If they are not miniature games, then this game isn't one either. This game has far more in common with those games then it does any of the other non-grid based map games you mentioned.

What would you have preferred instead?

I would have liked VP margin to come into play somehow. In the 3/0 system a 0-40 loss has the same weight as a 38-40 loss. Bringing VP margin into scoring rewards someone on the losing side who is able to make a couple of last minute clever objective grabs or kills.

Yes they could be playing it safe and adding season in there because wave 1 isnt out yet but then why say the tokens arent legal. I would think that means all of the spring season no?

Its bad for the game if they dont have a rotating map/mission system. The more the maps and sets we get the bigger problem setup will be. One of the best ways to fix that is limit what is legal. Do you really want to shuffle 60 mission cards and figure out what the mission setup is looking through 60 pages and a huge thing of tiles in three-four years?

That being Casual or local I dont see why you couldnt play with all the missions and maps when they are released.

What would you have preferred instead?

I would have liked VP margin to come into play somehow. In the 3/0 system a 0-40 loss has the same weight as a 38-40 loss. Bringing VP margin into scoring rewards someone on the losing side who is able to make a couple of last minute clever objective grabs or kills.

As much as I loved that system with the old decipher card game not sure Miniature games like this are good for that. We will have enough problems with setup. Do you really want to make things harder on the TO?

What would you have preferred instead?

I would have liked VP margin to come into play somehow. In the 3/0 system a 0-40 loss has the same weight as a 38-40 loss. Bringing VP margin into scoring rewards someone on the losing side who is able to make a couple of last minute clever objective grabs or kills.

As much as I loved that system with the old decipher card game not sure Miniature games like this are good for that. We will have enough problems with setup. Do you really want to make things harder on the TO?

You could have made it really simple:

0-10 points: 1 points

11-20: 2 points

21-30: 3 points

31+: 4 points

It would also make sense with the maps if, let's say you draw Mos Eisley A for round one, that round 2 you play B. it would eliminate some set up time. All the players have to do is move to new tables.

This way a 4 round swiss only needs map set up twice.

The only issue is that the players will want to take their pieces with them, so unless you also bring some method of easily moving your board table to table, you will likely still have to take it apart and re-assemble even if its the same map.

I assure you, breaking up a premade map into 3/4/5 parts for transport and reassembling is much quicker than digging through your pile of tiles to build a new map

What would you have preferred instead?

I would have liked VP margin to come into play somehow. In the 3/0 system a 0-40 loss has the same weight as a 38-40 loss. Bringing VP margin into scoring rewards someone on the losing side who is able to make a couple of last minute clever objective grabs or kills.

As much as I loved that system with the old decipher card game not sure Miniature games like this are good for that. We will have enough problems with setup. Do you really want to make things harder on the TO?

Most mini games do use VP margin as part of tournament scoring. X-Wing, and now IA, are the outliers.

X wing does. It's just one value though, over or under 12.

So you think a system in which it is advantageous for someone to mercilessly table thier opponent and deny as many points as possible is going to improve the atmosphere that you have an issue with?

Moreover you penalize players for close games (probably the most fun and evenly matched) meaning that in order to guard against close games later in the event players absolutely must score maximum points against weaker earlier opposition. Which is only going to create more of an atmosphere you seem to dislike.

And by most mini-games which are you refering? Warmachine does not, SWM used it as a secondary, Heroclix also a secondary, same as X-wing.

And by most mini-games which are you refering? Warmachine does not, SWM used it as a secondary, Heroclix also a secondary, same as X-wing.

My mistake, I thought WM/Steamroller used VPs as part of their scoring. It's a tiebreaker. Saga also uses it as a tiebreaker. (I also noticed that X-Wing has been changed to use VP spread as a tiebreaker now. Last event I played in SOS was the tiebreaker.)

But Flames of War, Malifaux, Infinity, 40K, and Warhammer Fantasy all use VPs as the primary seeding mechanism.

Of course, those are all 'hobby games', where the actual game is just one part of the event. Painting, modeling, and interacting with the larger community are as much, or more, of these events than just win or lose. (Which probably explains Warmachine's binary system, since painting is optional.)

I don't think either the binary or the gradiated system is "right" or "wrong", I just have a personal preference based on having played in both types of events. I'll certinaly give IA organized play a chance--in fact, I'm looking forward to it.

TL;DR, clearly I'm a wargaming grognard and don't understand the newfangled miniature games.

And by most mini-games which are you refering? Warmachine does not, SWM used it as a secondary, Heroclix also a secondary, same as X-wing.

My mistake, I thought WM/Steamroller used VPs as part of their scoring. It's a tiebreaker. Saga also uses it as a tiebreaker. (I also noticed that X-Wing has been changed to use VP spread as a tiebreaker now. Last event I played in SOS was the tiebreaker.)

But Flames of War, Malifaux, Infinity, 40K, and Warhammer Fantasy all use VPs as the primary seeding mechanism.

Of course, those are all 'hobby games', where the actual game is just one part of the event. Painting, modeling, and interacting with the larger community are as much, or more, of these events than just win or lose. (Which probably explains Warmachine's binary system, since painting is optional.)

I don't think either the binary or the gradiated system is "right" or "wrong", I just have a personal preference based on having played in both types of events. I'll certinaly give IA organized play a chance--in fact, I'm looking forward to it.

TL;DR, clearly I'm a wargaming grognard and don't understand the newfangled miniature games.

Odds are FFG will change the system since its a really simple one and I am not sure its the best fit. That being said its a new game and with the LCG and X-wing it feels like this is the starting point they like to go with(simple)

There do you see that all maps will be legal when released? All I see are that the maps and missions we have now are what will be used for the spring season. New product becoming legal is different than maps/missions becoming league. Most miniature games have a section on what maps are legal and which ones aren't.

