A 5-5 game is most often tournament suicide. Setting up a scenario in which your opponent has the choice of either losing big or taking the 5-5 is not in your interests in most cases. The Minefield game discussed in the cast is a prime example of what not to do, you can't set that objective up in such a manner as to dissuade your opponent from engaging.

If the objective allows you to score points off of it them by all means set the meanest possible trap for your opponent, because either they don't engage and lose or engage on uneven terms.

You can't create that situation in all the objectives though. Sometimes you have to give them an openning.

A 5-5 game is most often tournament suicide. Setting up a scenario in which your opponent has the choice of either losing big or taking the 5-5 is not in your interests in most cases. The Minefield game discussed in the cast is a prime example of what not to do, you can't set that objective up in such a manner as to dissuade your opponent from engaging.

If the objective allows you to score points off of it them by all means set the meanest possible trap for your opponent, because either they don't engage and lose or engage on uneven terms.

You can't create that situation in all the objectives though. Sometimes you have to give them an openning.

I beleive the reference is you go into the final round of a tournament with 19pts, and your opponent has 17pts. You diliberately 5-5 knowing that you win that game automtically. Assuming you also know the MOV for the other players at the same time, It becomes really easy to figure out where you stand

Dano is wrong, we aren't always right.

Dano is always right. Its the reality that is wrong, sometimes.

You sure about that? Or could you be wrong?

Great episode again guys. Keep up the good work.

My 0.02 credits on the issue of playing the tournament vs. playing the game. I like the fact that Armada is set up so that there's an incentive to keep your ships alive as opposed to throwing them into an unwinnable battle. I look at it like the tournament round is the battle, but the tournament is the war, so it's ok to lose a battle if it means you win the war.

I also think Armada has options in place during list building/setup if you don't want to be at the total mercy of an opponent being a runner - I always take 4 squadrons in my list. It doesn't have to be that expensive of an investment to give you that little extra delay you need in the deployment phase of the game. Also, a player can choose some fast ships in their list to counter the runner strategy (and wave 2 helps this even more). I think it's pretty natural that once you really get into being a tournament player, you find yourself thinking about opposing strategies you'll face and how your list counters them. Countering an opposing runner is just one more thing to consider when list building.

I've been thinking a lot about this. There's a real dichotomy. On one hand, the idea of two fleets spotting each other, saying "NOPE!" and peacing out of there, totally jives in my mind. On the other hand, we setup a game to throw some dice and either revel in joy or collapse in sorrow at their results. That's the fun bit! So it's finding a balance. There is a real incentive to play for a 5-5 if you perceive a total loss, and I do not begrudge any opponent who's ever run (can we say "disengaged"? It sounds cooler). I do not know what the solution is or if a solution is even needed.

Have I mentioned how much I love this stupid game of toy space ships and pew pews?

I've been thinking a lot about this. There's a real dichotomy. On one hand, the idea of two fleets spotting each other, saying "NOPE!" and peacing out of there, totally jives in my mind. On the other hand, we setup a game to throw some dice and either revel in joy or collapse in sorrow at their results. That's the fun bit! So it's finding a balance. There is a real incentive to play for a 5-5 if you perceive a total loss, and I do not begrudge any opponent who's ever run (can we say "disengaged"? It sounds cooler). I do not know what the solution is or if a solution is even needed.

Have I mentioned how much I love this stupid game of toy space ships and pew pews?

Disengaged is much more appropriate. Like I said, if player A is ahead in points and knows that Player 2 has everything to gain and nothing to lose, why wouldn't Player A take defensive positions and stall the engagement.

I used to be a pretty active paintballer player, when it came to defend the flag type scenarios, we never put our flag on the 30yard line saying, lets make this sporting. We put that thing as far away as possible to give ourselves the highest chance of success. The flip side is if we got beat, both we and our opponents had no doubts in our minds that it was a well deserved and well earned victory.

Also, I am sure there is a way to try and stack obstructions and things in such a way that the escape route is not as easily trodden. It is part of the mental game. Armada is my top miniatures for various reasons, one of the biggest being that I feel like an Admiral. It feels like you on the bridge of a ship standing over a holotable watching a battle unfold and giving out commands and orders.

I think when you build a list you create for yourself the tactical "expectation" of what should happen.

For example I notice that when you go second your opponent may have to move into range. So lets just say I take 4 Nebulons and then run away firing my rear arc at long range and then moving away? Well my first two opponents didn't see that coming or figure out how to counter this and I won my games, My third opponent on the other hand sets up just right and then proceeds to table me. In its most simplest form, each fleet has 12 choices of how to play and they'll pick 3. We then hand those three and our opponent looks at out fleet and doesn't look at how he looses, he looks at your tactical expectations for those three missions and hands us back the two he cannot counter as easily.

