The Objective Files – Part 3: Rebellion in the Rim

 

Now we arrive at the final set of published objectives: the 12 new cards introduced in Rebellion in the Rim.

And you know what? They’re actually pretty good.

It’s almost as if the designers at FFG finally sat down and asked: 

"What kinds of objectives are missing from the game? What holes are there in the current meta? And what would be both fun and competitive to play?"

The result is a surprisingly solid set of objectives. Some of these (Infested Fields, Volatile Deposits) have become staples in tournament lists. Others offer fun, flavorful mechanics with tactical depth—something the game needed more of. The only one I actively despise is Hyperspace Migration, and the only total dud is Fleet in Being, and that one isn't that bad, just not good 😆

This set also introduced three new obstacle types, all of which are tied to specific objectives:

• Gravity Rifts, which pull and push ships in dangerous ways.

• Space Slugs, which eat squadrons. (It’s in the name.)

• Space Whales, which move around and really don’t like being landed on.

Finally, keep in mind that RitR may have been designed primarily with a half-sized play area in mind. That may affect how some objectives scale to full tournament play, and we’ll flag it where relevant.

⚔️ Assault Objectives (Red) – Rebellion in the Rim

Unlike Corellian Conflict, the red objectives in RitR don’t suffer from outright bad design. None are broken. None are total garbage. Instead, they lean toward creative and thematic—though not all of them reach competitive viability. Let’s dig in.

---

Ion Storm

Tactical: Setup control of obstacles, slight edge later.
Scoring: Modest and contested.
Play Rate: Underused but not totally absent

This objective is solid. Second Player places all obstacles, which can be a big edge for terrain-heavy lists. Removing the station also helps certain builds. There’s real value here, but the actual scoring impact is pretty mild, and the interaction is often too subtle to justify the pick.

Fixes:

• Require spending 2 engineering points to remove an objective token, instead of removing it for free. This adds cost and weight to the decision.

• Optional: Introduce "Energy Fields" (a renamed version of dust fields) to spice things up:

When a ship ends its activation at Distance 1 of an Energy Field, its owner must discard 1 command token and suffer 1 damage.
Squadrons suffer 1 damage instead.

This isn’t necessary—but it would make for a fun thematic twist.

➡ Verdict: Fine as is.

---

Marked for Destruction

Tactical: Basically nil.
Scoring: Hard to achieve.
Play Rate: Very low but not zero

This is one of the most thematic objectives in the entire game. It’s fun, but even when played well, it's hard not to think another objective would have been better. It's not far from being good, however. If you've played it in RitR you're likely to have a rather higher opinion of it, as the smaller map makes the dust fields and space whale movement more impactful, and the scoring opportunities more frequent.

Let’s see if we can fix that without overcomplicating things or changing the flavor too much.

Fixes:

• Second Player places the objective token after fleet deployment, letting them bait or threaten better.

• Require the Purrgil to always move toward a token if it exists. Prevents it from floating off into irrelevance.

• Ensure Ezra and similar effects can interact with the token—it’s thematic and encourages creative plays.

This won't do much, to be honest, but I'm out of ideas without a radical rework.

➡ Verdict: Worth saving.

---

Rift Assault

Tactical: Dice fixing edge to the 2nd player.
Scoring: Usually moderate and balanced.
Play Rate: Sometimes.

There’s not much wrong here. It introduces a fun, dangerous Gravity Rift, has real counterplay, and both players can score—the Second Player’s edge is slim, which is probably a reason you don't see this too often.

Fun fact: This objective is slightly less strong in RitR since the obstacles are more packed and it's thus easier to avoid the special rule.

Verdict: Leave it as-is IF global objective scoring gets capped or rebalanced as suggested in earlier parts. Otherwise, its “fairness” becomes a liability compared to higher-swing alternatives.

➡ Verdict: One of the better designs. Let it breathe.

---

Surprise Attack

Tactical: Debilitating setup and raid.
Scoring: None.
Play Rate: Sometimes.

