In Armada, tournaments rarely have finals. Would it be possible to have the first tie breaker be who won their game if two players who have met eachother have the same score, instead of MoV? (I'm sure there's a good word for it in English, but I think you know what I mean...)

For example, I just played a 3 round winter tournament yesterday, and made it to table 1 last round and pulled a very tight win, thus having won all my games in the tournament.

My opponent and I both got a total score of 23 points, but he had 3 better MoV and won the tournament despite the fact that he only won 2 games and I had won 3.

For me I'm totaly fine with 2nd place yesterday, I got the nice Gladiator card and the acrylic tokens and it was a casual and relaxed tournament, but if it would have been an important tournament and more at stake I believe it might have felt a bit strange to win all games but loose the tournament to a person who lost 1/3 of their games.

What do you think?

The phrase you are looking for is "Head to Head", and while that is definitely not the first tiebreaker in the official Tournament Rules, you can do whatever you want in a casual tournament.

That being said, Armada tournaments (and Armada in general) are not set up to be a "Winning is the only thing that matters" sort of game. This is evidenced by tournaments being 3 rounds up to 32 players. Imagine playing a tournament with 32 players, winning all three games - you might not even make the top 4 if you aren't winning your games by convincing margins. In fact, you will have at least 4 players who haven't lost a single game.

I seriously thought this thread was about a new class of TIE Fighter: The TIE Breaker

PS: after months of only reading these forums I finally registered just to be able to post that dumb joke :D

I seriously thought this thread was about a new class of TIE Fighter: The TIE Breaker

PS: after months of only reading these forums I finally registered just to be able to post that dumb joke :D

I genuinely thought it was about a new TIE-family vessel. Sad is me.

I seriously thought this thread was about a new class of TIE Fighter: The TIE Breaker

PS: after months of only reading these forums I finally registered just to be able to post that dumb joke :D

Good to have you aboard.

Sad to say, I wish I saw it as a new TIE vessel. . .

The phrase you are looking for is "Head to Head", and while that is definitely not the first tiebreaker in the official Tournament Rules, you can do whatever you want in a casual tournament.

That being said, Armada tournaments (and Armada in general) are not set up to be a "Winning is the only thing that matters" sort of game. This is evidenced by tournaments being 3 rounds up to 32 players. Imagine playing a tournament with 32 players, winning all three games - you might not even make the top 4 if you aren't winning your games by convincing margins. In fact, you will have at least 4 players who haven't lost a single game.

To capitalize on this. In a game like this, as it was stated there could be as many as 4x 30 point players. Since this is not a chess tournament where we use brackets to decide things, it would be hard to implement such after already playing 3 games.

Winning by a high margin with few to no losses should be just as important as winning. It means your tactics were sound and that you were able to play well while surviving

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I have to disagree with this. Someone who is 3-0 but has their victories at 5-5. 6-4, and 5-5 should not be better than someone who is able to get a 9-1, 8-2, and 4-6.

I have had my local store owner tell me he dislikes the potential of someone winning 3 games and not winning the tournament but I just shut him out saying the FFG tournament rules are sleek and easy and more then fair and it's true the rules are more then fair. That said out of the 4 events I have run we have never had a Tie after the final round. Infact we had two guys tie a game they killed nothing not even fighters no bonus points or anything but by the rules second player won so it was a 5-5 split

If you are running an FFG tournament as per the Tournament Rules then it is more than likely you'll end with several players with maximum number of wins. I think FFG is aware of this and has gone straight to the heart of the matter and has put tournament score ahead of wins for this reason. I think too the situation Lyraeus describes is also a consideration, you may disagree with him, and there is room for some discussion, but I feel that it allows a good player to have a bad game and still remain competitive.

Keep in mind that the rules of a tournament, whatever they may be, become part of the social contact you make will the TO and players at the tournament. When you enter the tournament the process of determining the winner is fair to all.

