So a lot of people are discussing squadrons and balance in general but I haven't seen anything on what in my opinion is the biggest issue to the game from an organized play standpoint. The MoV. This is the only competitive system I have seen where it is possible to win every game, be the only attendee to win every game and still come in second or even third.

Why don't wins matter?

The MoV, in my humble opinion, should be used to break ties among equally ranked players. Period. You shouldn't barely win your first game and then decently win your next two only to be ousted by a 2-1 who got a close lose and demolished his other two games.

Why not you ask? This system allows you to fight your way back to the top! Sure, it also puts about 1000% more emphasis on the dice and in some (probably extremely rare) instances collusion. ei, Sure table me good friend person! Take my 300 points!

I play a lot of mini games, and have participated in organized events for most of them and in them all there is a way to mitigate the dice. There has to be, because after the odds are calculated and probabilities determined you will inevitably have a day where you just can't roll a 7.

Well what does that matter? You ask. It is turn 4. You have shot and been shot at a good few times by now. Your opponent can't seem to roll a blank to save your life and you are having to juggle defense tokens and repairs whilst simultaneously swapping hull zones and fire lanes just to keep your ships in the fight. Meanwhile even with rerolls and upgrades you are getting lucky to force a brace token from your opponent.

However, you have played the squadron game excellently and have shot down a base without any return loses and scored an objective point. Ultimately the game ends with you only a few points up despite the fact without your top notch flying and forethought it would have ended in a terrible lose. You simply outplayed your opponent and as much as you could removed the dice from the equation.

Your next couple of games go only slightly better, aware now that your dice aren't rolling for you you adjust and play for it and your next two games come out with a solid 50 point spread.

Meanwhile another attendee for whatever reason loses his first game and sees his next two opponents buried under some of the hottest dice anyone will ever see at that store.

So we have a gentleman with a record of 3-0 and a gentleman with a record of 2-1. This should be clear cut, easy peasy. 3-0 is better than 2-1. If you can't play for the objective and secure a win that matters then the cards should just be done away with. Also after that we should just leave our models in the closet and only bring out our dice for a rousing game of farkle. Cause after all, it is easier to just bring some dice.

Ultimately close games with narrow margins of hard fought victory are often the most exciting and thrill inducing to be had. They are also the fastest way to knock yourself out of the running. Fun =/= Win. Believe it or not you can have both, well unless you play Armada.

Having played in the Gencon National tournament I agree there is an issue with the current tournament system. That being said I don't think moving straight to win and losses necessarily fixes the issue.

The true issue is that some scenarios don't encourage fighting. In a tournament setting you need some reason for both players to want to get into the middle of the board and fight. Otherwise situations occur where if I think its better for me to take the 5-5 loss and not move or worse, run away because I'm faster then the game gets boring.

Had that happen to me two out of five rounds. One of my opponents was super classy about it, apologized a lot and said, "I hate playing this way, and I'm really sorry but I don't see a lot of better opportunities to win here". The other was essentially running away basically saying, you can try to catch me with your one glad, which I'll kill with my whole fleet, or we can both take the 5-5.

So that's the one part I didn't like. Certain scenarios, such as fire lanes, contested out post, dangerous terratory, and intel sweep don't have that problem, because you can win without fighting, but for the kill or be killed ones you need more incentive to move towards your opponent when you think you are out gunned. Other than that it was a great tournament and I really enjoyed it. The up side is I lost a battle, and got two 5-5 scores but still finished in the top 16 which was pretty cool.

It seems to me like it's a system that you can "game". For instance, if you have a build which is really well targeted against specific types of lists, you can pull of 10-0 wins against them when you find them, while against lists you aren't good against play super defensively for a 5-5.

I don't have any experience with other wargaming systems though and haven't been to Armada tournaments, so it's just a random thought.

Having played in the Gencon National tournament I agree there is an issue with the current tournament system. That being said I don't think moving straight to win and losses necessarily fixes the issue.

