How I wins matches.

30% of throwing ship cards in the air and picking the ones that land face up.

70% Blind luck.

100% Style

I do not win matches often.

I have zero idea. At all.

One thing that the core set teaches and we all seem to agree on: how you use the tools matters more than what you've got at your disposal. How much more, I think it depends on how far you've gambled on a skew list.

I can't remember how many threads i saw with "VSD OP, impossible to destroy" and "Rebels always win." Once people really learned the tools, including the squishy neb-b and the bathtub VSD, and moreover once we all learned how to use the navigation dial, I saw the topics swing to "core set always a stalemate?"

How many recent threads have we had about the Raider being useless? How many times do we have to watch vassal world cup replays !

I would say...

40% Prior practice with the list you are fielding

This is a really good point. Practicing and knowing what you can do with a fleet makes a big difference.

I look at it this way:

A fleet built with a plan >>>>>> a fleet built to just have the "best" ships and upgrades. (A plan meaning deployment, formation, and objectives that mesh)

A fleet flown with practice >>>>>> a fleet being tried out for fun.

Practice reduces errors. Avoiding mistakes while capitalizing on your opponent's mistakes is the best measure of skill in the game.

Even the tiny bit of practice I got with flying my 5 Nebulon-B's in formation VASTLY improved their play.

This is a great point. This is a game that rewards practicing! Not just the game in general, but your specific list, and specific combinations of ships.

This is a great point. This is a game that rewards practicing! Not just the game in general, but your specific list, and specific combinations of ships.

It actually all circles back to experience and skill that I harp on. People lose more times than naught due to inexperience on how to handle a situation (at least that is how I lose) once they learn those lessons they make fewer mistakes and learn to test and practice more ideas and concepts.

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent Deployment
Fifteen percent concentrated fire of will
Five percent list building, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to play the game!

Dice aren't a factor. There is no such thing as luck. Good players will minimize and maximize their probability appropriately.

Excuse me???!! What else is there to blame when you lose???

When I roll well and win a match I call it a display of clear skill.

When I have a terrible day and roll something like 5 red blanks with a concentrated firepower command from an ISD-2 at long range it has to be sheer bad luck, right?

I go with...

29.99999% Actual List structure.

20% Initial Deployment. This can play a definite part in the game, like if I have 3 VSDs in totally the wrong position.

8% Mental Mindset. If your list has two or three ISDs in a game surely it will play with your opponent's mindset (although he will get over it and probably win anyway).

15% Game Navigation.

17% Luck with Dice Rolling.

10% Player's Armada Skill.

0.0001% If your name begins with a "V".

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent Deployment

Fifteen percent concentrated fire of will

Five percent list building, fifty percent pain

And a hundred percent reason to play the game!

I love this. I may base the rest of my life around it . You should change deployment to rhyme with will and then you can finish writing it as a poem.

Sorry, cheap jokes only.

Depends on which game you are at in a tournament.

Game one:is all about skilled play

Game two: 60% skilled play, 40% blind luck ( tired brain.....)

Game three: 100% blind luck ( as I just launch strait at the other guy in an knackered " I just want it to end " frenzy of destruction)

Hence my scores at my last store championship.... 10/0 win, 7/3 win 5/5 loss...

95% of all statistics are made up rubbish........

95% of all statistics are made up rubbish........

Tournament stamina is indeed contributing factor

I realised as I read through and thought about my post that the list component is a touch variable, when you start 400=400, both players have equal potential. However, as our two groups of choices interact it may be that the game gets easier for me or harder based on the interactions of those choices.

I also gave some thought to the idea that the strategies are easily described as little "tactical triangles", I think the fellow that won worlds positioned them around squadrons, and given the debate at the time was do you or don't you take squadrons it made sense.

But as I thought about it I realised it wasn't that simple. You have lots of little triangles that can represent many things.

Now in some instances to make one choice say to take lots of squadrons you lose another choice. For example taking many squadrons will give you the fewest ships, and taking some squadrons will leave you some ships. Now the diagram below isn't anything more than a concept, it is just showing that these little strategic choices are somewhat interconnected. As always one choice here is an opportunity cost elsewhere.

My final "light bulb" moment was that the triangles are not all the same size or as important as each other. Some of the triangles will have more impact on your fleet and be far more important than others, your play style may have some affect on the importance you see and the state of the game in general. What if wave 3 messes with activations allowing ships to break into or delay their turn in the activation order, that would change the significance of the triangle you assign there perhaps?

Again, let me stress, this is just the ramblings of a mad man. There is nothing set in stone or concrete here, just a concept, being that our choices here affect our choices there and we can't have it all.

Ramble on mang!!! Dano digs the Ramble.