Yes, I see the point in the current tournament rules. But you could also argue Win-Loss could be the first tiebreaker, I guess it is a matter of preference and manageable tournaments.

And just to be clear - I think Tournament Points should be no. 1 - it's the first tie breaker after that I'm discussing.

Anyhow - I totally agree with Amanals about the social contract that the tournament rules are, that's a very good way of putting it.

And as I said, I am in no way complaining - I just wanted to hear other's opinion.

For me a tough game with a tight win by 6-4, or even 5-5, when you're up against a good opponent, a strong fleet build or an ill-suited objective (or in my case in sunday's 3rd game - all 3! ) is usually more enjoyable and feels more glorious than crushing my opponent 10-0, but I guess for winning a tournament you'll need one or two of those crushing victories.

Well, either way the only thing I can do is try to play each game as well as possible!

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I feel the victory points system in Armada is thematically on-point for a fleet-engagement game, with the scale representative of the wider ongoing conflict in which one can lose battles but still win the war.

I just wanted to hear other's opinion.

I would like to see, where time and space permitted TO's could run a longer tournament.

I just wanted to hear other's opinion.

I would like to see, where time and space permitted TO's could run a longer tournament.

4 games in one day shouldn't be to hard to pull through in one day?

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I have to disagree with this. Someone who is 3-0 but has their victories at 5-5. 6-4, and 5-5 should not be better than someone who is able to get a 9-1, 8-2, and 4-6.

I for my part was only discussing the tiebreaker, that is if you have the same score (tournament points). So in your case the second guy would win comfortably either way.

And Win-Loss as tiebreaker is slightly different than head-to-head.

Because even if I have a better MoV than you, but in the final game you manage to beat me - who should be the overall winner?

Well, as I said - it's a matter of opinion and I'm quite fine with either. Both ways have their merits.

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I have to disagree with this. Someone who is 3-0 but has their victories at 5-5. 6-4, and 5-5 should not be better than someone who is able to get a 9-1, 8-2, and 4-6.

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I have to disagree with this. Someone who is 3-0 but has their victories at 5-5. 6-4, and 5-5 should not be better than someone who is able to get a 9-1, 8-2, and 4-6.

Name another sport, game, anything which values margin (which in Armada are arbitrary anyway) over raw victories? Especially when it comes to tie breakers. In the OP example both he and his opponent had the same amount (23 pts) then instead over going to W-L it went to MOV. I don't hate Armadas scoring system but it's far from perfect.

So you should be praised for mediocre victories? You should be given a medal for just barely winning?

Think on it. The win is not the importance here. It is how well you win that matters.

Like doobleg posted above - Armada is an attempt to represent war in space, not baseball or soccer. In a war, a series of pyrrhic victories will destroy your capability and eventually doom your side.

W/L shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker for tied tournament points because there is no consistent expectation that the two finalists have played each other. Total margin of victory applicable to every single player.

In a larger tournament - if at the end three players were tied for tournament points and two had played each other - what then? The situation is easily handled using total MoV, but unintuitive, ambiguous, or unfair using W/L record.

For me W-L record is always more important than margin of victory. Winning is why you play. No one who is 2-1 should win over a player who is 3-0. Especially given they were tied at 23 pts. The first tie-breaker should be W-L if that's even go on to MOV.

I have to disagree with this. Someone who is 3-0 but has their victories at 5-5. 6-4, and 5-5 should not be better than someone who is able to get a 9-1, 8-2, and 4-6.

Name another sport, game, anything which values margin (which in Armada are arbitrary anyway) over raw victories? Especially when it comes to tie breakers. In the OP example both he and his opponent had the same amount (23 pts) then instead over going to W-L it went to MOV. I don't hate Armadas scoring system but it's far from perfect.

So you should be praised for mediocre victories? You should be given a medal for just barely winning?

Think on it. The win is not the importance here. It is how well you win that matters.

