I don't think I'm going to be breaking any new ground here, but this has been on my mind a lot lately and I wanted to hear some thoughts from the community. As we start to approach Regional season (even though Store Champs aren't quite through yet, who needs rest?!?), I am thinking back on my competitive play so far to try and prepare. Appreciating how much skill is involved in this game, much of this preparation boils down to "What am I going to fly?" Armada is somewhat unique in the FFG scene in that you won't necessarily have enough rounds to find that undefeated player to determine the winner, it all boils down to tournament points (why it couldn't just be MoV, I'm not sure...). This leads to the point of this whole post.

How do you balance your list building between making a list that is capable of winning and making a list that is capable of winning big? In our (the Armada community) competitive environment, it's not enough to win. You can go 6-4 all three rounds, and you'll lose to the guy that went 9-1, 9-1, 1-9. However, I find it much easier to build a list I think can win than to build a list I'm confident can win big. The "Big Win" lists always feel like there is a hard counter, like we're playing a big game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

I'll present an example, then I'll stop talking and let you all chime in. I've won three Store Championships in the area. Two of those were won with my version of the Demolisher abuse list (3 Glads, 2 Raiders, 387 points). This list is, in my opinion, a win big list. Both of those tournaments ended with me sitting at 28 tournament points after 3 rounds. The final win was with a much more balanced Rebel B-Wing list. Though I went undefeated with that list, I only reached 24 tournament points. That might not be enough to take home the gold, in fact I would imagine it won't be in larger events. However, the second list can win with or without initiative and will likely do just fine against Rieekan.

I'm not sure where I sit on this balance, I'd love to hear all your thoughts.

What do you mean by "3 glads, 2 raiders, 187 points"?

We had a local player go 10-0 (MOV 420), 10-0 (MOV 460), 9-1 (MOV don't remember) in one tournament with a fighter list. Next tournament we all exploited the list's lack of maneuverability to force 5-5 draws.

I think he meant 387pts.

Rather than seeing the downside to what the OP mentions, I think it's one of the diverse points of this game. You can choose how to throttle your aggression a little more. Do you want to run a glass-cannon that has a reasonable chance of 10-0, or do you want to duke it out a little more?

It is easy to win big. You take Risks. You play objectives like Superior Positions and Precision strike. You play in a manner that forces people to react to you.

10-0's will not be all that likely but 9-1's and 8-2's will be.

Playing with the less riskier objectives can still see you winning but you are more likely to encounter situations where you needed X points and you just could not make it resulting in your MoV being lousy.

Or, in short, the best list consistently wins, and wins big. It's about testing, and finding the right balance.

Or, in short, the best list consistently wins, and wins big. It's about testing, and finding the right balance.

The thing is, a 6-4 win is somewhere between 7.5% of your lists total points to 17.5%. Not an amazing win by any stretch of the imagination. FFG definately did the right thing between Wave 1 and Wave 2 by setting 10-0 wins at 87.5% (350) at 400 points instead of 73.3% (220) at 300 points, plus increasing the range for 8-2 substantially. It makes a 9-1 or 10-0 victory something impressive instead of near required with certain lists.

Especially with points being what determins your matchups in later rounds, the 10-0 first round player is going to have to bloody himself against another 10-0 or 9-1 while the 8-2s and 7-3s duke it out as well. If you can churn out more 9-1 / 10-0 wins against other good lists, you are arguably better than a guy scraping 33 point victories from the guy who "won" 5-5 in round 1.

An alternate worry is the guy who goes the other way - losing the first round fairly close (3-7 or 2-8) and comes back with big wins against mediocre opposition. But this player gives up control of his destiny for easier wins - he is by his very nature playing from behind. And if a player goes 8-2 in all games, then the early loser cannot possibly get back into 1st in a 3 round tournament.

Also, like final jeopardy, a player should be going into the last round knowing what they need for a chance at first or to clinch victory. For example, in a recent store championship, going into the final round, first place had 17, second had 15, and 3rd had 13. First place knew he needed a 7-3 win against 2nd to clinch 24 points and beat 3rd even if he went 10-0, Second knew he had to get a 9-1 win to do the same, or at least get a 7-3 win (MOV would lose him on a 6-4) and have help from 3rd player. And Third Place needed a 10-0 and lots of help.

In the end, Third Place played a perfect game, to make a play for 1st, but because Second had to play aggressive and First Place could afford to be defensive, First Place was able to deal with Second Place's predictability and end with a big win as well.

What I am saying is, this adds a ton of extra strategy to a tournament setting, apart from "just win", and that is in my opinion a good thing.