This one’s fine mechanically. It is, of course, stronger with TF or in an Interdictor/Onager combo (but you don't see too many of those ATM), but overall it's not wrong to force deployment of the enemy flagship AND hand out tons of raid. Raid might not be that powerful, but you get a lot of it for free.

But let’s be honest: in practice, this can lead to three rounds of the first player running away/stalling, followed by each side's attempt to get ahead in score. 

➡ Verdict: Balanced and occasionally excellent. Just… not that fun sometimes.

🚢 Navigation Objectives (Yellow) – Rebellion in the Rim

The yellow objectives in RitR are an interesting mix of tactical rewards, positional play, and scoring. There are some issues, however. Abandoned Mining Facility can lead to runaway scoring. Fleet in Being is a dud. Rift Ambush is tuned for the campaign's 3x3 play area. But with a few tweaks, I think the yellows can be brought into compliance.

---

Abandoned Mining Facility

Tactical: The usual slight advantage in obstacle placement and whale movement.
Scoring: Can be extreme.
Play Rate: High in token-farming builds.

This is a very strong yellow objective. The combination of reliable scoring and some battlefield control makes it quite popular. 

Optional tweaks:

• Introduce a scoring cap (e.g., 80–100 points).

• Optionally, require First Player to move the space whale toward the nearest ship. I often see the second whale just being sent off to one side. But not really a needed fix.

➡ Verdict: Still one of the best yellows. Minor guardrails might keep it from being oppressive.

---

Asteroid Tactics

Tactical: High.
Scoring: None.
Play Rate: Moderate.

This is a clean design. Solid tactical buff for Second Player ships that fly smart, and a significant boost to your squadron game if you can use the board and slugs well. Some fleets benefit more than others, but that's why we have many objectives to choose between. Rewards good obstacle placement and maneuvering.

➡ Verdict: No changes needed. One of the best-designed yellow objectives.

---

Fleet In Being

Tactical: Defensive support, in theory.
Scoring: Slight.
Play Rate: Rare.

This one should be good. It screams "bring me Obi-Wan, Thermal Shields, and a Shield Tech." But in practice, it underperforms. Either the tokens don't get spent, or the tactical benefit doesn't quite materialize.

Two suggested reworks:

1. Scoring Layer:

   • At the end of the game, each player scores 10 points for each of their ships that retained at least one token.

   This rewards disciplined play and creates a mini-game around conservation. Still meh tho.

2. Radical Rework:

   • When spending a redirect token, you may also spend a token targeted by an accuracy icon.

   Yes, it’s spicy. But it could be a powerful mechanic for token-centric fleets, especially if paired with Obi-Wan. But I suppose, as usual, it would actually be Lumi who benefits more. She's a cool commander, but she really does impact design space.

➡ Verdict: Needs help to be viable.

---

Rift Ambush

Tactical: Total obstacle control and slight advantage around the rift.
Scoring: None.
Play Pattern: Can fizzles at 6x3 scale.

This was clearly designed for 3x3 RitR play, where maneuvering is tight and every early shift counts. On a full board, its impact is often reduced—it does offer some board control, but it is not enough to make this a mainstream objective.

Full-scale tweaks:

• Increase Gravity Rift effect range to 1–3 (or even 1–4, though this is pretty huge) to compensate for board size.

• Allow Second Player to reposition TWO enemy ships at the start of the game.

These changes let the objective retain its campaign flavor while having teeth on a standard map.

➡ Verdict: Great concept. Needs full-table tuning to shine.

🛡️ Defense Objectives (Blue) – Rebellion in the Rim

RitR’s blue objectives are a big step up from the chaos of Sensor Net and Navigational Hazards. These cards explore positional pressure, obstacle interaction, and movement across the board in ways that feel dynamic and—mostly—fun. Still, a few need tweaks to bring them up to full-table standard.

---

Doomed Station

Tactical: None unless you count obstacle movement.
Scoring: Strong if not contested.
Play Rate: Underrated.

This is essentially a blue-flavored Contested Outpost, but with moving parts and less obvious counterplay. It’s solid and thematic—but it rarely makes the cut because Infested Fields usually does the same thing better.