The trouble here is you opponent created a different tactical problem, he wasn't playing to win but rather he was playing not to lose, he is trying to avoid a 6-4 or worse. In my experience this is often much harder than playing to win because you have to change what has been working tactically and makes changes. From the podcast the impression I have is you figured out a counter, played it and for the most part the idea seemed sound but the dice fizzled. The question here is what is different? You opponent threw down his puzzle for you to solve, you tried and failed. How is that unlike any other game?

Following the idea of tactical expectation, what happens if players start taking the small ships in swarms and not playing the "brawl" game with a fleet of medium or large ships? Will 8 Corvettes with Engine Techs end up getting the cry to "ban the ram" started again because players have the tactical expectation of a "brawl" and Mr Ram Monkey doesn't meet that expectation?

You got Guppies? See, I got shiny polished XI-7 and you will hate them. Trust me.

I think when you build a list you create for yourself the tactical "expectation" of what should happen.

For example I notice that when you go second your opponent may have to move into range. So lets just say I take 4 Nebulons and then run away firing my rear arc at long range and then moving away? Well my first two opponents didn't see that coming or figure out how to counter this and I won my games, My third opponent on the other hand sets up just right and then proceeds to table me. In its most simplest form, each fleet has 12 choices of how to play and they'll pick 3. We then hand those three and our opponent looks at out fleet and doesn't look at how he looses, he looks at your tactical expectations for those three missions and hands us back the two he cannot counter as easily.

The trouble here is you opponent created a different tactical problem, he wasn't playing to win but rather he was playing not to lose, he is trying to avoid a 6-4 or worse. In my experience this is often much harder than playing to win because you have to change what has been working tactically and makes changes. From the podcast the impression I have is you figured out a counter, played it and for the most part the idea seemed sound but the dice fizzled. The question here is what is different? You opponent threw down his puzzle for you to solve, you tried and failed. How is that unlike any other game?

Following the idea of tactical expectation, what happens if players start taking the small ships in swarms and not playing the "brawl" game with a fleet of medium or large ships? Will 8 Corvettes with Engine Techs end up getting the cry to "ban the ram" started again because players have the tactical expectation of a "brawl" and Mr Ram Monkey doesn't meet that expectation?

Solid and very correct. The mental chess you play with your opponent is my favorite part of the game. the tabletop is almost secondary, a reprsentation of the battle that is in your mind. I feel like myself and my opponents need big back chairs, with big arm rests and pipes as we try to out smart each other in a battle of wits. It truely is my favorite aspect of the game, it really makes you feel like an admiral or fleet commander.

There's a difference of sorts that's very important.

With tourney rules where 'quality of win matters', instead of 'number of wins or who you win against', sometimes the best move is to LOSE IN A SPECIFIC WAY. That's really weird. I feel like the games should always feel self contained, the goal is to win against your opponent. After all, that's the focus of the game, right? Beating your enemy's ships and accomplishing objectives.

But let's say your goal is to not lose by more than 7-3. Do you take any risky moves trying to win? No, that's sub-optimal. You may feed them a ship to slow them down and lose 6-4, but you shouldn't try to win. That's more of a risk and damage than an assured loss... which is weird.

---

This happened in the old Netrunner rules, and had a lot of arguments. The example was, at the last table: If I try to score an assured singe point out of 7, that's a bad move now. It costs me too many resources and will weaken me for the rest of the game, likely leaving a loss. The smart move if I was playing to win is to do other stuff instead of this suicidal move to score one point but lose seven. BUT if all I need to win the tourney is 1 more point, regardless of loss, I'd do it and throw the game. Yet, that would win me the tournament. What the hell?

It just feels counter intuitive and very gamable. It also means your biggest advantage in the whole tournament is crushing the ever living snot out of a poor newbie who has been unluckilly assigned to you for a 10-0 win first game, as opposed to defeating another fellow skilled player barely by 6-4.;

Do players find, when using the ISD or MC80, that they're obliged to take another 25-ish points-worth of upgrades? Every time I plop an MC80 into a shop list I'm, compelled to really make it the centerpiece by throwing shieldgame cards at it and pumping up that firepower - I'll be really surprised if they're must-add units to lists, frankly. From a pure dice mass standpoint they don't feel like they add more than, say, a couple AF2.

Well, yeah but not for the reasons you think.

