Found this discussion on Reddit by /u/11B3X

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsArmada/comments/4bh5a7/end_of_game_rule_book_vs_tournament_rules/

I have a question about ending of a game due to all "Ships" being destroyed; the main rule book states:

"If all ships in a fleet are destroyed, ignoring squadrons, the game immediately ends. The player with one or more ships remaining in the play area is the winner."

However the tournament rules mention something like "At the end of a round if all of a player's ships are destroyed" (sorry I couldn't cut and paste from the tournament rules).

Is this discrepancy an editing problem. I get that tournaments are different from casual play, but why the difference in language?

Thanks.

I believe this is addressed in the FAQ under Rieekan, which should override the rulebook I think? Still, the rules should be updated.

I guess that also only affects Rieekan and not the whole game. Seems like an oversight to me. Like sleeving your alt art cards.

I had experience of this in a game where I wiped out an opponent halfway through turn 5 but I still had Salvation left to activate who could have moved forwards and got one turn of contesting the outpost. They quoted the rulebook at me but I thought I remembered playing till the end of the turn because of Reekan etc.

Anyway didn't effect the overall event standings and a good time was had by all....

TBH I hadn't even thought about Rieekan, I was thinking more about a cloud of fighters left over at the end who could get a kill/precision strike/superior positions.

I think the rule change was intended as something to not overpower Rieekan. The scenario with a fighter cloud though is exactly what (should've) happened at our last store championship. 3 vics and 2 glads vs 1 MC80 and 1 AFMKII with fighters. The MC80 would've died since the Victory forgot to screed, but even if he had we realized his untouched cloud of fighters around the Vic would've burned it down, making the game a 6-4 due to Contested Outpost points, and same result as far as who the champion ended up being.

No matter what the case may be I am guessing that at any official tournament the TO will probably default to the tournament rules even if they contradict the rule book. They really need to send those new documents back to the editor.

One Player Defeated: At the end of a game round, all of one player’s ships are destroyed. The player with at least one ship remaining earns a win and the opposing player receives a loss.

Yep, agreed! BUT win/loss only really matters in Armada for tie breakers.

What if we've had a bloody, brutal fight. I have 2 ships left but you've got a ton of points on Superior Positions. I kill off your last ship, but your 4 Rogue Fighters earn you an extra 60 points at the end. I "won" the game with 400 points, but you just racked up an additional 60 to put you at 445 or whatever. Did I get a 5-5 win? Or was it a 4-6 "win"?

I believe its a 5-5 with no MoV

Yeah, that makes sense. It says the winning player subtracts the losing player's score, so it'd be an MoV of -30 which doesn't seem to be accounted for, so a 5-5 0 MoV seems to be correct.

It really does lend itself to helping squadron builds, as one of my games was also affected in our last tournament. I killed all his ships but his fighters turned an 8-2 into a 7-3.

I believe its a 5-5 with no MoV

This is correct. The losing player can never have an MOV. I had this exact thing happen to me once where I had beaten my opponent by 100 points in MOV but I had lost all my ships and it ended up being a 5-5 no MOV.

There's also instances where a ship is about to fly off the table; if that player can table the opposing player without activating the doomed ship, it's important to know whether the round will continue (forcing the last ship to activate / finish its activation and fly off) or simply end the game precisely when the last opponent's ship goes down.

I feel like continuing to the end of the round makes the most sense and cuts Squadron-heavy fleets a bit of slack. The old tournament doc specified this, right?

Yeah it WAS pretty **** clear that you had to finish out the ROUND.

The January tournament rule update is the first one that had the end of round as the rule.

TBH I hadn't even thought about Rieekan, I was thinking more about a cloud of fighters left over at the end who could get a kill/precision strike/superior positions.

Ruh Roh...

I think I might have scored a previous tournament wrong. It was after Rieekan but the "Cloud of fighters" was the issue.

My ships were destroyed turn 6. My cloud of fighters then destroyed the opponent's ships.

We were playing Precision Strike and he had a lot more tokens than me. So much that when we added them to 400 it was an 8-2.

But now I'm thinking since it was mutual destruction and I was second player...would it have been 5-5 with MOV 0?