What do you mean by "3 glads, 2 raiders, 187 points"?

Apologies, bit of a typo. I did in fact mean 387 points. Didn't feel like posting the whole list here, as I assume most forum dwellers can get the general idea from that much information.

What I am saying is, this adds a ton of extra strategy to a tournament setting, apart from "just win", and that is in my opinion a good thing.

Or, in short, the best list consistently wins, and wins big. It's about testing, and finding the right balance.

So ultimately, this is what I'm talking about, "the right balance". It's hardly new in competitive gaming that a skew list can win games big. They tend to be easier to build and *relatively* straightforward to fly, but they also tend to have worse counters. Finding the great balance is always more difficult, but typically pays off in the end.

Anyway, I want to stress again, I did not intend to make this sound like a negative thing. Armada is currently my favorite game (I honestly haven't played anything else for several months), and I just wanted to get more insight on how others are approaching the conundrum that is list building.

It is easy to win big. You take Risks. You play objectives like Superior Positions and Precision strike. You play in a manner that forces people to react to you.

10-0's will not be all that likely but 9-1's and 8-2's will be.

Playing with the less riskier objectives can still see you winning but you are more likely to encounter situations where you needed X points and you just could not make it resulting in your MoV being lousy.

....fact

My buddy wins every round at events and comes in 3rd-4th. I have won 2 games (loss was close) but I took big risks with big pay offs and took 1st or 2nd.

The safe play to not over commit and potentially lose stuff is great in games that reward straight Tournament Wins. Armada does not do this. With a 6 turn limit at some point you need to take a big risk and go all in. I try to go all in once I have won the squadron war. Once I own the sky I will commit my ships to the fight and use the squadrons and ships together start bringing down my opponents fleet. I am either up or tied on points from squadrons so I just need to kill 2 ships to seal the game. If i can kill 2 ships my opponent wont have enough to retaliate and will have to worry about getting tabled and giving me a 10-0 so they typically run which nets me the 8-2 or better. The game is typically decided by the all in gamble. I mostly play Imperials so the gamble is generally the turn I force you to joust or get off the table.

I just build to win. I think it can be a trap to start trying to get gimmicky with points. The 387 point list you mentioned may be a "win big" list, but it also straight out beats a large percentage of lists it will see. Assuming it is more or less what I think it is. But then I don't really do much tournament wise.

I'm....

...

Well.

To be frontly honest.

I'm not good enough to "plan" to win big.

I'm really not.

I wish I was.

I really do.

I wish I was good enough to plan to Win big.

But I find more often than not, I just can't slip into that mindset.

I teach people the game. I teach them how to get into it, the basics, some more advanced stuff - I give up my time to let people hone themselves and their lists on me...

But I just don't have the time to be able to practice to get better myself.

Its okay.

I really is.

I just wish I was good enough, sometimes.

I play to not lose big. Does that count?

I'll be pretty conservative unless I feel one of two things:

- I can exploit a mistake/mismatch.

- I'm currently in a Kobyashi Maru situation.

I'd rather finish top 5 than to gamble and get my teeth kicked in in pursuit of top two. I guess it's mostly a personality thing. And I prefer lists that are balanced overall.

I play to not lose big. Does that count?

I'll be pretty conservative unless I feel one of two things:

- I can exploit a mistake/mismatch.

- I'm currently in a Kobyashi Maru situation.

I'd rather finish top 5 than to gamble and get my teeth kicked in in pursuit of top two. I guess it's mostly a personality thing. And I prefer lists that are balanced overall.

I can agree with this. Much like Dras, I feel I'm not skilled or practiced enough to plan for and play for winning big. I'll take a Top Four placing to get the shiny bits. The only extra thing you get for first place is a plaque and a bye.

I'll take a list that's reliable and hopefully forgiving. Maybe some day I can play to win big.

I don't aim either way. I do however take more chances and sometimes I'm too aggressive. Therefore my games usually end up win big lose big...or 5-5 with hardly anything standing as we duked it out.

I am liking this discussion.

Drasnighta, you have the experience though. You know how they play, what they like to do and how their lists function. That can cause you to win as well. You just need to lose less ships or have objectives that make up for losses.

In the end, I choose Superior Positions, and Precision Strike because they can make up for a lost ship. They fit my play style and I know the basic truths of each objective.

When I lose I lose big. I am sure this is irrelevant. I dont notice the point when the tide turns and I need to bug out to conserve points. Plus why would you not go all in? (My problem in poker too)