly priced.

So in this installment of Special Modifications, we’re going to do a faction-by-faction study of the generic squadrons: what they cost, what they bring to the table, and how they should have been designed to compete with their ace counterparts.

Oh, and don't forget: this is a Special Modifications feature, so we're deep diving into the game's systems for the fun of it, not because we're actually redesigning anything.


Rebels: Tricks to Make Mediocrity Work

The Rebel Alliance’s squadron identity has always been a little awkward. On paper, they were meant to be slower but tougher than the Empire, with more generalist squadrons that could fill multiple roles. They also had a clear bomber tilt: three of their four core generics are bombers (X-wings, Y-wings, B-wings). Add to this their famous rogues — especially unique rogues — and you’d think Rebels were spoiled for choice.

In practice, their generics struggled.

From day one, Rebel squadron play leaned heavily on support pieces. Cards like Bomber Command Center, Jan Ors, Biggs Darklighter, Norra Wexley, and, later, Hera Syndulla. The humble speed-2 YT-1300 with Escort just to eat Empire alpha strikes. Add external supports like Jamming Fields, Gallant Haven, or Yavaris, and the picture becomes clear: Rebel squadrons were never good enough on their own. They needed layers upon layers of aura buffs and synergies to become competitive. And, of course, Rieekan only works on unique squadrons...

This is why Rebel identity eventually became synonymous with synergy. Not because it was the original intent, but because it was necessary. Rebels became the faction that took mediocre baselines and made them dangerous by combining Jan with Biggs, or Toryn with BCC, or Yavaris with B-wings.

Looking at the generics themselves:

  • X-wings should have been the workhorse — escort + bomber — but they were always a little too expensive for what they did, and underwhelming without help.

  • Y-wings were cheap and tanky, but their inefficiency showed quickly. Only Gold Squadron really made them shine.

  • B-wings hit like a truck, but were so painfully slow that you basically needed Yavaris and FCT to make them work. Eventually, B-wings really mean just Ten Numb.

  • A-wings were the exception — fast, self-sufficient, and genuinely useful. Yet even here, the small cost gap between generics and aces (Tycho, Shara) left players asking: why not just pay a few more points for something strictly better?

So yes, Rebels had options. But they had to work twice as hard to make them pay off. Their squadron identity became “the synergy faction” largely because their generics were too weak to stand on their own.


Empire: One Card to Rule Them All

The Empire’s identity was sharper from the start: faster, more specialized squadrons, but also frailer than the Rebels’. TIEs swarmed, struck, and died. Most Imperial squadrons did one thing well — shoot ships, intercept squadrons, or soak hits — and that was it. Bombers were rarer, and rogues existed but never matched Rebel equivalents.

What really defined the Empire was how fragile their generics were compared to their aces. A TIE Fighter or Interceptor was cheap and fast, but also disposable. Aces, on the other hand, were only a handful of points more expensive but infinitely more reliable. Sound familiar?

The Empire’s “fix” came not through stacking supports, but through one card: Admiral Sloane. She turned the Empire’s plentiful anti-squadron dice into token-stripping weapons, giving their generics a new lease on life. Suddenly, TIE Fighters weren’t just disposable speed bumps — they were part of a fleet-wide denial engine that could cripple enemy defenses while still keeping up with the action. Where Rebels had to glue together half their upgrade deck to make squads viable, the Empire could just staple Sloane to a fleet and watch it hum.

Looking at the generics themselves:

  • TIE Fighters were iconic, dirt cheap, and fragile. Perfect spam, but easily outclassed once aces entered the picture.

  • TIE Bombers were semi-efficient ship-killers but needed escorts to avoid instant death, and their single attack die makes them hard to leverage in one activation.

  • TIE Interceptors had speed and teeth, but paper-thin hulls made them unreliable.

  • TIE Advanced became the “escort tax” — overpriced for what they brought, useful only for protecting bombers and aces.