Oh yeah, good point. Then had the hypothetical situation in my previous post (if the dude had remembered to Screed) had actually happened, it should've been a 5-5. Still would've been the same result as our champion needed to be beaten by at least a 6-4 to lose, but I will alert our TO about that.

Sigh. This new tournament document has only stressed me out.

Not that this updated wording effects any significant percentage of my games, so maybe I'm just salty because I don't like squadrons and I don't think they need any advantage that makes them more impactful. So I'll just hope that this is lousy editing, lol.

The Rules were essentially updated with Rieekan, and they were the almost universal change from

"Immediately when the last ship is destroyed"

to

"immediately at the end of the round where the last ship is destroyed."

Yes. Squadrons DO get the chance to finish off an enemy. In which case, both players are awarded 400 points, the 2nd Player gets the "Win" but an MoV of 0.

Its straight up under mutual destruction.

This was certainly changed at the time of Rieekan. Because yes, before hand, it was immediately when the last ship was destroyed, and it caused all manner of issues on wether Rieekan actualyl did something or not.. Because if you lost 4 ships in one round and had Rieekan, the question was - did he work, or did he not?

So the wording was clarified to end of round.

But mostly.

Shame on you for reading Reddit.

I guess the issue for the original poster is that the RRG says one thing, the tournament rules say another, and the FAQ doesn't really clarify. So the question is, are the rules different between casual play and tournaments? We play casual games using the tournament rules, but I could see where people wouldn't even open the tournament rules if they weren't interested in that type of play. And by the way, the FAQ document is now called "Tournament FAQ."

If you play casual games you can do basically whatever the F you want, so it hardly matters. It's tournaments where the rubber really hits the road and rules matter.

Yep, exactly as Hastatior has stated.

If there's a rules discrepency for Casual Casual Games, and not just Casual Tournament style Games, then find a way to resolve the dispute...

... Walk over Legos, Duel at 10 paces... Over Legos... Whatever, I don't care, and I shouldn't care, unless you're involved.

If you want any structure, then expect the tournament rules to be the call on... Mostly because tournament rules aren't printed and put into boxes. Although they could update the main Rulebook online, I figure they'd only be doing that when they reprint core sets, if at all - because the Hard copy is what people will be playing with when they open the box.

I mean, really... If you have that much of an issue with the End of Game / End of Round / Immediately thing... You should only be playing 300 points, since that's what the Rulebook tells you to play, right? And that 400 points is only in the Tournament Regulations...

I mean, I don't want to come off harsh and dismissive... (I mean, I kinow I do, but I don't want to...)

Playing the game your way should be the most important way to play. If you want 1000pts and play until Dawn, then Do so...

But it becomes very difficult to provide official, fair responses based on what you are doing. As someone who is asked questions a lot, I feel it gets taxing... My default will be "If you're playing the game your way, play it your way, don't let my way make a decision for you, I have no basis in your game."

The trip is a lot of us (I'm not going to call it a majority or anything) who visit these forums are invested in the regular tournament style game, because it provides that official structure to a game. It is supported with the FAQs and such. There are some, who don't give a rats, and that's absolutely fantastic - Vykes shows his massively arted battle reports for that very reason...

But I also know Vykes doesn't come down to me on my level and ask me how a game should be run... What rules would be followed. What should be ignored, et al...

I guess I'm just grumpy and tired today, I don't know.

They could at least put it in a general FAQ. I think consistency is important, and while I agree with you that the tournament rules are for competitive play and should take precedent over the general rules, it's not very fun for someone new to tournaments to get burned because of a misunderstanding that is easily rectified by adding some red text to a PDF.

Dras- I'm sorry if this has put a bee in your bonnet! I literally have just overlooked that discrepency and I play by tournament rules exclusively. It's never come up for me, and I've never seen it occur so it just took me a bit by surprise and I wanted to make sure I had it all right.

I am not suggesting people play "their way"- there's the right way and any way you'd like to do it- I know which way I will choose. Drawing a distinction between tournament play and casual play is fine, but this somehow slipped under the radar for me. Not miffed, just adjusting!