Suggested tweak:

• After placing the Gravity Rift, the Second Player places the first obstacle.

It’s a small buff, but one that gives obstacle-heavy lists a slight edge—and encourages a closer look at this often-overlooked card.

➡ Verdict: Playable. Just needs a nudge to rise above the pack.

---

Hyperspace Migration

Tactical: Zero.
Scoring: Toxic.
Fun Factor: Stop. Please stop.

This card is infamous—Strategic token-farming at its worst. The whales just bump into ships while Second Player hoovers up tokens. Yikes.

Salvage attempt (full-scale revision):

• Tokens must be placed in opposite corners of the setup area, not the play area. 

• Purrgills thus must move across, not along the edge of the table.

• Increase Purrgill speed to make the migration feel meaningful and force engagement.

This reimagining restores the "migration" feel and breaks the static loop of corner farming. Will it be perfect? No. But it might be tolerable. On the other hand, where is the second player's advantage now?

➡ Verdict: Currently awful. Needs a thematic overhaul to become fun again, but this might not be it.

---

Infested Fields

Tactical: High, obstacle movement, and slugs.
Scoring: Usually max 15 points to one player.
Play Rate: Very popular.

This is one of the best blue objectives in the game. It's tactical, thematic, and not easily abusable—plus, it punishes bad squad placement and rewards smart play.

➡ Verdict: Leave it alone. It’s great as-is.

---

Volatile Deposits

Tactical: Definitely a thing, although not the main thing for this objective.
Scoring: Net 15 per round for the 2nd player for much of the game.
Play Rate: Decently high.

This objective creates a real “tension zone” and encourages bold plays. Scoring is impactful but not out of control—at 15 points per token, you can gain or lose a significant lead based on area control.

Optional tweaks:

• Add a scoring cap or limit the total number of tokens.

➡ Verdict: One of the best objectives. Consider a cap—but don’t over-nerf.

---

🧭 Closing Thoughts – Rebellion in the Rim

Compared to previous expansions, Rebellion in the Rim stands tall. It’s clear the designers made an effort to fill gaps in the objective pool, creating cards that were fun, flavorful, and competitive. Token-farming is still present, but much more reined in than in the Corellian Conflict era. Strategic abuse is no longer the defining feature of every yellow and blue objective.

That said, some cards (Hyperspace Migration) were clearly built with the 3x3 RitR campaign format in mind, and don’t translate well to full-scale play. Others (Fleet in Being, Marked for Destruction) are strong in theme but weak in execution—yet perhaps salvageable with light reworks.

All in all, RitR brought some of the best-designed objectives to the game—and with a few tweaks, its weakest cards could rise to the same standard.

All in all, RitR brought some of the best-designed objectives to the game—and with a few tweaks, its weakest cards could rise to the same standard.

---

🔜 What’s Next?

That wraps up our tour of the 36 printed objectives in Armada. In Part 4, we’ll zoom out and look at the big picture:

• What’s missing from the current objective pool?

• Which objectives are tournament staples—and which ones should be?

• How could ARC approach objective rebalancing in a post-RitR world?

• Should we design entirely new objectives, fix the ones we have, or leave them the hell alone?

We'll also compile a Top 3 per color, a "Needs a Fix" shortlist, and a few wild ideas that ARC might consider in the future.

Stay tuned.

Warlords update

 

Bug fixes: 

1. Removing upgrades now correctly closes the picker and updates points.

Sorry about any inconvenience this bug may have caused.

Known bugs: 

1. Sometimes when you save a fleet and then continue editing, when you save, a new copy of the list will be created. No biggie, but kind of annoying. Working on a fix.

2. When editing an existing fleet, when removing a slot-adding upgrade such as Chimaera, Liberator, etc., removing that upgrade will not correctly reset slots. Working on a fix.

Battle for Endor: Listbuilding pt. 2 - GAR Luminara All-ship

Before we move on to some lists with squadrons, I wanted to share the GAR equivalent of my MT all-ship list. Again, the goal is to play with the new toys, which is the HEIGHT of competitive list-building!