  • Later designs like the TIE Defender were almost too good, while Phantoms were clever but rarely impactful.

In short: Empire generics were sharper tools, but also brittle and overshadowed. Without Sloane, they struggled. With Sloane, they suddenly had an identity: oppressive domination.


Galactic Republic: Lessons Learned (Mostly)

The Republic’s generics were clearly designed with hindsight. On paper, they look a lot like the Rebel lineup: Torrent escorts instead of X-wings, Y-wings still the bomber backbone, ARCs as the heavy option, and Jedi aces in place of A-wings. But the balance was much tighter.

Where Rebels needed synergies to make their squads work, GAR generics were at least functional on their own. They weren’t flawless, but they were playable without an entire web of aura buffs. The tradeoff was that GAR fleets were built around tight ship–squad synergy — their ships and squadrons needed to work hand-in-hand more than any other faction.

Looking at the generics:

  • V-19 Torrents were cheap escorts, filling the X-wing role at a lower cost. Individually unimpressive, but in groups they formed a decent screen.

  • Y-wings were, well, Y-wings — but unlike Rebels, GAR’s version was tuned well enough to be worth fielding.

  • ARC-170s were heavy, tanky hybrids — slow, yes, but flexible enough to justify their cost.

  • Delta-7 Jedi Starfighters… and here’s where the cracks show. On paper, they’re impressive: speed, accuracy, and Jedi keywords. But at 17 points for 4 hull, they’re laughably fragile for the price. If you wanted to pay ace-level cost for a disposable body, this was the way to do it.

Overall, GAR showed what Rebel design could have looked like if more thought had gone into generics from the start. Not perfect, and occasionally way off (looking at you, Delta-7 generics), but a marked improvement.


Confederacy of Independent Systems: Swarms Done Right (Mostly)

CIS squadrons were in many ways the Empire 2.0. They shared the same fast, specialized, fragile profile — but their generics were simply better tuned. The AI keyword added a twist: CIS squadrons were predictable, but also efficient and effective when commanded properly.

If the Empire’s identity was speed and specialization, CIS added quantity. Their swarms were the truest “disposable horde” in Armada, and they worked.

Looking at the generics:

  • Vulture Droids were the cheapest of the cheap, but actually good at being disposable. Spam them and watch them trade up.

  • Hyena Bombers gave CIS a reliable bomber backbone, tuned better than Imperial or Rebel equivalents.

  • Droid Tri-Fighters were fast, lethal, and fragile — basically what TIE Interceptors always wanted to be.

  • Belbullabs though… what even is this? Zero synergy with the rest of the fleet, a weak Relay that barely matters, and Screen — a keyword that sounds good but in practice just means “ignore me until last.” And to cap it off, they’re overpriced for the package. No wonder you almost never see them.

The result was a faction whose generics mostly worked — CIS generics didn’t need endless support or a one-card commander fix. But when they whiffed (cough Belbullab cough), they really whiffed.

Next Up: In the next part, we'll explore some possible solutions and visualize them all.

Saturday, August 23, 2025

Special Modifications, Part 2: Concentrate All Fire

Welcome back to Special Modifications! 

Han Solo once said he’d made a few “special modifications” to the Falcon. Some good, some bad, all of them interesting. That’s the spirit behind this new series: exploring nonstandard Armada. Not just fleet lists or tournament meta, but the underlying strings that hold the game together. What if the designers had pulled them differently? What might have worked better? What happens when you tinker with the system in ways it was never quite built for?

In Part 1, we looked at defense tokens — one of the most important and iconic mechanics in Armada, and the way the game’s entire combat system revolves around denying their effective use. ECM, Intel Officer, XI7s… all part of a long history of token suppression that has shaped Armada since Wave 1.

This time, we’ll continue down the same road: dice modification and defense. Specifically, why Armada’s “unlimited rerolls” are a mixed blessing, and why some defense tokens are vastly stronger (or weaker) than others.


