we have been talking about this in our local group a little bit. With regionals this Saturday and finding out a Bye is worth 9 tournament points we see 2 long term problems with how tournaments work for this otherwise well balanced game

the first problem is Draws and the way tournament results are scored. This is not another dig at ID's, but in our group we have an idea that all games should be Win or Loss. this would mean that we remove 5-5 from the scoring system and start with 6-4. MOV would be adjusted to suit. this way even if after 6 rounds of back and forth with lots of ships destroyed if you are ahead by 1 point you are the winner. if the unlikely situation comes up where the MOV is the same on both sides then the second played is the winner. the reason for this is being the first player in this game is a HUGE advantage and have the advantage right from the start to win the game and it will stop them from just running away to get the win. The second player does not always have the chance to run. The first player also could work out that if the second player does run they could win the tournament so they have control over what objective to play to help stop the second player from running

the second problem is Byes. This is in 2 parts first the natural Bye that come from odd numbered players. 8 tournament points is very strong. Players should not be punished because no enough players showed up but if a strong player gets 8 points at the start that is a huge advantage. maybe change it down to 7 instead of 8? need more time to work that one out. The second part is Byes for Regionals, Nationals, Worlds. At our regionals there will be 5 players with first round Byes and it looks like we might only have 10 people show up. In a 3 round tournament this is huge it will be very hard for other players to catch them. So instead of Byes for players who won store champs and so on, how about they get awarded 2 tournament point towards there final score at Regionals, Nationals, Worlds. this would mean they would have to play all 3 rounds just like everyone else but they have a little reward for doing so well last time they played. it also helps out the situation we will have where half the players wont just be sitting on the side lines waiting for round 2

so what do you all think is this a step in the right direction?

has anyone else suggested this this?

does anyone else think the same as we do?

look forward to your comments

Armada is a fantastic game that does not suit high level tournament play. Casual Game Night kits are fine, but once the competition ramps up to Regionals, the current structure does not appear robust.

As you mention, a Regionals tournament that has ten players attend, with half having Store Champs Byes, is going to create some very interesting pairings on the day. Having ANY kind of bye in a three round tournament, especially an eight or nine point bye, makes it extremely difficult for other players to close the gap.

It does not seem logical that a person could win a Regionals tournament, only needing to play Rounds 2 and 3.

Removing the 5-5 result option would then force more players to engage, rather that set up in a corner with speed zero.

Hopefully, the FFG think-tank will deliver a better system with the August tournament (ID) changes?

Armada is a fantastic game that does not suit high level tournament play. Casual Game Night kits are fine, but once the competition ramps up to Regionals, the current structure does not appear robust.

Any tournament will need 6-8 games to play to a satisfactory conclusion, the trouble is how many store run events can take up the entire floor space of the store for 2-3 days to hold a satisfactory tournament. Perhaps what we should be trying to do is make it less of a competition and more of a fun gathering with cool prizes and neat give a-ways.

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

I was going to point that out.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

Sure it's technically a win, but how does it really help you? You got the same TP as the loser, and in all likelihood theory anyway, you are going to face the better player in the next round. You're getting a maximum of 28 MOV to carry forward in the event of a tournament tie. (I'm sure we can agree that's pretty insignificant).

I'm not necessarily saying a 6-4 with an MOV of 1+ is the answer either, mind you.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

I was going to point that out.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

Sure it's technically a win, but how does it really help you? You got the same TP as the loser, and in all likelihood theory anyway, you are going to face the better player in the next round. You're getting a maximum of 28 MOV to carry forward in the event of a tournament tie. (I'm sure we can agree that's pretty insignificant).

I'm not necessarily saying a 6-4 with an MOV of 1+ is the answer either, mind you.