The true issue is that some scenarios don't encourage fighting. In a tournament setting you need some reason for both players to want to get into the middle of the board and fight. Otherwise situations occur where if I think its better for me to take the 5-5 loss and not move or worse, run away because I'm faster then the game gets boring.

Had that happen to me two out of five rounds. One of my opponents was super classy about it, apologized a lot and said, "I hate playing this way, and I'm really sorry but I don't see a lot of better opportunities to win here". The other was essentially running away basically saying, you can try to catch me with your one glad, which I'll kill with my whole fleet, or we can both take the 5-5.

So that's the one part I didn't like. Certain scenarios, such as fire lanes, contested out post, dangerous terratory, and intel sweep don't have that problem, because you can win without fighting, but for the kill or be killed ones you need more incentive to move towards your opponent when you think you are out gunned. Other than that it was a great tournament and I really enjoyed it. The up side is I lost a battle, and got two 5-5 scores but still finished in the top 16 which was pretty cool.

I don't know if that is an issue with the event system, as I think it is more just poor logic on your opponents part.

A 5-5 Win or Loss is, for the most part, going to eliminate you from being able to win the event. While some objectives may not force the action, the event rules do at least in part. If you want to win you have to get out there and score some points. So if your opponent is concluding that a 5-5 split is preferable, they are basically giving up on winning the event.

Having played in the Gencon National tournament I agree there is an issue with the current tournament system. That being said I don't think moving straight to win and losses necessarily fixes the issue.

The true issue is that some scenarios don't encourage fighting. In a tournament setting you need some reason for both players to want to get into the middle of the board and fight. Otherwise situations occur where if I think its better for me to take the 5-5 loss and not move or worse, run away because I'm faster then the game gets boring.

Had that happen to me two out of five rounds. One of my opponents was super classy about it, apologized a lot and said, "I hate playing this way, and I'm really sorry but I don't see a lot of better opportunities to win here". The other was essentially running away basically saying, you can try to catch me with your one glad, which I'll kill with my whole fleet, or we can both take the 5-5.

So that's the one part I didn't like. Certain scenarios, such as fire lanes, contested out post, dangerous terratory, and intel sweep don't have that problem, because you can win without fighting, but for the kill or be killed ones you need more incentive to move towards your opponent when you think you are out gunned. Other than that it was a great tournament and I really enjoyed it. The up side is I lost a battle, and got two 5-5 scores but still finished in the top 16 which was pretty cool.

I don't know if that is an issue with the event system, as I think it is more just poor logic on your opponents part.

A 5-5 Win or Loss is, for the most part, going to eliminate you from being able to win the event. While some objectives may not force the action, the event rules do at least in part. If you want to win you have to get out there and score some points. So if your opponent is concluding that a 5-5 split is preferable, they are basically giving up on winning the event.

Which highlights another issue with the system. Not only are they giving up on winning the event they are forcing you to give up winning the event also. While it is almost impossible to prevent someone from getting any points at all it is relativity easy to force a 5-5.

Having played in the Gencon National tournament I agree there is an issue with the current tournament system. That being said I don't think moving straight to win and losses necessarily fixes the issue.

The true issue is that some scenarios don't encourage fighting. In a tournament setting you need some reason for both players to want to get into the middle of the board and fight. Otherwise situations occur where if I think its better for me to take the 5-5 loss and not move or worse, run away because I'm faster then the game gets boring.

Had that happen to me two out of five rounds. One of my opponents was super classy about it, apologized a lot and said, "I hate playing this way, and I'm really sorry but I don't see a lot of better opportunities to win here". The other was essentially running away basically saying, you can try to catch me with your one glad, which I'll kill with my whole fleet, or we can both take the 5-5.

So that's the one part I didn't like. Certain scenarios, such as fire lanes, contested out post, dangerous terratory, and intel sweep don't have that problem, because you can win without fighting, but for the kill or be killed ones you need more incentive to move towards your opponent when you think you are out gunned. Other than that it was a great tournament and I really enjoyed it. The up side is I lost a battle, and got two 5-5 scores but still finished in the top 16 which was pretty cool.