Unlimited Rerolls: A Blessing or a Curse?

The GOAT of card games

One of Armada’s design choices is that dice can be rerolled as many times as you want, as long as you have the effects to do it (as opposed to X-Wing, where a die can only ever be rerolled once).

On the surface, unlimited rerolls sound great. More consistency, more reliable damage, more control over dice. But in practice, they’re not exactly elegant — and sometimes they’re downright excessive. Dice modification is already the single most important part of Armada’s combat math. Layer unlimited rerolls on top of that, and it can start to feel like you’re just cycling the dice until you get what you want.

Anyone remember the old days of stacking Bomber Command Centers? Squadron rerolls upon rerolls upon rerolls. Theoretically balanced by opportunity cost, but in practice, it was just boring and oppressive. No one misses those times.

Personally, I think Armada would be healthier — and more interesting — if each die could only be rerolled once per side:

  • The attacker gets one reroll in the “Resolve Attack Effects” step.

  • The defender gets one reroll in the “Spend Defense Tokens” step.

That’s it. One and done.

This wouldn’t remove rerolls from the game — far from it. It would keep them impactful, but stop the abuse and over-layering that sometimes creep into Armada’s dice system. Now, there are many other dice modifications in Armada, and those would persist, so the change isn't as big as you might think. But there would be some knock-on effects that would have to be accounted for, cards that need rewording or redesign, that sort of thing. But overall, I think it would create a more elegant system with better design space.


The Power (and Weakness) of Defense Tokens

Not all defense tokens are created equal. 

One is overpowered, one feels like filler, the rest sit somewhere in between. This isn’t a strict tier list — aside from Scatter, which sits on the throne uncontested — but rather a look at what each token actually brings to the table, and how they might (or dare I say should) have been designed differently. Please don't take these ramblings at face value: we're deep into "what if" territory here, and any changes to tokens would have to be thoroughly playtested!

Scatter – Canceling all damage is simply too much. It’s the reason Scatter aces have always been disproportionately hard to deal with. 

If Scatter instead canceled up to three dice or reduced total damage by three (a “Kit Fisto” style effect), it would still be incredibly potent but not 100% proof against unlucky spikes. It could even be combined with Brace or the reworked squadron Evade (see below) to provide additional options.

With all of this in place, you’d still have to fear Shara and Ciena, but at least there would be a crack in their "armor." Flotillas would become somewhat more susceptible to long-range fire (but not all that much) and could no longer laugh at massive close-range black dice volleys (a good thing IMO, we don't need flotillas blocking Demo anymore).

Brace – Honestly, Brace is fine. 

It’s powerful, consistent, and always relevant. Cutting damage in half is a cornerstone mechanic, and it feels right where it is, perfectly appropriate for both ships and squadrons.

Evade – On ships, Evade found its equilibrium after Armada 1.5. Keep as is.

But on squadrons? Evade makes no sense at all. A better design would be:

  • Always cancel 1 die, regardless of range.

This would make squadron Evade actually relevant, instead of the limp afterthought it is today, without making it overpowered. It even combines with Brace — and the original Vult Skerris Scatter/Evade combo could have worked!

    If you wanted to make squadron Evade even better:

    • Either: Make them cancel 1 additional die if the attacker is a squadron (the dice pools are much larger). 
    • Or: Let squadron Evade affect an extra die (vs any attack) only if you discard the token (mirroring the vs larger ships effect of ship Evade). I think I like this one the best.

    Redirect – Redirect is useful, preventing the enemy from drilling through shields to get at your hull, but it is clearly weaker than Brace. 

    If Redirect had a weakened Expert Shield Techs effect baked in — move the damage or reduce it by 1 to a minimum of 1 — it would feel like a real choice without completely invalidating chip damage. A little tweak that would have done a lot to bring Redirect into parity.

