Just been Posted in the FAQ Section...

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/6b/49/6b49569f-84ac-421c-9459-23b8d0be0941/armada_tournament_regulations_v102_high_res.pdf

NOTE - V_102 NOW.

((TO BE EDITED WITH THOUGHTS ONCE I"VE FINISHED READING))

Changes/Clarifications:



Ship pegs (including the connecting pegs affixed to ship models) may be modified or replaced with a different connecting method.

Not just swiss - Single Elimination is also in the play possibilities now.

Also, Very Interestingly:


The Tournament Document - In the Setup Field - DOES NOT MENTION OBJECTIVES

(It does in calculating score)

Some events require players to submit a fleet list, including all associated upgrade cards, total fleet points, damage deck, and obstacles to the organizer before the start of the tournament.

(Quite Possibly an X-Wing Copy/Paste)

Is it just me or does that Advanced Gunnery statement change things considerably? (In the regular FAQ)

Tiebreakers

If two or more players have the same number of tournament

points, tiebreakers are used to determine each player’s standing

within that group. Tiebreakers are used in the following order

until all players within that group have been given a standing.

• Head-to-head: Any player that has played and defeated all

other players in the group is ranked above the other players in

the group.

I like it.

You mean the Advanced Tournament Structure? With a Cut for players effective at 30?

Is it just me or does that Advanced Gunnery statement change things considerably? (In the regular FAQ)

Advanced Gunnery

If the second player’s objective ship

is equipped with Gunnery Team or

Slaved Turrets, that ship cannot target

the same ship or squadron more than

once during its activation.

> Gunnery Teams

Whaaaa...?

Is it just me or does that Advanced Gunnery statement change things considerably? (In the regular FAQ)

Advanced Gunnery

If the second player’s objective ship

is equipped with Gunnery Team or

Slaved Turrets, that ship cannot target

the same ship or squadron more than

once during its activation.

> Gunnery Teams

Whaaaa...?

Yeah I saw that too. No idea why that change was made but it makes for an interesting choice for second player in that if he is counting on the objective to not get picked and brings gunnery teams it screws him over...conversely it rewards a player that takes a risk not bringing gunnery teams and counting on the objective to complete a build.

Very interesting.

The Upgrade Card overrides the Objective. Simple as that.

SD players, Rethink the Red Objective (since you'll never rethink your Gunnery Teams)

Rebel Players - Stop thinking you can get your Slaved Turret Salvation to work with Advanced Gunnery - Your Opponent should never have picked that objective ANYWAY.

I dont understand why they made that change. Seems unnecessary.

I also think it should have its own topic, since its in a document I didn't reference in the OP, but hey, that's just me


Honestly, I think its a bigger deal that Initiative places first Obstacle - so expect them to get that Station right where they want it instead

Per the wording on Head to Head, won't that pretty much never be used since no reasonable Armada tournament is going to have everyone fight everyone?

I do love that in Definitions they define MoV as "the first tiebreaker" and then contradict that on the next page, though.

if two people are tired it will be used

I also think it should have its own topic, since its in a document I didn't reference in the OP, but hey, that's just me

Honestly, I think its a bigger deal that Initiative places first Obstacle - so expect them to get that Station right where they want it instead

Yeah I caught that too...is that just how it is now? Or is that only for tournaments? What gives?

or if three are tied and dinner best the other two

I also think it should have its own topic, since its in a document I didn't reference in the OP, but hey, that's just me

Honestly, I think its a bigger deal that Initiative places first Obstacle - so expect them to get that Station right where they want it instead

I wonder what the reason was to reverse obstacle placement from the normal rules? And since this doesn't mention objectives at all and uses concrete language, how is this going to interact with objectives that alter the placement of the obstacles?

Man, they really stepped in it here.