This one leverages Lumianara for a defensive boost and IF! for a bit of dice fixing. The new Imperator will dash in and smash face. Lumi will sweep. The Arq can spam CF and get a good amount of 6 dice attack pools even at long range. With no Vet Gunners, it CAN be swingy tho.

I like this list. It has good damage output, though not as much as the MT one, but it's more flexible and can defend better. Not 100% on the AG, but it's not entirely wrong. I'd probably chicken out and swap in something safer right before the event tho 😅

### 400 points ###

Name: Imperator Lux

Faction: Republic

Commander: Luminara Unduli

Version: ARC01

Assault: Advanced Gunnery

Defense: Contested Outpost

Navigation: Intel Sweep

Venator I (90)

• Luminara Unduli (25)

• Adi Galia (3)

• Local Fire Control (4)

• Intensify Firepower! (6)

• Flak Guns (3)

• External Racks (4)

• DBY-827 Heavy Turbolasers (3)

• Resolute (4)

= 142 Points

Venator Imperator Refit (100)

• Intel Officer (7)

• Ordnance Experts (4)

• Thermal Shields (5)

• External Racks (4)

• Expanded Launchers (8)

• Tranquility (7)

= 135 Points

Arquitens Light Cruiser (52)

• Clone Captain Silver (4)

• Clone Captain Zak (5)

• Clone Gunners (4)

= 65 Points

Pelta Transport Frigate (45)

• Clone Navigation Officer (4)

• Projection Experts (6)

• Munitions Resupply (3)

= 58 Points

Squadrons:

= 0 Points

Total Points: 400

The Objective Files – Part 2: The Corellian Conflict

 

With the Core Set behind us, we turn to the first major expansion of Armada’s objective pool: The Corellian Conflict.

But before we look at the cards, let's discuss what makes a "good" objective:

A good objective is not simply one that hands Second Player the biggest possible advantage. Above all, it should encourage engagement. This is Star Wars: Armada—plastic spaceships should go pew pew, not endlessly circle the map farming tokens or dodging each other for six rounds.

The most reliable way to achieve this is to give Second Player a slight advantage in points if First Player avoids a fight—an incentive to push the game toward conflict. That bonus must be big enough to offset the natural advantage of First Player (getting to act first each round), but not so large that Second Player is rewarded for also refusing to engage.

A good objective leaves room for counterplay. First Player should be able to mitigate or deny some of the advantage with smart positioning and good decisions. At the same time, objectives where the “fallout risk” is so high that Second Player could lose catastrophically for trying to play the card are equally poor. The best ones walk that line—tactical and scoring advantages balanced against meaningful interaction from both sides.

Back to the Corellian Conflict:

Released in December 2016, this campaign box added 12 new objectives—4 red, 4 yellow, and 4 blue—intended to enrich both standard and campaign play. And while a few have gone on to become competitive staples (Planetary Ion Cannon, Solar Corona), others… not so much.

This was the first set to fully embrace objective token shuffling mechanics. Strategic squadrons had just arrived in Wave 5, and FFG leaned hard into them. The result? Some of the worst token-farming archetypes the game has ever seen. See what I led with that bit about good objectives? Pretty clever of me, actually 😇 Fortunately, most of those builds have faded, but the scars remain, so to speak.

We also had unlimited Relay, no max flotillas, or ace cap... the only thing missing... a certain Admiral Sloane 💓 But that's a story for another day.

On top of that, The Corellian Conflict also introduced dust fields, a new obstacle type that—while somewhat underused—can still add interesting texture to objectives. Where appropriate, I'll suggest incorporating them into these cards to reinforce the set’s flavor and tactical identity.

Let’s dig in and see what’s worth keeping, what needs tweaking, and what belongs in the dumpster.

---

⚔️ Assault Objectives (Red)

---

Blockade Run

Tactical: Favorable if you can leverage the narrow board.
Scoring: Modest advantage for second player.
Fun Factor: Mixed.

It looks cool. The narrow board creates exciting ISD murder corridors. But MSU fleets can sometimes just stall, then dash across for points without engaging—and that’s less fun.