    Actually, if the old Empire and Rebel ships were reworked to have the same token suites as their CW equivalents (Salvo instead of redundant Redirects), you COULD do the full EST as the alternate effect. It would make Obi-Wan suck a lot less — and Luminara would still be a potential problem. Probably too strong. I prefer the first option. Maybe with 3-point EST?

    Salvo – I have a love-hate relationship with Salvo. 

    It brought fresh new dynamics into the attack/defense dynamic (by making defense attack), but also created some situations where small and/or weakened ships WILL NOT ATTACK because attacking is worse than not attacking. That's... not ideal. Yet Salvo (and Ignition) does bring something to the game, so it's not all bad!

    But let's put the "is Salvo good for the game" question aside and just accept that it's a thing.

    Salvo gave Clone Wars-era ships teeth, but it also left Civil War-era ships looking dated and lame without it. If Salvo had been part of Armada from the start, the entire defensive landscape would have been designed differently. Dropping it in midstream created an imparity that needs to be addressed.

    So my solution for Salvo is not to change the token effect but to rework the old ships, swapping a Rediect for a Salvo where appropriate. And add ship "keywords" while you're at it. You hear that, ARC?

    Contain – The odd one out. It technically works, and it can be useful, but it’s not up there with the rest of them. It’s always the one you swap out when upgrades let you. Damage Control Officer got dropped to a mere 3 points, but it still struggles to justify an officer slot.

    Back in the Fantasy League of 2022, we tried beefing it up by making it work like EST Redirect — reduce incoming damage by 1. That turned out to be too strong in conjunction with other defense tokens and upgrades. 

    A better idea might be this:

    • Alternate use: reroll a die with a crit icon.

    This way, Contain has some utility even before shields are breached, while still keeping its original purpose intact. It’s not flashy, but at least it would feel worth spending. And if combined with the "one reroll" rule, it can't be layered with Evade, PDIC, etc.

    If you wanted to beef it up some more, consider an Evade-style discard effect:

    • If defending against a smaller ship, discard to cancel that die.

    It's an interesting concept. Even though I'm not a big fan of making big ships better at fortressing, I think a one-use Brunson could be agreeable.  


    The ARC perspective

    All of this is mere speculation and theorycrafting, of course. But if there was ONE thing I would love to see make it into the game, it's a change to squadron Evades. Sure, Scatter is OP, but it's well ingrained in the game by now, so fine, leave it.

    But squadron Evade? It really could use a bump, and I think my "always cancel a die" makes perfect sense. And it would be the icing on the cake if you could discard the effect and add an additional die.


    Squadrons and the Token Divide

    Ace squadrons get defense tokens. Generics (and non-ace uniques) don’t. That gap is HUGE, and it has defined Armada’s squadron game since day one.

    Now, taking defense tokens away from aces isn’t really an option. If Tycho, Ciena, or Maarek lost their Scatters and Brace, they’d leave the table far too quickly and stop being worth their points. 

    So the obvious solution seems to be the reverse: give all squadrons defense tokens.

    But that way lies madness.

    If every generic squadron suddenly had tokens, the entire ship–squadron interaction would break. Ships would have a much harder time thinning the squadron herd, bombing runs would be far deadlier, and every piece of anti-squad tech in the game would need a redesign. Not only that, but you’d have to give each generic its own individual card and track which tokens belong to which model. Messy, slow, and very un-Armada.

    And the knock-on effects would be even worse: the squadron command system and ship command values are all balanced around the idea that you’re fielding a mass of generics. If those generics suddenly became fewer but a lot tougher, the whole subsystem would collapse. Squadron commands would be much less relevant, and the careful balance between ships and squadrons would unravel.

    So no, you can’t just slap tokens on everything. The split has to remain — unless you’re willing to completely redesign Armada from the ground up.

    Which leaves us with one real path forward: we need to take a long, hard look at the base generics themselves. Make them useful. Make them correctly costed. Ensure that when taken in quantity, they offer real value compared to aces, instead of being disposable filler.