Yes. You should be praised for more victories, as opposed to big victories with losses mixed in. You play games to win or lose. A win is a win. People win Gold medals in the Olympics by winning a race by .1 seconds. They win a gold medal. They live with that honor the rest of their lives. They get their nation's National Anthem played and they stand on the top of the pedestal. Who are you, or I, and anyone else to say that a win is "just barely" a win? Ask the 2007 New England Patriots about this. They went 16-0, won 2 playoff games, often annihilating their opponents along the way. In the Super Bowl, the 10-6 Giants beat them. Guess who is etched in history as the "Champion" of the NFL for the 2007 season. Hint: It's not New England.

The two most skillful players in a tournament going head to head, each playing masterfully, are likely to end with a 5-5 or a 6-4 type game. Should the winner of this tight game now have his or her chance of winning the tournament lessened because they had the misfortune of playing in such a game?

I get the reason behind this method of scoring. Armada is too long of a game to do proper elimination, or to have a few Swiss rounds and a cut to top 8 (or even 4). It just wouldn't work with this game. But in the end, it is a game, it is a competition, and we play it to win. Wins should be the most important.

It's a game, not a campaign. If tournaments were campaigns, this would be an entirely different conversation. At it's heart. Armada is a game, a competition between two people.

But in the end, it is a game, it is a competition, and we play it to win. Wins should be the most important.

There is a very big difference of attitude around the world on this, that I've experienced in my Travels...

Some places, some countries have an overall softer attitude - that the competition itself is what should be enjoyed, not the win. That a Win at all Costs can and should be too costly.

The Game isn't just a game. Its not just a competition. It is a simulation, a facsimile of a broader struggle and competition.

"Play. Play to Win. Smash Face." , I personally feel, disrespects my opponents... Its a broader overall attitude difference.

To use a counter argument re: Your Patriots argument.

Just recently, Australia was completely and utterly dominating the West Indies in the Cricket. In a Heavily rain-effected game, where it was looking like it wasn't going to get a formal result, Australia offered within the rules, to completely hobble themselves in order to provide a good fun game for both the spectators and their opponents. That is something that was lauded by those who heard what was going on, even though in the end, the West Indies did not take them up on the answer.

My only point is that there are some cultural differences going around in the attitude to how games are approached.

If nothing else... I respect the Rules of the Game. The rules state that Tournament Points are the First Level, and that Margin-of-Victory is your second. This is the way the game is decided, and I respect that, playing the game to those standards... You won't hear me saying that is stupid and wrong because other games are played a different way... That's other games...

Ergo, I respectfully Disagree at the assertion that Wins should be the most important.

Like doobleg posted above - Armada is an attempt to represent war in space, not baseball or soccer. In a war, a series of pyrrhic victories will destroy your capability and eventually doom your side.

It's a game, not a campaign. If tournaments were campaigns, this would be an entirely different conversation. At it's heart. Armada is a game, a competition between two people.

Actually a tournament is a campaign

But in the end, it is a game, it is a competition, and we play it to win. Wins should be the most important.

There is a very big difference of attitude around the world on this, that I've experienced in my Travels...

Some places, some countries have an overall softer attitude - that the competition itself is what should be enjoyed, not the win. That a Win at all Costs can and should be too costly.

The Game isn't just a game. Its not just a competition. It is a simulation, a facsimile of a broader struggle and competition.

"Play. Play to Win. Smash Face." , I personally feel, disrespects my opponents... Its a broader overall attitude difference.

To use a counter argument re: Your Patriots argument.

Just recently, Australia was completely and utterly dominating the West Indies in the Cricket. In a Heavily rain-effected game, where it was looking like it wasn't going to get a formal result, Australia offered within the rules, to completely hobble themselves in order to provide a good fun game for both the spectators and their opponents. That is something that was lauded by those who heard what was going on, even though in the end, the West Indies did not take them up on the answer.

My only point is that there are some cultural differences going around in the attitude to how games are approached.