Looking at my ISD, I see a very large target that is going to dish out ridiculous levels of firepower. So I am kitting it out to both dish that fire quickly, but also kitting it to take the resultant beating of all my oppponent's ships gunning for it. Somewhat paradoxically, I'm assuming that my most powerful beat stick is also the ship most likely to go down within 6 turns due to enemy action. So I would rather equip my ISD with 25 extra points than lose 120+ on turn 3.

There's a difference of sorts that's very important.

With tourney rules where 'quality of win matters', instead of 'number of wins or who you win against', sometimes the best move is to LOSE IN A SPECIFIC WAY. That's really weird. I feel like the games should always feel self contained, the goal is to win against your opponent. After all, that's the focus of the game, right? Beating your enemy's ships and accomplishing objectives.

But let's say your goal is to not lose by more than 7-3. Do you take any risky moves trying to win? No, that's sub-optimal. You may feed them a ship to slow them down and lose 6-4, but you shouldn't try to win. That's more of a risk and damage than an assured loss... which is weird.

---

This happened in the old Netrunner rules, and had a lot of arguments. The example was, at the last table: If I try to score an assured singe point out of 7, that's a bad move now. It costs me too many resources and will weaken me for the rest of the game, likely leaving a loss. The smart move if I was playing to win is to do other stuff instead of this suicidal move to score one point but lose seven. BUT if all I need to win the tourney is 1 more point, regardless of loss, I'd do it and throw the game. Yet, that would win me the tournament. What the hell?

It just feels counter intuitive and very gamable. It also means your biggest advantage in the whole tournament is crushing the ever living snot out of a poor newbie who has been unluckilly assigned to you for a 10-0 win first game, as opposed to defeating another fellow skilled player barely by 6-4.;

You need to remember that a tournament is little more than a large campaign made up of several generic missions. Unlike the single game you need to acknowledge that the campaign has different win conditions. Winning a battle but losing the war can have huge negative impacts later.

Home One, Advanced Projectors, XI7 Turbolasers and Akbar (Akbar is the back breaker but it has to go somewhere so the biggest ship seems the best bet)

So minus the Commander I spend what. . . 19 points.

There's a difference of sorts that's very important.

With tourney rules where 'quality of win matters', instead of 'number of wins or who you win against', sometimes the best move is to LOSE IN A SPECIFIC WAY. That's really weird. I feel like the games should always feel self contained, the goal is to win against your opponent. After all, that's the focus of the game, right? Beating your enemy's ships and accomplishing objectives.

But let's say your goal is to not lose by more than 7-3. Do you take any risky moves trying to win? No, that's sub-optimal. You may feed them a ship to slow them down and lose 6-4, but you shouldn't try to win. That's more of a risk and damage than an assured loss... which is weird.

---

This happened in the old Netrunner rules, and had a lot of arguments. The example was, at the last table: If I try to score an assured singe point out of 7, that's a bad move now. It costs me too many resources and will weaken me for the rest of the game, likely leaving a loss. The smart move if I was playing to win is to do other stuff instead of this suicidal move to score one point but lose seven. BUT if all I need to win the tourney is 1 more point, regardless of loss, I'd do it and throw the game. Yet, that would win me the tournament. What the hell?

It just feels counter intuitive and very gamable. It also means your biggest advantage in the whole tournament is crushing the ever living snot out of a poor newbie who has been unluckilly assigned to you for a 10-0 win first game, as opposed to defeating another fellow skilled player barely by 6-4.;

You need to remember that a tournament is little more than a large campaign made up of several generic missions. Unlike the single game you need to acknowledge that the campaign has different win conditions. Winning a battle but losing the war can have huge negative impacts later.

This. Honestly, the way I feel about it is that in order to be in a situation where a 5-5 win/lose (or even a 4-6 loss) will win me a tournament, I'm going to try and make that happen. Kudos to me for playing kickass enough to be in that position. Is it the most fun for the other guy, probably not but that's the risk of playing in tournament where the stakes are a little higher. Plus, the margin of victory for this is super small, so you have to stay on your toes and make sure you don't get lazy with your movements (tracking down one ship can make all the difference). With 400 points, this becomes less of an issue I feel because there's a lot more stuff on the board. If you are in a situation where its down to the wire at the top table, keep this in mind and pay close attention to where your enemy is deploying. This isn't going to be the same kind of game where you want to rack up as many points as possible. Disclaimer: I came in 4th (out of 10) at my Sullust event (my only tournament thus far).

Btw, absolutely love the podcast. WAY better than the morning radio talkshows I used to listen to on my way to work.