I also think it should have its own topic, since its in a document I didn't reference in the OP, but hey, that's just me

Honestly, I think its a bigger deal that Initiative places first Obstacle - so expect them to get that Station right where they want it instead

I wonder what the reason was to reverse obstacle placement from the normal rules? And since this doesn't mention objectives at all and uses concrete language, how is this going to interact with objectives that alter the placement of the obstacles?

Man, they really stepped in it here.

Thats where my current FB arguments are at...

I feel we should hope that objectives are still used... Which means in Minefields and Contested Outpost, the Objective Card should Override the Base Rules...

Since most of them state "Setup objectives as per usual" and "per usual" now means 1st Obstacle to 1st Player...

Per the wording on Head to Head, won't that pretty much never be used since no reasonable Armada tournament is going to have everyone fight everyone?

I do love that in Definitions they define MoV as "the first tiebreaker" and then contradict that on the next page, though.

Using the search feature for every instance of the word "group", it appears that they use that term as "players with the same number of tournament points" and not for the tournament as a whole, so it works.

And you are allowed to modify the model as long as it is still identifiable as the original. Kitbashers, your time has come!

There is also this:

Some events require players to submit a fleet list, including all associated upgrade cards, total fleet points, damage deck, and obstacles to the organizer before the start of the tournament.

- Probably just an X-Wing Copy/Past though, never know... Might be New Obstacles in the Future.

I also think it should have its own topic, since its in a document I didn't reference in the OP, but hey, that's just me

Honestly, I think its a bigger deal that Initiative places first Obstacle - so expect them to get that Station right where they want it instead

I wonder what the reason was to reverse obstacle placement from the normal rules? And since this doesn't mention objectives at all and uses concrete language, how is this going to interact with objectives that alter the placement of the obstacles?

Man, they really stepped in it here.

Thats where my current FB arguments are at...

I feel we should hope that objectives are still used... Which means in Minefields and Contested Outpost, the Objective Card should Override the Base Rules...

Since most of them state "Setup objectives as per usual" and "per usual" now means 1st Obstacle to 1st Player...

I know how I'd play it, but there's literally nothing in the rules about choosing an objective, and they already overrode one part of the Setup rules from the RRG with obstacle placement, so....

Let the arguments commence!

Looks like a lot of copy / paste from the x-wing document, so I am guessing it is a typo. Especially as it isnt a thing that is in the Errata / FAQ.

Wouldn't be the first time they screwed up the Tournament doc. I am looking at you 300 point wave 2 lists.

Edit: see also "add more pegs to the ISDs"

Yeah - its a shame....

In a way, Its very disappointing that we are treated with that amount of disrespect...

ButI can also understand that these were probably mandated to come out all at once in a short timeframe.

Yeah - its a shame....

In a way, Its very disappointing that we are treated with that amount of disrespect...

ButI can also understand that these were probably mandated to come out all at once in a short timeframe.

"All changes and additions made to this document since the previous version are marked in red."

Then nothing is marked in red.

*sigh*

Yeah - its a shame....

In a way, Its very disappointing that we are treated with that amount of disrespect...

ButI can also understand that these were probably mandated to come out all at once in a short timeframe.

"All changes and additions made to this document since the previous version are marked in red."

Then nothing is marked in red.

*sigh*

Because there is no "Previous Version' Of the Tournament Regulations Document.

Ergo, there are no changes from that version, because you can't change something that didn't exist.

You could argue the entire document is a Change, and ergo, the whole thing would be Red, but it still doesn't alter the fact that there is no previous version with which to compare changes to.

I feel this is technically correct.

Hey, in Xwing how are obstacles placed? Is that what we're getting at here? That the obstacle thing might be copy paste nonsense and wrong?

Hey, in Xwing how are obstacles placed? Is that what we're getting at here? That the obstacle thing might be copy paste nonsense and wrong?

Entirely possible, too... I don't play X-Wing (So I don't know), but I have read their FAQs when I was asked to be an Impartial Judge on an FAQ ruling...