In the Legal Products section: "In North America, Imperial Assault products are legal upon their release."

While this does not explicitly reference maps and missions (as there is a separate section for those). It is probable that FFG will update the Tournament Rules to include the new maps once they are officially available in stores.

Honestly I see that as more of when team building products are legal upon release, so the figures, command cards, deployment cards, etc. It seems odd that they would have this statement but also have a statement saying which maps are tournament eligible. I would not be surprised if these are referring to different things. We'll find out once a product is released whether the tournament eligible maps is updated right away. I would think even after release if they maps are not listed in the tournament listing then they are probably not legal for the TO to select from.

And by most mini-games which are you refering? Warmachine does not, SWM used it as a secondary, Heroclix also a secondary, same as X-wing.

My mistake, I thought WM/Steamroller used VPs as part of their scoring. It's a tiebreaker. Saga also uses it as a tiebreaker. (I also noticed that X-Wing has been changed to use VP spread as a tiebreaker now. Last event I played in SOS was the tiebreaker.)

But Flames of War, Malifaux, Infinity, 40K, and Warhammer Fantasy all use VPs as the primary seeding mechanism.

Of course, those are all 'hobby games', where the actual game is just one part of the event. Painting, modeling, and interacting with the larger community are as much, or more, of these events than just win or lose. (Which probably explains Warmachine's binary system, since painting is optional.)

I don't think either the binary or the gradiated system is "right" or "wrong", I just have a personal preference based on having played in both types of events. I'll certinaly give IA organized play a chance--in fact, I'm looking forward to it.

TL;DR, clearly I'm a wargaming grognard and don't understand the newfangled miniature games.

Odds are FFG will change the system since its a really simple one and I am not sure its the best fit. That being said its a new game and with the LCG and X-wing it feels like this is the starting point they like to go with(simple)

In all instances FFG seems to favor a binary tournament policy, or something closest to it.

What I mean by that is excluding the rare possibility of a draw, there are only two results to a game; win or lose.

The reason for this is that it's simple, efficient, and doesn't force the "meta" in a certain direction.

X-wing began with a less then binary scoring system. 5 points for a full win, 3 for a modified win, 0 for a loss. While they still use those point systems, what separates a full and modified win has been altered to the point that a modified win is such an uncommon result as to be of near to no consequence.

The FFG games that do not use binary systems are the asymmetrical LCGS that require players to run two decks in an event since certain factions can only be played against each other for the game to function. Both those LCGS have seen the most revisions of the fundemental event scoring procedures.

LCGS like AGOT that allow for binary scoring, have remained fairly consistent.

While FFG may at a later change the tiebreakers, I see no reason from them to expect they will alter the binary scoring system they have put in place for IA, as they opt for it whenever possible.

I'm generally happy with the tournament rules. Initially I was all for printed maps but did think the game would lose something with them as the tiles look fantastic.

Having sorted my map tiles properly it now quite easy to put the maps together speedily and having everyone play the same mission in each round makes it a lot easier for the TOs.

I'm still a little concerned about wear and tear on the tiles, so will be buying a second core set, but I would have done for the figures anyway.

All in all, really looking forward to the competitive scene kicking off - roll on the expansions to give us some more build options.

Danno may I ask what you mean when you bring up WAAC?

While I'm aware of the acronym, what it actually means tends to range greatly?

So uh...

For those of you upset about the setup phase part of the tournament rules...

I scanned the maps... I'm currently cleaning them up, and once I'm done, I'm willing to share.

The only way to describe it, and understand that this is a subjective feeling that I, personally, have gotten, is at the X-Wing events I have played in no one appears to be having any fun. People are playing the most effective list they found on the Internet, not necessarily a list they think is fun to play, and dice rolls feel deadly serious--like everything is on the line. (I'd like to point out that this is also what playing in the GW events at Adepticon has become...which is why I don't do GW Adepticon anymore. ). Once someone has a couple of losses and is officially out of the single elimination rounds, they just rage quit the event, leaving the TO in an awkward position to redo pairings at the last second.

I do want to make it clear it that I've never played an outright jerk. For the most part, they've been decent bros. But almost no one has ever seemed to enjoy playing the game It felt like it was work for them, while I just wanted to have fun pushing around tiny plastic spaceships.

is at the X-Wing events I have played in no one appears to be having any fun.

Sounds like you've been to some fairly bad events. That is not true of the majority of X-Wing events from what I've heard and personally witnessed.

It might be that I'm playing at the FFG mothership, so the community is more intense. I know the last event I played in was about 1/3rd members of the playtest team, so for them playing X-Wing IS work. Maybe their fun is just different than mine.

It might be that I'm playing at the FFG mothership, so the community is more intense.

I'm part of the Twin Cities X-Wing community too, and again I haven't seen that. I don't play at the FFG event center much, but I've never heard anyone say that the environment there was anything like you're saying it is.

I've scanned and cleaned up the tournament skirmish maps.

If anyone would like them, PM me.

It might be that I'm playing at the FFG mothership, so the community is more intense.

I'm part of the Twin Cities X-Wing community too, and again I haven't seen that. I don't play at the FFG event center much, but I've never heard anyone say that the environment there was anything like you're saying it is.

To be clear, I'm only talking about tournament play, not Game Night at the Nerd Center.

I agree Danno in that there is a lot of intense overly competitive players in X-Wing. Same issue in a city near me. Bunch of jerk players ruining the lot. Makes me never wanna play or buy the game let alone play down there. However another city also close to me has a much better community and plays to have fun even in competitive events.