@Triangularer I see the problem you want to solve, but I disagree with your solution. Let us assume you start your activation with having the enemy ship in your front firing arc and it has you in his. Why should you be able to perform an attack into his rear after your activation, if it is in one of your arcs? I think you need a rule like this:if you start your activation with the rear of an enemy ship in one of your firing arcs and it is still within a firing arc after your first movement, you may perform one of your attacks into the rear of that ship after your first movement.

@Triangularer thank you for the quick answer. However, I think "no current playtesting" and "nothing in development" are two different categories. One might assume that development has to be close to be finished when playtesting starts. Nevertheless, I think that you are right that today is less about announcing new products, and more about announcing product strategies. We might see a bit more content revealed for Wave 10 to appease the crowd, but that's most likely it. Maybe, X-Wing and Legion get proper announcement if they haven't got any in the last two months (don't know). But for us? Unlikely.

Where did you hear that?

I have initialy written it in English. Sorry, there is no German version (I only have the English CC booklet).

No, it is updated. The link provides one with the current version.

In the article about Rebel titles you mention that Dodonna's Pride should change the game text as suggested. I cannot see that suggestion. I think Independence could be saved: Remove the restriction that attacks are impossible, decrease point cost to 5. Make it discard. For the Mon Cal Exodus fleet (as for the 7th fleet) I think they should have added the feature that a ship with this titles can have a second title card.

The Recusant is 95, not 105.

Naah, prices went down. I am sure. Don't forget that we pay less because now dials are no longer part of the package...

Man, your article on CC stirred some nostalgia in me. I really love that expansion. But soon I will play it as well with a friend of mine who recently started Armada. That reminds me that I need to update my The Skywalker Campaign mod to 1.5!

Thank you for another great article! I am not sure whether this price hike for Mithel would me make me not taking him on every single imperial fleet with more than two squads. Also most likely I won't consider Vader even with this drop. But with both of them I am not sure. However, your reasoning with Jendon does seem odd to me. You want him to be where he already is, because (some) of the squads he likes to empower are more expensive. This would imply that their new pricing already includes their Jondonibility. But then they are too expensive, if you don't take him. To me it seems you should pay Jendons bonus for Jendon himself.

I just saw an FFG (!) ad on Facebook advertising it.

Do we have a source for this?

Very true! I have met players that only take objectives with dust fields because of the Onager :-D So, an already limited choice of objectives becomes even more limited.

TL;DR Changing merely the price of the Onager leads to match-up lottery. This is the case because the ship messes up with a significant number of objectives (but not all). I pondered a bit the idea wether a change in point costs or a change of ignition attacks is the way to go. I lean a bit more in the direction of the change of ignition attacks for the following reasons. As has been mentioned, there are counters to the Onager. Some of them are related to the fact that it has only one ignition arc. However the situation is a bit like the MSU last-frist fleets of the ancient days. They were not the strongest fleets. And there were counters. However, the main problem was that they simply made so many fleet compositions irrelevant because there was always the chance that you met one of those crazy guys who took them to a tourney. The Onager does the same: If it gets first player you are f****d as long as you have objectives that are depdendent on predictable movement. And there are a lot of those. In the Onager age they are plain stupidity. Hence, there are less choices in fleet composition (and future objective design space). Now, of course a point increase can mitigate this effect drasticly - but at a substantial price: match-up lottery. Whether the Onager is too strong, decently priced, or overpriced will depent radically on the match-up. It will be a bit as it is with the Dictor (or the Strategic keyword). With the right objectives it can be decent. With other objectives it is quite an effort to make the ship work. Make the Dictor a lot cheaper and it will be overpowered in a significant part of the match-ups, and in the other ones it will be decent. The reason for this is that the Onager, the Dictor and Strategic mess quite a lot with objectives - but only with a part of them.

@Bertie Wooster I see your point and I agree that it takes away a bit of the problem the Onager poses to the game asymmetry. But I am simpy not sure whether it is enough. However, without proper testing all I have to offer here as justification is my speculative opinionen ;-) I'd simply prefer a solution that modifies ignition attacks (extreme range attacks) in general, rather than changing amount of dice of such an attack.

This is an interesting one!

But why punish second player for being slow? The Onager in the hands of the first player sets the game upside down.

The reason for that is that the comms officer needs to be errataed. Costs too much fleet points.

My recommendation would be an additional rule for ignition attacks : You cannot execute an ignition attack, if line of sight is obstructed. That would keep Romodi in line, and would make the Onager an interesting navigational (and setup) challenge.

If I understand correctly what you write, you want RBD to trigger at the start of the ship pase. But that is exactly how it is done.