    The Clone Wars factions actually succeed here — to some extent. Most of their generics are more competitive and better balanced than those of the Civil War era. That’s the model to learn from.

    And that’s where we’ll head in Part 3.


    Wrap-Up

    Unlimited rerolls and uneven defense tokens are two sides of the same design coin. They both show how Armada’s core rules are solid, but sometimes aren't finely tuned enough, tilting too far toward “more” instead of “enough.” Rerolls became stackable to the point of excess. Some defense tokens became indispensable while others became jokes.

    Would changing these mechanics fix the game? Not without a massive redesign. But thinking about how they could have worked differently gives us insight into why Armada feels the way it does — and how small design choices ripple outward for years.

    That’s what Special Modifications is all about: pulling at the strings, seeing where they lead, and imagining how the game might have played if those strings had been tied differently.


    Up Next

    In Part 3, we’ll stay with squadrons and ask a simple but important question: what should the “base” generics of each faction have looked like? Their costs, their stats, and their lack of tokens set the stage for everything that followed — and maybe not always in the best way.

    Stay tuned.

    Friday, August 22, 2025

    Special Modifications, Part 1: Tokens of Our Discontent

    Han Solo once said he’d made a few “special modifications” to the Falcon. Some good, some bad, all of them interesting. That’s the spirit behind this new series: exploring nonstandard Armada. Not just fleet lists or tournament meta, but the underlying strings that hold the game together. What if the designers had pulled them differently? What might have worked better? What happens when you tinker with the system in ways it was never quite built for?

    And where better to start than with the most important mechanic in the whole game: defense tokens.


    Defense Tokens Under Siege from Day One

    Defense tokens are one of THE defining characteristics of Armada. They’re what let a Star Destroyer soak up punishment, and what give a CR90 at least a chance of dodging a heavy broadside. And it accomplishes this WITHOUT making the CR90 infinitely evasive or the ISD oppressively tanky.

    In Armada, defense tokens are a finite resource. You only get so many braces, so many redirects, so many evades. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. If you don't overspend, they can last the entire game, but if they get pressured, you'll be forced to discard and will eventually be out of tokens. And as well all know, a ship with no defense tokens is in big trouble.

    Because of this defense mechanic, part of Armada’s combat isn’t about damage output. It’s about denying your opponent the ability to spend defense tokens or mitigate their effects.

    This sounds great on paper: Limited defense that can be overstrained by concentrated attacks. A damage mechanic that doesn't revolve purely around damage, but also around stopping your opponent from stopping part (or all) of that damage.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Well, in actual play, problems show up immediately, including but not limited to:

    • A single accuracy locks your brace.

    • XI7 Turbolasers make your redirects half-useless.

    • Intel Officer forces you to discard rather than just exhaust a token.

    So already in Wave 1, we had fleets firing IO + XI7 at ships with ECM, or a Demolisher triple-tap with IO, skipping accuracies altogether and relying on raw damage. Defense tokens, already a limited resource, were in deep trouble because they either could not be spent at all, had minimal effect, or had to be discarded immediately.

    So, something DID go wrong. Unless you think that this was part of the design plan all along. I'm pretty sure the concept of defense token mitigation was discussed, and some cards created to address (and counter) this, but I don't think the SCOPE of anti-token tech was fully realized until it was a bit late to change the fundamentals.


    Exhibit A: Electronic Countermeasures

    Enter Electronic Countermeasures (ECM).

    This is the defining defensive card of Star Wars: Armada. Why? Because it restores the ability to use a limited resource.

    For years, every ship that could take ECM — especially if it had a brace — did. Period. The card was so central that it basically erased the rest of the defensive retrofit slot from consideration. Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect, but not by much.

    • ECM had a soft-counter in Intel Officer since wave 1.

    • The Empire got Minister Tua specifically to give their vulnerable ships ECM access.

    • In Armada 1.5, it finally got nerfed with a refresh cost.