I don't know if that is an issue with the event system, as I think it is more just poor logic on your opponents part.

A 5-5 Win or Loss is, for the most part, going to eliminate you from being able to win the event. While some objectives may not force the action, the event rules do at least in part. If you want to win you have to get out there and score some points. So if your opponent is concluding that a 5-5 split is preferable, they are basically giving up on winning the event.

True, but if your goal isn't to win the event , perhaps due to having already lost a game or by not winning it with enough points, and just finish in the top 8 then I can see situations where it might be smarter to not fight an take the tie. I. E. can't navigate through a minefield without taking some explosion rolls and then being out numbered by your opponents star destroyers?

I don't know what the solution is, but would like to see something to add to the urgency of getting to the middle.

IMO, the system makes sense given the 3 round tournament. Larger X-wing events can be notorious for loads of people dropping after 2 losses. In Armada, that problem would only be bigger. Lose my first game 7-3? May as well go home. But with this format, a bad game doesn't necessarily end your chances. In the very first tournament near me, I got first place going 2-1, with second place going to the guy who beat me the last game!

Could the system use some refinement? Yes, I think it could. But I think it's better suited for Armada than the X-wing structure is.

This a format that exists because FFG doesn't think that with the long Round times that a more traditional event format would be feasible. They don't think that it be logistically possible to run an event that would end with an undefeated player.

Under the current rules a 32 player event would result in 4 undefeated players. A 90 person event, such as Gencon, could be as many as 6. So they opted for an event system in which that issue wouldn't matter.

I'm also not sure I think it is a good system, and I am not sure 150 minutes is really going to be required for 400 pt games. I think for this to be a game with a real competitive format it needs to be able to be played in a manner in which the event winner is simply the last player left undefeated.

I think this is correct but there are more than 1 part of the whole that causes proplems. Caveat I came from Flames of War and its 5 point spread worked fine, not perfect.

1. Squadrons die when my ships die. Allow my squadrons to continue to turn 6 or death.

2. There is too much of an emphasis on MoV and the range is huge at 10. I don't know if you drop it to 8 or 6 though, may compromise and go for 7.

MoV at 7 game concludes when everything dies or at the end of turn 6:

150+ 6-1

100+ 5-2

50+ 4-3

If you table your opponent and kill everything the winner gets his score increased by 1 and the loosing score is reduced by 1.

That is a really good start. Like it a lot.

The MoV can definitely be played, but i don't see the issue with a 2-1 winning over a 3-0.

I am playing miniature games for years and a 3-0 doesn't necessarily make for the better player. The three wins might have been really tight/lucky or one castled up not giving away any points.

Tableling your opponent is much harder to achieve imho.

Which brings me the issue with the 'table for 300pts' rule.

For starters, it would be great seeing it removed to allow squadrons a better standing in the game. *though i hope that they have a long term plan for this... looking at 'intel' & 'rogue'

And to be honest, i don't actually understand what the rule is there for?

It rewards brute force, which also leads to a point where the objectives just don't matter that much anymore.

Is it to prevent 1-2 turns of chasing lone fighter squadrons?

Thought that is what the turn limit is there for.

Would somebody have more insight please?

So let's go over it.

Let's say you have 4 ships and 300 points and I have 2 ships and 100 points in squadrons. Now let's say I kill 3 of your ships getting 250 some odd points bit you manage to win the game and take out both my ships. Well you only get 200 points but you won the game (rules state that the winner is either the one with the most points or the person who kills the other persons ships), I on the other hand get 250ish points and move up since I won by a 6-4 or a 7-3 victory. You on the other hand drop down, but hey you won the game!

Wouldn't that be a 5-5 win under the rules as they are as the MoV doesn't go negative?

Yes under the current rules yes. They would change that part but in that case it is a draw MOV wise which means all that hard work that was done is moot and he ends with a draw.

It is like a kick in the shins. To the guy who "won" all because your squadrons survived.