Fixes:

• Remove the station.

• Add 2 dust fields.

• Let Second Player discard their ship’s objective token to resolve Evade, even if they don’t have the defense token.

➡ Verdict: Borderline playable already—but there are better options TBH. Dust helps. A flexible, defensive mechanic helps more. But will these changes make it a "good" objective in terms of the above criteria or just annoying for First Player?

---

Close-Range Intel Scan (CRIS)

Tactical: Dust fields in play, no other 2nd player advantage.
Scoring: Modest advantage for second player.
Play Rate: Rare.

This one saw some use back in the day, mostly with accuracy generators. It's a pure scoring objective, no tactical advantage outside the dust fields. It hasn’t aged well, I think. And Quad Turbos got turned into a Mod, which didn't help.

Fix:

• Allow squadron attacks to generate tokens/points.

This gives squad-centric fleets a thematic, useful red objective to round out their suite. I'm sure someone will find this to be potentially troublesome, but I mean, who doesn't want to play this with ARCs, Ketsu, Maarekdon, Gold Squadron, etc.?

➡ Verdict: Not far off. This one tweak puts it back on the table (maybe) by making it a viable pick for squad-centric fleets.

---

Station Assault

Tactical: Come at me burh + healing potential.
Scoring: Modest advantage for second player.
Play Rate: Near zero

It’s quirky and hard to interact with—but not impossible to fix. It plays a bit like Contested Outpost, but with two stations that can heal you. This is good. On the other hand, the stations are squishy and can easily be picked off in so many ways. Not good.

Ideas:

• Add 2 dust fields with some form of placement restrictions to prevent fortress setups.

• After setup, Second Player chooses one Armed Station (aligned to them); the other is an unaligned Unarmed Station. 

This gives real decision-making to both sides, while staying flavorful.

➡ Verdict: Needs thoughtful rework, but the bones are interesting.

---

Targeting Beacons

Tactical: Rerolls are significant if you can get them.
Scoring: None.
Play Rate: Near zero

Letting First Player throw two tokens in the corners while Second Player tries to scrape together rerolls? No thanks, even if you were to bring multiple Strategic squadrons.

Full overhaul:

• Players alternate placing 5 tokens beyond distance 5 of the long edges.

• During attacks:

  • Second Player rerolls 2 dice.

  • First Player rerolls 1 die.

Now there’s a real battlefield and real decisions with counter-play options. It has some similarities with Most Wanted. The only part lacking is scoring, but the tactical stuff is pretty powerful, so that's probably fine.

➡ Verdict: Needs a total rewrite. The current version is non-functional.

---

🚢 Navigation Objectives (Yellow)

---

Capture the VIP

Tactical: Forces the 1st player to chase.
Scoring: Modest.
Play Rate: Solid fallback pick.

This is a safe, effective objective, the kind you take when there are no better options, and that's fine—but let's consider what can be done to make it slightly more attractive.

Fixes:

• Increase token value to 60 or 75 points.

• Ban flotillas from carrying it.

• Possibly ban Strategic movement of the token.

• Add 2 dust fields for thematic and tactical flair.

➡ Verdict: Still good. Deserves a small bump to stay relevant.

---

Fighter Ambush

Tactical: Bad deployment penalty.
Scoring: Potentially high, can be flipped by those 1st players who pick it.
Play Rate: Very Rare

This one has two issues: squad-heavy lists have paid a premium for their deployment advantage, and giving that up can be pretty bad. Secondly, the only opponents that will choose this one are those that can flip it, or fight you to a point where you gain zero points from it.

Fixes:

• Instead of setting aside squadrons, Second Player’s squads gain Scout.

• First Player’s ships receive 1 squadron aid token each at the start of Round 1 (Maybe also round 2, but that may be too harsh).

Now this feels balanced and offers squad-centric fleets a fair fight.

➡ Verdict: A few tweaks away from being a viable option.

---

Jamming Barrier

Tactical: Decent if leveraged correctly.
Scoring: None.
Play Rate: Rare.