If nothing else... I respect the Rules of the Game. The rules state that Tournament Points are the First Level, and that Margin-of-Victory is your second. This is the way the game is decided, and I respect that, playing the game to those standards... You won't hear me saying that is stupid and wrong because other games are played a different way... That's other games...

Ergo, I respectfully Disagree at the assertion that Wins should be the most important.

I find your points interesting, but consider this. "Win at all costs" "Smash Face" These aren't words I used, nor implied. Those terms come across much more aggressively than anything I was saying. In fact, in my opinion, that sounds more like the people who think crushing your opponents to a bloody pulp (ie. 10-0 wins) should be the most important thing.

I play the game to have fun, first and foremost. If my opponent and I have a good time, then how "big" the win is isn't relevant. I do play to win, and I get satisfaction from a win. I am just as happy with what would equate to a 6-4 win as I am if I destroy my opponent. In fact, if I crush someone and they didn't seem to have fun because of it, that actually takes away from my enjoyment of the game. I want us both to enjoy ourselves.

I don't play tournaments. But in a tournament environment, when you are playing competitively, winning should be key. This is my opinion (which no one has to agree with ), but as I said, I can see how that is hard to implement with a game like Armada. The rules they have decided on are what they are. I don't agree with them, but I respect the company's decision. In the long run, it doesn't impact me either way as I don't play competitively.

You do realize that at the Olympics, .1 of a second, .01 of a second, etc is already pushing the limits and boundaries right? We are talking about human beings who have trained for years, and years, beat out dozens of competitors who wanted that chance, who have pushed that envelope so that .1 of a second might as well be a whole second to their competition.

Let's look at American football where the lowest score is 2 points and the highest is 6 at any given time (the 1 point field goal only occurs if you get the touchdown so it is not counted as part of that spread). In that game, which is all about a team doing their absolute best together can go back and forth from winning to losing and vice versa. A single point in that game can mean the difference between a win and a loss.

Now let's look at Armada which is a wargame.

Wargames are simulations of events going on. It pays to have taken minimal losses, it pays to have decimated your foe. It does not pay to limp away however. That is why losing a ship annoys me. I take it seriously in the context of the game because there is something I could have done more than likely. However, even a good Commander knows they will need to send their people to their deaths, a great Commander will give them the tools to triumph and succeed.

That is what a wargame is. It is about being a Commander.

Oh, forgot to mention one thing. The way tournament points works out will have you playing people around your level after game 2 and up.

The Olympics are a tournament where a series of events determine an eventual winner. A single destroyed fighter in Armada can mean the difference between a win and a loss. I'm sorry, but your Olympic and football arguments hold no water.

The fact is, you are basing your argument on a difference in "types" of competition that you personally have placed on them. Somehow, a Wargame should be treated differently in a tournament than an Olympic competition (which is a tournament btw). That is your prerogative, but your argument is still based on your own opinion. We all have the right to our own opinion, so to quote Drasnighta, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

The Olympics is a sports competition. The Super Bowl is a tournament.

The reason the Olympics is a competition and not a tournament is because it is a 1 time competition. The people who go participate in events around their country to be able to compete but they only do that event once (though most participate in multiple events).

The Super Bowl is a tournament because it is actually outlined as such. It has a winners bracket that leads to a championship game.

Here is the key difference between the two. The Olympics gives you a medal for being first, second or third. The Super Bowl has a single trophy.

That is the difference between a competition and an elimination tournament.

Armada uses the Swiss System tournament. This allows players to play along their level of play. It requires a player to try their best and maybe even make a comeback from a bad loss.

Take US Nationals 2nd place shmitty (someone who I have the chance to play and will get to again at the end of the month for a store championship), he got a horrible loss early on but was able, due to smart play and high MoV wins make a comeback and gain second place.

Why make this about wins and losses in a tournament style that has people continuing to play 3+ rounds. If it becomes about wins and losses then people will drop after a single loss.