This is a capital ship game. Squadrons are an add-on to that. They should not be hindering those who win decisively, but at the same time they school not give all their points away. I can't think of a way to balance this out but we shall see what 400 points brings

Not to get on squadrons (which is kinda happening a little anyway) but I'm not sure where the statement "this is a capital ship game, squadrons are fluff" came from. In every movie and in every EU instance battles in space (even a few on the ground) are influenced highly by the presence or lack of fighters. Which, interestingly enough mirrors actual naval doctrine. Something along the lines of "he who can launch planes is going to sink your toys" or some such.

While we are at it where does it say anywhere that this is a "cap ship" game? I thought I was buying a Star Wars mini game that allowed me to play out space battles. Another interesting point, in a few naval skirmishes all the Rebel Alliance had was fighters (no I don't count the Battle of Yavin in that). As a matter of fact, there are entire ship designs and naval strategies pointed at dealing with fighters.

Star Wars and its naval shenanigans are completely absorbed by the "fighter ace" mythos. It is a hallmark of the universe. Starting with the very first movie, the very first exposure to the setting, we see a man in an X-wing change the history of an entire galaxy.

Now you might say "if you want a game with fighters go play X-wing." and you would have a pretty decent point. However I would reply with "If you want a game without fighters go play Star Trek Attack Wing" or whatever its called.

In the very first movie in the very first scene, can you point out the fighter there?

Where does t it say that this is primarily a cap ship game. Well right on the front page of the FFG product explanation.

"Capital Ships in Combat

At the game’s heart are its capital ships – massive war machines that can exceed a kilometer in length and whose crew can number in the thousands. These ships are sophisticated and complex. Their defenses, armaments, and engines all run from separate systems. You and your opponent must balance all these systems throughout your battles. Accordingly, emerging victorious will require more than just raw firepower. It requires a keen tactical mind."

From that same page

"3) Squadron Phase

Although Star Wars: Armada is built around the galaxy’s many capital ships, you’ll almost certainly want to fly one or more squadrons of starfighters in your fleet, both to threaten enemy ships and to defend your ships from enemy squadrons. "

So built around the capital ships, and at the heart of the game are the Capital Ships.

Is it safe to say that this is primarily a Cap Ship game yet?

You are right that fighters and squadrons are a part of naval doctrine. . . Well, the US's naval doctrine. Russia has carriers bit they are not doing so well, and China is still learning how to operate a carrier. So in WW2 it was more prevalent but that was mainly because of the fight in the Pacific.

I had this whole post typed out where I too copy pasted words and went after what you said about the Devastator running the Tantive IV down but realized if i did that my journey to the derailing side would be complete. Suffice to say I disagree.

Back on topic.

Another thing that seems like a good idea is doing away with the objectives cards entirely for organized play. Keep them for casual one offs to spice things up. For tournaments however there would be a set number of scenarios drawn from a pool at the organizing of the event. Round one would be scenario A, two B, three C and this would all be gone over before the set up for round one.

Scenarios could include your basic mini game fare such as objective markers, some sort of king of the hill, capture the flag, that sort of jazz. All of these would have sub objectives to prevent people from gaming the system. Though with those three specific examples there is built in "anti-game". You can't castle up in a corner if the objective of the game is to have control of the center for example.

The difference is between playing for the win and playing for the table. If you are playing for the table suddenly a lot of what makes Armada interesting goes out the window and that is a huge shame. If you are playing for the win however everything has to be considered in its place. Which, again in my opinion, is the way it should be.

As it stands right now the "DPT" crowd is absolutely right. You should only bring lists capable of inflicting the most hurt in the shortest amount of time and so should the other player. Since we aren't playing with squadrons, and both of our objectives are to close fast and start rolling dice the entire Armada experience boils down to two things. Who went first, and who throws dice better. Sounds. A. Lot. Like. Farkle.