A weird but flavorful card that could shine with more interaction. I've seen this objective leverage to some effect, so it's not hopeless by any means. But still, let's see if we can make it slightly better, or at least more flexible.

Fixes:

• At the end of each round, Second Player may:

  • Move one token up to Distance 1, or

  • Remove both tokens (drop the barrier).

• Optional: First Player gains a CF raid token if shooting through the barrier.

➡ Verdict: Leave it niche, but make it dynamic. This way, the second player gains a lot of tactical options. Combined with the dust fields already in play, this creates a constantly changing battlefield.

---

Planetary Ion Cannon (PIC)

Tactical: Strong.
Scoring: None needed.
Play Rate: A staple of yellow, but not overrepresented.

A consistent, thematic choice that punishes poor positioning. One minor fix keeps it feeling sharp.

Fix:

• If the cannon doesn’t fire, Second Player may move one token up to Distance 1–2. 

➡ Verdict: Still a top-tier objective. Minor tuning keeps it fresh.

---

🛡️ Defense Objectives (Blue)

---

Navigational Hazards

Tactical: Practically useless.
Scoring: Very modest in practice.
Play Rate: Zero.

In practice, this is a useless objective. It should be fun with all the moving parts, but only the slowest and most cumbersome ships fail to avoid the obstacles. And if the first player avoids all obstacles, the scoring advantage is zero for the second player.

It also suffers horribly from being overshadowed by other blue objectives. If you're playing Romodi, would you want THIS or Infested Fields? Yeah, thought as much.

Fix:

• First Player must assign 1 additional command dial to each of their ships.

Now you’re adding pressure without altering the game’s physical space. This idea was lifted straight from Nebula Outskirts (but toned down a bit).

➡ Verdict: Still jank—but fun jank, now.

---

Salvage Run

Tactical: Minor, forces a fight.
Scoring: Modest.
Play Rate: An alternative to Intel Sweep

Fixes:

• Second Player chooses Nav or Repair tokens at setup.

• Add a 5th token or increase value to 20 points.

➡ Verdict: Still chill. Slight buff makes it a fair pick.

---

Sensor Net

Tactical: Forces a fight.
Scoring: Too much.
Legacy: Token-farming hell.

Token sweeping, Strategic abuse, and low interaction. This is the original sin of token farming hell.

Fixes:

• Players choose between a victory token or a command token.

• Reduce Second Player’s move range to 1–3.

• Reduce victory token value to 10 points.

Being able to take a command token instead of points is the more interesting tweak.

➡ Verdict: The potential for abuse is still there, but now there is a tactical/choice element to it, and the points are not as severe.

---

Solar Corona

Tactical: Can be significant, especially for fleets with few deployments.
Scoring: None.
Play Rate: Decent.

An example of simple design done well.

Optional spice:

• For every accuracy icon removed by the Corona, opponent gains 10 points.

Not necessary, but could be fun.

➡ Verdict: Still excellent. No fix needed.

---

🔚 Outro

The Corellian Conflict gave us some truly iconic objectives—and a few infamous ones. While not every design aged gracefully, many can be revived with relatively light tweaks. Adding dust fields for thematic consistency, reining in Strategic abuse, and offering meaningful decisions to both players are all steps toward a healthier objective pool.

---

🔜 What’s Next?

In Part 3, we dive into the final batch of objectives—those from Rebellion in the Rim.

We'll explore them all.

Battle for Endor: Listbuilding pt. 1 - CIS Mar Tuuk All-ship

I've signed up for the Battle of Endor (Online Armada on TTS) and figured I need to craft a list or three... 

Haven't been playing a lot of competitive Armada these past few years, so my list-building skills are a bit rusty, but surely, I should be able to put something together!

Endor is an ARC01 event, so one of my criteria is to try out some of the new stuff. That's a sound approach to competitive listbuilding, right? RIGHT!???

Since the Quarren Gunship looks pretty interesting, I wanted to include it. And why not use the Command Frigate as well?