Won a store championship with a 5-5 and an MoV of 1 for game one and then 9-1 and a 9-1. Its not impossible.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

I was going to point that out.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

Sure it's technically a win, but how does it really help you? You got the same TP as the loser, and in all likelihood theory anyway, you are going to face the better player in the next round. You're getting a maximum of 28 MOV to carry forward in the event of a tournament tie. (I'm sure we can agree that's pretty insignificant).

I'm not necessarily saying a 6-4 with an MOV of 1+ is the answer either, mind you.

Won a store championship with a 5-5 and an MoV of 1 for game one and then 9-1 and a 9-1. Its not impossible.

We need to add to Godwin's Law, Sun Tzu's law, and Occam's Razor; "Lyr's Law". For every extreme outlier that can be imagined, Lyr has experienced a real world scenario where the outlier was practically unbiquitous.

Was your total Tournament Points higher than the 2nd place or did you tie? If you tied, was your MOV greater than 28 pts?

EDIT: Added smiley face emote so you know i'm teasing/joking.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

I was going to point that out.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

Sure it's technically a win, but how does it really help you? You got the same TP as the loser, and in all likelihood theory anyway, you are going to face the better player in the next round. You're getting a maximum of 28 MOV to carry forward in the event of a tournament tie. (I'm sure we can agree that's pretty insignificant).

I'm not necessarily saying a 6-4 with an MOV of 1+ is the answer either, mind you.

Won a store championship with a 5-5 and an MoV of 1 for game one and then 9-1 and a 9-1. Its not impossible.

We need to add to Godwin's Law, Sun Tzu's law, and Occam's Razor; "Lyr's Law". For every extreme outlier that can be imagined, Lyr has experienced a real world scenario where the outlier was practically unbiquitous.

Was your total Tournament Points higher than the 2nd place or did you tie? If you tied, was your MOV greater than 28 pts?

EDIT: Added smiley face emote so you know i'm teasing/joking.

I beat shmitty out by 1 TP. He had higher MoV but i had the TP.

I don't mind a Lyr law. I am usually the joke around here anyways ^_~

I agree that the 5-5 doesn't need to be fixed. There will be a winner and a loser and I personally think the graduated tournament point system is better than the win-draw-loss system. It rewards the destruction of ships, the gaining of objectives and the savvy to keep ships and squadrons alive.

As for the byes, the earned 9-1 is fine IMHO. I don't like the natural bye, however, I agree that should be reduced; 6-4 or 7-3.

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

So long as they're not unique and restricted to the Tournament scene.

I mean, that's why I love the Alternate Art cards we currently have. Because they're Alternate, they provide nothing 'different' other than the look....

If going to a tournament means I can get a "Lando in the Falcon" Squadron, but only at a certain tournament, I'd probably give up... it breaks the inherent fairness you have between Casual and Competitive Play...

Also, increasing the stakes like this would only encourage people to turtle more in their corner. Bid reasonable low with a good defensive fleet, take second player, turtle, either get a 6-4, or force your opponent to try to break in.

Incidentally, this is why I made that thread about get-the-f-outa-dodge. Not engaging, and to a lesser extent, disengaging, I still think, need some kind of preventative medicine applied to them.

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

So long as they're not unique and restricted to the Tournament scene.

I mean, that's why I love the Alternate Art cards we currently have. Because they're Alternate, they provide nothing 'different' other than the look....

If going to a tournament means I can get a "Lando in the Falcon" Squadron, but only at a certain tournament, I'd probably give up... it breaks the inherent fairness you have between Casual and Competitive Play...

Good point. So lets go with cool cards for all, the only thing you get for coming first is bragging rights until next time.

Incidentally, this is why I made that thread about get-the-f-outa-dodge. Not engaging, and to a lesser extent, disengaging, I still think, need some kind of preventative medicine applied to them.

So, the question I have: Should a player the deliberately play to lose because you don't like the way he chooses to try and win?

If a player is trying to play well I don't have a problem with his tactical choices, perhaps the problem here is mine if it doesn't turn out how I would hope it does.

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

So long as they're not unique and restricted to the Tournament scene.