    • Don't forget how insanely popular Agate was (and still is) when she was released. An extra Brace on any ship, AND a built-in ECM-ish effect? Yes, please!

    Exhibit B: Denial is the Name of the Game

    The theme — you don't get to use your tokens — only grew as the game expanded:

    • Sloane could strip tokens directly.

    • Avenger punished exhausted tokens.

    • Overload Pulse lured new players before they realized the timing killed it.

    • Thermal Shields arrived later as a cheap alternative to ECM, IO-proof but problematic in other ways.

    • Boarding Troopers are everywhere today for the same reason: because denying tokens wins games.

    To me, the implications of ECM are clear: denying the defender the ability to use a limited resource (defense tokens) was too strong right out of the gate, and has continued to be so until this very day. Which is a shame, since the idea of defense token mitigation being a viable strategy is a good one. 

    And this skew has knock-on effects:

    • Ships that don't have a defensive slot are disproportionately punished, as they don't even have to means to try and avoid token mitigation.

    • Small ships are disproportionately punished, since they rely heavily on their few tokens to survive. They also frequently don't have defensive slots, and even if they do, they either don't have the tokens to justify ECM or ECM is too expensive for the chassis.

    • Squadrons chipping at ships, which SHOULD be a key way of getting around defense tokens, become less desirable when there is so much tech to get around defense tokens. And 1.5 squadrons (bc of the intel nerf + PDIC) are much less able to get through to ships anyway, so this threat is much reduced.


    Our Fantasy League Fix

    Back in the VASSAL Fantasy League of 2022, we tried an experiment:

    Step 4 of the attack sequence:
    The defender may spend 1 readied defense token that has been targeted by an [ACC] icon. If it does, discard that token instead of exhausting it.

    Basically, we gave every ship a mini-Agate effect.

    I can already hear the protests: “Do you want to make ships even more tanky??”

    Well, yes — but only to a point.

    • This does make ships tankier, but only once per attack and once per defense token.

    • It doesn’t make ECM/Thermals ships dramatically stronger; they’d still want those upgrades, as the benefit is still stronger.

    • The real winners are small ships and anything without defensive retrofit slots. Your Raider gets to brace once against a big hit. It still might explode, but at least it gets a fighting chance.

    The limits kept it reasonable:

    • Only once per attack.

    • Only green tokens.

    • Tokens are discarded after use.

    • Accuracy is still powerful; tokens are still finite.

    So no, it didn't break the game. But it shifts the emphasis — away from “sorry, your tokens don’t matter” toward “you’ll get one shot at survival.”

    Such a change would, of course, require a thorough rebalancing and possible redesign of any card or effect that spends or exhausts a defense token. Sloane could not exist in her current form. Boarding Troopers are definitely not a 3-point card. Maybe Overload Pulse finally IS the GOAT?


    Why Bother?

    Because this is what Special Modifications is all about: looking at what might have been, pulling and prodding the rules, exploring alternate concepts.

    Would I expect ARC to implement something like this? 

    No — it’s far too drastic a change, with too many knock-on effects, for a living game!

    But it is, I think, a superior design in that:

    • It makes defense tokens feel relevant for all ships, not just the ECM-capable.

    • It opens up new design space for upgrades and objectives.

    • And most importantly, it improves the experience of playing Armada.

    We’re all grognards now, used to token denial. But imagine being a new player, constantly told that your defenses are irrelevant. That’s true NPE right out of the box.

    Could something like this ever come back? Not officially, but perhaps in the future, another Fantasy League might dust off this idea and see what happens. After all, the whole point of “special modifications” is to test the system and learn from it.


    Up Next

    Defense tokens aren’t the only shaky pillar holding Armada together. In the next installment, we'll continue discussing defense tokens, and the relative weakness of some of them, and the rather OP nature of others. If we have time, we can have a look at defense-adjacent stuff like stacked rerolls. Stay tuned.