I came up with the MT all ship list. It's... not perfect. It has no defense against squadrons except to get in your face and smash. Except that's easier said than done against, say, a rogue ball and supporting fast ships. On the other hand, it has plenty of firepower, four threat vectors, the ability to fight at all ranges, and just enough dice fixing to fix the worst red dice have to offer. And if one ship dies, it doesn't give up too many points.

MT could potentially go on another ship, but overall, the cigar is the right spot for him. Tikkes would be fine on the flag as well, but TRC+CF tokens are very useful on this version of PF. Speaking of PF, that's a lot of long-range pew pew for only 100 points, especially when aided by IF! Same with the Quarren... super slick at 70 points but a lot of firepower.

What do you think? Is the list viable? Potentially fun to fly? Or am I completely off target here? Drop a comment and let me know!

Next time I'll take a look at a Republic list using the new Veneator, so stay tuned for part 2.

### 400 points ###

Name: Marty McTuuk

Faction: Separatists

Commander: Mar Tuuk

Version: ARC01

Assault: Opening Salvo

Defense: Hyperspace Assault

Navigation: Solar Corona

Providence Carrier (102)

• Mar Tuuk (28)

• Thermal Shields (5)

• Intensify Firepower! (6)

= 141 Points

Recusant Light Destroyer (85)

• Tikkes (2)

• Turbolaser Reroute Circuits (7)

• Patriot Fist (6)

= 100 Points

Munificent Command Frigate (74)

• Thermal Shields (5)

• Linked Turbolaser Towers (7)

• Munitions Resupply (3)

= 89 Points

Quarren Gunship (63)

• Ordnance Experts (4)

• Disposable Capacitors (3)

= 70 Points

Squadrons:

= 0 Points

Total Points: 400

The Objective Files – Part 1: The Core Set

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, can backfire.
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: Decent but can be flipped.
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: Slight advantage in setup, forces a fight, but limits 2nd player.
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: Forces a fight.
Scoring: Easily abused.
Playability: Currently nearly 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: Forces a fight.
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: Major setup advantage.
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.

Amity, Concord, or Unity?

 

With Worlds 2026 on the horizon, and ARC01 now fully in the wild, the Armada community finds itself in a rare and exciting position: there is new energy, new structure, and new releases—but also lingering questions. Chief among them: what's the relationship between ARC content and the output from the Legacy team?

As someone who has watched this community ebb and flow since 2015, I've been reflecting on where we are, where we might go, and what kind of future is best for Armada. The metaphor that keeps coming back to me is drawn straight from the Rebel Starhawk titles: Amity, Concord, and Unity.

Quick disclaimer: I’m part of neither ARC nor Legacy, though I do contribute occasionally as a playtester for ARC. My goal here isn’t to take sides, but to reflect on where we are as a community—and where we might want to go.

---

Amity: Goodwill in Progress

Let’s be honest: we’re not quite there yet.

The ideal of amity—mutual respect, a shared sense of purpose, friendly disagreement—is something we should be working toward, not something we can yet claim. In the wake of ARC's emergence and especially its decision to evolve the game with new and altered components, tensions have flared. Strong opinions have been voiced across multiple platforms, sometimes with passion, sometimes with vitriol. Quite the drama at times, actually.

And yet, the larger community remains more nuanced. Many players are quietly excited by ARC, Legacy, or both. Most just want good games with cool ships.

So why bring this up at all?

Because Amity is a choice. It’s a decision to rise above bad-faith behavior and keep the door open. It’s refusing to mirror hostility and instead offering consistency, transparency, and respect. It means letting our actions speak louder than shouting matches.

That’s the approach I’m trying to take—not because it’s easy, but because it’s necessary. If we want this game to endure, we need more bridge-builders, not more bonfires.

---

Concord: Working Together, Not Merging

Here’s where it gets interesting. There’s a real temptation to reach for Unity right away. Wouldn’t it be great if ARC simply adopted all the Legacy content, wave by wave, and we moved forward as one?

I’m not convinced.