I mean, that's why I love the Alternate Art cards we currently have. Because they're Alternate, they provide nothing 'different' other than the look....

If going to a tournament means I can get a "Lando in the Falcon" Squadron, but only at a certain tournament, I'd probably give up... it breaks the inherent fairness you have between Casual and Competitive Play...

Good point. So lets go with cool cards for all, the only thing you get for coming first is bragging rights until next time.

Incidentally, this is why I made that thread about get-the-f-outa-dodge. Not engaging, and to a lesser extent, disengaging, I still think, need some kind of preventative medicine applied to them.

So, the question I have: Should a player the deliberately play to lose because you don't like the way he chooses to try and win?

If a player is trying to play well I don't have a problem with his tactical choices, perhaps the problem here is mine if it doesn't turn out how I would hope it does.

This is a poor summary of the situation.

The problem is the ease at which one can deny points because of any number of the following things happening:

-your opponent looks across the table at your list and believes, correctly or not, he has no hope of winning. Thus he deploys and engages in such a way as to produce the most minimally scoring game possible.

-your opponent realizes after deployment, correctly or not, that he screwed up, has no hope of winning, and then seeks to minimize losses by not engaging.

-you are clearly winning the game, but score no points for ships limping away at 1 hull. Knowing this, your opponent 'bugs out' denying you points.

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

So long as they're not unique and restricted to the Tournament scene.

I mean, that's why I love the Alternate Art cards we currently have. Because they're Alternate, they provide nothing 'different' other than the look....

If going to a tournament means I can get a "Lando in the Falcon" Squadron, but only at a certain tournament, I'd probably give up... it breaks the inherent fairness you have between Casual and Competitive Play...

Good point. So lets go with cool cards for all, the only thing you get for coming first is bragging rights until next time.

Incidentally, this is why I made that thread about get-the-f-outa-dodge. Not engaging, and to a lesser extent, disengaging, I still think, need some kind of preventative medicine applied to them.

So, the question I have: Should a player the deliberately play to lose because you don't like the way he chooses to try and win?

If a player is trying to play well I don't have a problem with his tactical choices, perhaps the problem here is mine if it doesn't turn out how I would hope it does.

This is a poor summary of the situation.

The problem is the ease at which one can deny points because of any number of the following things happening:

-your opponent looks across the table at your list and believes, correctly or not, he has no hope of winning. Thus he deploys and engages in such a way as to produce the most minimally scoring game possible.

-your opponent realizes after deployment, correctly or not, that he screwed up, has no hope of winning, and then seeks to minimize losses by not engaging.

-you are clearly winning the game, but score no points for ships limping away at 1 hull. Knowing this, your opponent 'bugs out' denying you points.

All of these are realistic factors.

The question you should be asking yourself is how do you stop these things from happening with your list...

Because their list needs to be actually capable of doing that....

New ships, Named Squadrons and Upgrade Cards for all who participate? If you reward participation and having fun then players may just participate and have fun. Who cares about draws or byes if the idea is to get together and play great games?

So long as they're not unique and restricted to the Tournament scene.

I mean, that's why I love the Alternate Art cards we currently have. Because they're Alternate, they provide nothing 'different' other than the look....

If going to a tournament means I can get a "Lando in the Falcon" Squadron, but only at a certain tournament, I'd probably give up... it breaks the inherent fairness you have between Casual and Competitive Play...

Good point. So lets go with cool cards for all, the only thing you get for coming first is bragging rights until next time.

Incidentally, this is why I made that thread about get-the-f-outa-dodge. Not engaging, and to a lesser extent, disengaging, I still think, need some kind of preventative medicine applied to them.

So, the question I have: Should a player the deliberately play to lose because you don't like the way he chooses to try and win?

If a player is trying to play well I don't have a problem with his tactical choices, perhaps the problem here is mine if it doesn't turn out how I would hope it does.

This is a poor summary of the situation.