All you others: Maybe you can greasy thumbprint the topic even more and make up 5 more categories the split percentages with? Ya know, like, Good Repaints, Bad Repaints, Stock Paint, playing on Felt versus Latex...ohhh, did I say Latex?

Playing in latex? Mr Squeaky Pants, even felt could be a touch uncomfortable.

I'd say 10% of how good your list is is dependent on whether you made it in a bathtub or not.

There are a number of variables that impact on a list and how well I play it and so my performance.....impact on game:

1) how much a pain in the ass my kids have been that week ( impacts on well being, tiredness and practice time).

2) how hacked off my wife is with me playing armada ( impacts on practice time, feeling of wellbeing and quality of packed lunch).

3) being busy at work ( impacts on practice time, tiredness and fealing hacked off).

4) has my employer changed my, job, role, office, desk, line manager, directorate, job title or anything else this week ( impacts on level of hacked off).

5) Being hungry..... See number 2

6) Being tired...... See numbers 1 and 3

7) how much beer have I drunk.....more than one pint bad..... This is a function of where the tournament is... Local pub very bad.....shop ok.

8) have I had a speeding ticket or pranged the car that week ( hacked off ish ness )

9) does a bit of me hurt.....

In short how well I play is a function of how far up the old Maslow pyramid I am......

Give it to me in percentages.

How much of each contributes to victory on the table top?

Elaborate as much as you like.

I am using the term Fleet Deployment in place of Skill because its aesthetically pleasing.

Fleet Composition is what you put in your list, how it's intended to be used and what Objectives you pair it with.

Fleet Deployment covers how well you push the list, counter your opponent, and Objective play.

I'll start. I think a commander impacts his Fleet more than a Fleet impacts the commander. So at minimum I feel 30% Fleet Composition and 70% Fleet Deployment.

Lets hear YOUR takes!!!

So I've held off responding to this one for awhile to give it a good think.

It hit me there is a practical way to realistically measure this as I've come to know the game.

When I started to play Armada I didn't really pay attention to what I choose for a mission and was really optimizing my experience based on my fleet composition. Mission and deployment for that mission was far more seat of my pants whatever.

This wasn't a winning combo in tournament play. Tuning my lists some more, exploring interactions between fleet elements and my wins would improve but there was a missing component. While I felt I was playing the right ships to compose a strong force, I didn't feel in control of the game.

Fleet deployment, both the selection of the mission and execution of an on table game plan were what was needed. Those games where I'm playing to my fleet strengths and playing the game the way I *WANT* to play seemed to reward me with an increase in wins.

I've plenty to learn but there is a ying and yang of Fleet Composition and Fleet Deployment that must come together or your fleet will be soon adrift as space junk with yesterdays laser blast marks as a souvenir. Fleet Composition can only give you the right tools to win. Fleet Deployment is using those tools both correctly and to your advantage to secure success.

These are no sorcerers ways. You've got your own journey ahead in mastery of the game. Fleet Composition and Fleet Deployment for me stand at an equal 50/50.

@tgall Love it mang! Thanks for the feed back on both your journey and take on the matter.

And a big thank you to everyone else who added input, even though you felt the need to quadruple the graded percentage areas.

/splash

I forget the question after all that, but the answer is 100% playstyle.

I kid, but I do think the initial question is formulated incorrectly, which is to say this:

1. You can never win a game with your list building. 100% of actually winning comes down to fleet deployment, maneuvering, and successfully executing a strategic plan. Games are often won in Armada as early as deployment or even objective selection when you are the first player. I think this is also under-discussed on the board in favor of list building, because list building is easier to discuss in text, but in reality, the rubber (which may or may not be Latex, according to Versch, and depending on which meaning of rubber you are using, Armada just got real weird) meets the space road when you actually start, you know, doing things.
2. However, you can definitely totally lose a game in the list building phase. I see three main flaws:
   1. Not having a list that works together properly. Someone earlier raised the "I took Ackbar and a bunch of Neb B's!" and this is a great example at the end of that scale. On the other end of the scale is the original Gencon Special, where every single thing in that list was there for an exact reason that made it all work.
   2. Likewise, picking lists that are weak to commonly played lists is another critical mistake. Realistically speaking, people need to plan for aggro rush lists, lay back and swirl Ackbar lists, etc.

So what percentage is it? Both are necessary but not sufficient. An incredible player with a dumb list will still win some games, but not as many as with a good list. A good list in the hands of a bad player will almost always lose. The key is that the listbuilding gives you the potential to win, but the playing is the actualization of that potential.

Also, playstyle.

You guys know the word 'Deployment' doesn't JUST mean initial set-up or staging, right?

Deployment also refers to how units are maneuvered, committed, and reserved.