Unity sounds beautiful, but it comes with major costs. If ARC embraces Legacy wholesale, it sets a precedent that everything Legacy produces should eventually become part of official, tournament-legal Armada. That limits ARC’s design space, constrains future releases, and potentially overextends their already-tight design and testing schedule.

Instead, I think Concord is the dream worth chasing. A structured relationship. A mutual understanding. Parallel but connected paths. If Amity is the handshake, Concord is the agreement.

This is the space where ARC and Legacy could align most fruitfully after Worlds 2026:

• Selective integration of Legacy content, possibly even the whole of Wave 0.

• Coherent playtesting alongside ARC01 and beyond.

• Shared planning timelines and an openness about future designs.

That kind of synergy would be a major win for players, without compromising the identity or focus of either group. Perhaps this is where the community remains for the long term—in a state of concordant bliss, if you will. Not fully merged, but fully communicative. Not identical, but harmonious.

---

Worlds Is Too Soon

Even if you love Legacy content (and I do—I think Wave 0 is fantastic), the idea of integrating it officially before Worlds 2026 is... premature.

• The community is already grappling with ARC01, new rules, and new ships.

• ARC has promised an annual release cadence plus mid-season updates. That’s ambitious.

• The Legacy content, excellent though it is, wasn’t built in conjunction with ARC. Even if it seems balanced, we haven’t seen what the Sam School of Optimization can do with it.

If we want to bring Legacy content into the fold, it needs time. Time to test. Time to abuse. Time to iterate.

---

What Could Integration Look Like?

The answer probably isn’t "everything, all at once."

A more measured approach might be:

• Start with Wave 0.

• Identify content that fits ARC philosophy and play patterns.

• Adjust cards if needed (not as criticism, but as meshing).

• Make it legal after Worlds 2026.

This would signal Concord without demanding Unity. It would also show that ARC values Legacy's work without surrendering design control.

---

Two Teams, Two Strengths

Legacy is a sprawling, passionate engine. Lots of contributors, lots of content. That makes it a fantastic testing ground for ideas, themes, and faction needs (hello, Clone Wars).

ARC, on the other hand, is more muted, more focused in a way. It should stay that way. Tight timelines, rigorous process, and a clear vision. That’s how we get a competitive game that evolves with clarity.

Let Legacy keep creating. Let ARC keep curating.

But keep talking. That’s the key.

---

Unity: Maybe Someday, Maybe Not

Let’s not pretend Unity isn’t tempting. A fully unified development and tournament framework, one voice, one roadmap. Sounds tidy.

And maybe someday that’s where we end up.

But right now? There are real advantages to keeping things distinct. Legacy’s wide design net and large playtest base allow it to produce a high volume of content that can be tested across many tables. It explores flavor, narrative, and fringe ideas in a way a smaller, tournament-focused ARC simply can’t.

If everything Armada-related had to pass through ARC, we risk bottlenecking creativity. We’re not trying to build ArmadaCorp Ltd.

So let’s wait and see. Let ARC stabilize its base and grow its own voice. Let Legacy keep exploring. Let Amity take hold and evolve into Concord. And if Unity ever does arrive, it will be because the foundation was solid and the timing was right.

---

Final Thought: The Creative Pressure Valve

There’s actually some benefit in not fully unifying. When ARC is freed from having to incorporate every idea, it can focus on what it does best: competitive play and the framework of rules and rulings that surrounds it. And when Legacy isn’t shackled to ARC deadlines or approvals, it can keep pushing the boundaries. It’s a creative pressure valve.

If we’re lucky, we’ll get the best of both worlds: a tight, competitive core game guided by ARC, and a rich, experimental outer ring fed by Legacy.

That’s not just healthy.

That’s Concord.

---

What’s Next?

In the next post, I’ll take a closer look at one of the most foundational (and some would say flawed) aspects of Armada’s competitive structure: objectives. They’ve shaped the game since 2015, but are they still fit for purpose? What should ARC’s next steps be in reworking them—and what would a truly dynamic objective ecosystem look like?

Stay tuned for this 4-part series on objectives.

Disclaimer: This post was created with help from ChatGPT, primarily outlining, formatting, and presentation.