The problem is the ease at which one can deny points because of any number of the following things happening:

-your opponent looks across the table at your list and believes, correctly or not, he has no hope of winning. Thus he deploys and engages in such a way as to produce the most minimally scoring game possible.

-your opponent realizes after deployment, correctly or not, that he screwed up, has no hope of winning, and then seeks to minimize losses by not engaging.

-you are clearly winning the game, but score no points for ships limping away at 1 hull. Knowing this, your opponent 'bugs out' denying you points.

All of these are realistic factors.

The question you should be asking yourself is how do you stop these things from happening with your list...

Because their list needs to be actually capable of doing that....

Dras, certainly, 1 part of the solution is to 'git gud'. But it's not the only part of the solution.

Going back to the post that prompted my response, above, the poster asked:

"Should a player the deliberately play to lose because you don't like the way he chooses to try and win?"

This is precisely my point, and precisely the problem: he's not playing to win. At some point, he's just switching to playing to not lose as badly as possible, and I feel it's too easy to achieve that result in a 6 turn game with such non-responsive movement paradigms.

In Xwing, large ships were changed to award half points for hull values 1/2 or less. Such scoring fixes are certainly then, not beyond the scope of FFG to realize and implement.

You can get 5-5 and still be a winner or a loser.

I was going to point that out.

There is always a winner at a draw. It is either second player or the one with more points.

Sure it's technically a win, but how does it really help you? You got the same TP as the loser, and in all likelihood theory anyway, you are going to face the better player in the next round. You're getting a maximum of 28 MOV to carry forward in the event of a tournament tie. (I'm sure we can agree that's pretty insignificant).

I'm not necessarily saying a 6-4 with an MOV of 1+ is the answer either, mind you.

Won a store championship with a 5-5 and an MoV of 1 for game one and then 9-1 and a 9-1. Its not impossible.

Also, increasing the stakes like this would only encourage people to turtle more in their corner. Bid reasonable low with a good defensive fleet, take second player, turtle, either get a 6-4, or force your opponent to try to break in.

First player can stop that by picking a yellow objective. You cant stay turtled up in a corner with a yellow or half the blues

First player can stop the turtle with the right plan

But it's not the only part of the solution.

1). I'd never phrase it with that connotation. "Git Gud"... Because I'm not advocating that at all. That makes the assumption that the person I'm referring to is not doing their best, not actualising their potential, or is a braindead non-player... No. That's an ******* of a thing to assume.

2). It is not the only part of the solution. But it is the only part of the Solution that you can actually do anything about.

But it's not the only part of the solution.

1). I'd never phrase it with that connotation. "Git Gud"... Because I'm not advocating that at all. That makes the assumption that the person I'm referring to is not doing their best, not actualising their potential, or is a braindead non-player... No. That's an ******* of a thing to assume.

2). It is not the only part of the solution. But it is the only part of the Solution that you can actually do anything about.

1. Not that there's any way for you to know this, but my language usage was a nod to Biggs' post here, where I thought his ironic use of "git gud" was pretty **** funny. I was emulating him, or at least I thought so, and trying to be ironic funny like him. I know you didn't / wouldn't use such language or think that about your opponent.

2. Eh. I suppose. Or maybe half the fun of these boards are the illusion that our theories, ideas, and suggestions might somehow make a difference somewhere?

1. Not that there's any way for you to know this, but my language usage was a nod to Biggs' post here, where I thought his ironic use of "git gud" was pretty **** funny. I was emulating him, or at least I thought so, and trying to be ironic funny like him. I know you didn't / wouldn't use such language or think that about your opponent.

2. Eh. I suppose. Or maybe half the fun of these boards are the illusion that our theories, ideas, and suggestions might somehow make a difference somewhere?

To Misquote a different story system.

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment..."

The Store Champ byes are only worth 8pts, not 9.

.

The Store Champ byes are only worth 8pts, not 9.

I remember reading else where they were 9