No. I disagree whole 100q with removing objective cards. At that point being player 2 is a liability for one, another point is that we'll played objectives can turn a loss into a win. For instance in my last tournament, I played a list that had a VSD and GSD and fighters. I killed the 2 ships got my 300 points but because we were playing advanced gunnery and I had damage cards on my ships he took the 10-0 Victory to a 7-3 Victory.

Objectives make this game great. Removing them and all you are playing is X-Wing with a fancy movement tool.

Maybe it is your play to race headlong and kill each other but I play Rebels mainly and can't do that so I use objectives to get my points and do my work.

Get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. Mostly because I never said do away with objectives. Actually, it is more than a feeling.

A few of the objectives make this game great. Objectives like Superior Positions in a tournament setting with MoV become a liability. What I am saying is bring all of the objectives more in line with intel or dangerous ground or whatever it is.

In the very first tournament near me, I got first place going 2-1, with second place going to the guy who beat me the last game!

And, if that person finished as the only undefeated person, that only confirms the problem. He should have been the overall winner, not a person that he beat.

Get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. Mostly because I never said do away with objectives. Actually, it is more than a feeling.

A few of the objectives make this game great. Objectives like Superior Positions in a tournament setting with MoV become a liability. What I am saying is bring all of the objectives more in line with intel or dangerous ground or whatever it is.

It makes going second a bad thing instead of allowing second player to have a chance with the bonus his objectives give him.

By the way, if they brought the objectives in line with Dangerous Territory and Intel Sweep what is the point? Superior Positions and Precision Strike make squadrons worth a consideration and will get better next wave.

There are plenty of tactical reasons for each objective. If you only see those 2 as being viable then your play style is conducive to those objectives.

This a format that exists because FFG doesn't think that with the long Round times that a more traditional event format would be feasible. They don't think that it be logistically possible to run an event that would end with an undefeated player.

Under the current rules a 32 player event would result in 4 undefeated players. A 90 person event, such as Gencon, could be as many as 6. So they opted for an event system in which that issue wouldn't matter.

I'm also not sure I think it is a good system, and I am not sure 150 minutes is really going to be required for 400 pt games. I think for this to be a game with a real competitive format it needs to be able to be played in a manner in which the event winner is simply the last player left undefeated.

This isn't an issue with the current design of x number of Swiss rounds and cut to top x. Once the second day starts, it's 4 rounds to a single undefeated player with the cut being top 16.

And with smaller events, 16 and less, it's a simple 4 rounds to a single undefeated player.

Get the feeling you didn't actually read my post. Mostly because I never said do away with objectives. Actually, it is more than a feeling.

A few of the objectives make this game great. Objectives like Superior Positions in a tournament setting with MoV become a liability. What I am saying is bring all of the objectives more in line with intel or dangerous ground or whatever it is.

You said to change it to more of a central based system that nullifies the "gaming the system" I believe is how you put it. I covered rest in a single sentence.

It makes going second a bad thing instead of allowing second player to have a chance with the bonus his objectives give him.

By the way, if they brought the objectives in line with Dangerous Territory and Intel Sweep what is the point? Superior Positions and Precision Strike make squadrons worth a consideration and will get better next wave.

There are plenty of tactical reasons for each objective. If you only see those 2 as being viable then your play style is conducive to those objectives.

When I refer to "gaming the system" and in regards to Superior Positions specifically I mean the following. Choosing Superior Positions with the intention of slow rolling a corner deployment as a way to remove the objective from the game as much as possible. Reducing it again to who has hotter dice.

I'm not advocating instituting a cookie cutter set of objectives as a way to remove any sense of chance or tension. Those were, after all, simply examples of things you could have in place of objective cards like again Superior Positions where if one were so inclined could be "gamed".

And again I want to rereiterate what my point is. The organized play set up we currently have heavily emphasizes dice and the things that bring buckets of them to the table. And yes, you can play to the objective to pull out a win but again, that doesn't actually do anything as wins are pointless. So those objectives you so masterfully achieved, to eek out that slim victory, might as well of been a lose cause the dude a table over lost one and tabled two.