Well, some fleet designs do well against others, and some completely fold. It could happen that a bomber fleet goes against an almost completely AS design, and then do very well against the other 2 match ups. Granted, 10/0 0/10 10/0 is hard to conceive, but it's not impossible. I've heard the Clonisher described as an 80/20 list, being that it decimates 80% of the lists it encounters and folds against the other 20%. So even if you are paired with your equal in skill, fleet design (and objective selection) can negate your ability to compensate. In which case it would be the player's fault for developing a lopsided fleet, and that could happen in a tournament.

Then I would argue that it depends on how you define player skill. I would say what decides skill is the following:

1. List selection and the choices you as a player make in building a list and knowing the capabilities of your list(requires playtesting)

2. Knowing the capabilities of your opponents list (requires playtesting)

3. Learning when to press the attack and go for the jugular when you are in a dominate position, or learning when to try to mitigate and hold your opponent at bay to fight for a mediocre loss/win or draw. (This skill is acquired by doing the prior two)

In which case the Armada setting and tournament rule set provides this the best given the time requirement and player involvement. Generally speaking the player that is most skilled will win a tournament nearly every time provided he learns to excll at the three things mentioned above. Which again requires studying games and playing games. That will ultimately be how you overcome the perceived Rock/Paper/Scissors in the game.

I would like to add that even if we can solidly prove that there is a paper/rock/scissors to the game (which I tend to believe to some extent that there is). In Armada paper does not automatically 10-0 Rock. And when flotillas come out I think there will be a case of paper/Rock/scissors/lizard/Spock.

As a point of reference, 8 have watched games between players (and played games) where it was a close game up till the last turn or so where a key piece dies and gives a 9-1 to one of the players.

The question is, is that a close game or not?

I've both won and lost that game a few times, lol.

It's a close game with a not-close result. If I barely end the game with my 175 point ISD alive, it will have been closer than the scores reflect.

I have seen that occur a LOT! That last turn push, or that last set of Fire Lanes Tokens just turns the game around and BOOM what was close is now a HUGE MoV margin!

Well, some fleet designs do well against others, and some completely fold. It could happen that a bomber fleet goes against an almost completely AS design, and then do very well against the other 2 match ups. Granted, 10/0 0/10 10/0 is hard to conceive, but it's not impossible. I've heard the Clonisher described as an 80/20 list, being that it decimates 80% of the lists it encounters and folds against the other 20%. So even if you are paired with your equal in skill, fleet design (and objective selection) can negate your ability to compensate. In which case it would be the player's fault for developing a lopsided fleet, and that could happen in a tournament.

Then I would argue that it depends on how you define player skill. I would say what decides skill is the following:

1. List selection and the choices you as a player make in building a list and knowing the capabilities of your list(requires playtesting)

2. Knowing the capabilities of your opponents list (requires playtesting)

3. Learning when to press the attack and go for the jugular when you are in a dominate position, or learning when to try to mitigate and hold your opponent at bay to fight for a mediocre loss/win or draw. (This skill is acquired by doing the prior two)

In which case the Armada setting and tournament rule set provides this the best given the time requirement and player involvement. Generally speaking the player that is most skilled will win a tournament nearly every time provided he learns to excll at the three things mentioned above. Which again requires studying games and playing games. That will ultimately be how you overcome the perceived Rock/Paper/Scissors in the game.

I would like to add that even if we can solidly prove that there is a paper/rock/scissors to the game (which I tend to believe to some extent that there is). In Armada paper does not automatically 10-0 Rock. And when flotillas come out I think there will be a case of paper/Rock/scissors/lizard/Spock.

You have a great grasp of Armada

As you have illustrated. Armada is about experience. If you have played wargames like Gothic, 40k, etc you have a small leg up but ultimately you will need experience to do good.

I think a win/lose system would be a disaster, linked in with the 6 round system and the fact It's very easy to avoid engaging if you have fast ish ships, I can imagine game after game of people killing one ship or a couple of fighters then just disengaging and running away for the last few rounds.

I think people are missing my above statement on how to track wins, losses, etc.

This is not about saying "player X gets more kills and game is over."

Instead, it's about streamlining the current score so that players with more wins perform better in the rankings, and players that get lesser wins aren't out of the running. This is because the difference between a 7-3 and an 8-2 can be covered by the destruction of a single ship.


What this accomplishes:

Less chance of drawing consecutive "baby seal" players as a winner of Round 2.

Natural draws and close wins are more valuable than losses, but less valuable overall.

Single blowout wins are big, but can be caught by consistent winners with a major loss

Harder to "back in" to a top position with a single big win at the end of the tournament

Consecutive wins are rewarded better than two blowouts and a loss.

Less reward for destroying a single large ship and running away (extremely common when attacking large ships, rewards MSU players against heavy hitters). Single small ship + run gives lesser win and more likely to lose a tiebreaker.

So you are saying that if I, 9-1, 4-6, then 10-0, that I should be placed below they guy to 7-3, 7-3, 8-2? Why is that?

@thecactusman17

You do realize that the way the system is set up is that a 7-3 and an 8-2 are about 1 ships worth of points apart so that if you are losing 8-2 and you take a ship out you can jump back to a 7-3 right? This makes a back and forth game possible.

So you are saying that if I, 9-1, 4-6, then 10-0, that I should be placed below they guy to 7-3, 7-3, 8-2? Why is that?

Because you Lost a Game.

And Losers Lose, under the assumed format.

So you are saying that if I, 9-1, 4-6, then 10-0, that I should be placed below they guy to 7-3, 7-3, 8-2? Why is that?

Because you Lost a Game.

And Losers Lose, under the assumed format.

Armada has a diverse field of building. If you change something you will drastically affect what is used and played. Killing a MC30 SHOULD jump your up a point and them down a point or further your score for the next point.

You are asking to turn a game that is skill based in all things (tournament play requires different skills than casual) into less skill and more on just blowing things up

So you are saying that if I, 9-1, 4-6, then 10-0, that I should be placed below they guy to 7-3, 7-3, 8-2? Why is that?

In my scenario, you'd have a score of 10 for two wins and a loss in 3 rounds, and your opponent would have a score of 12 for 3 wins greater than a 6-4.

You had an average win, a single loss, and a single blowout win. The other player had three average wins. If they'd had a single loss, you'd be tied. If they'd had a single tie and a minor win, you'd be tied.

But since they *actually won* three games, they got ranked higher.

This is just a theoretical idea. I'm not saying ZOMG EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE, I'm saying that now that we have several Regionals games under the belt maybe we can look at whether the current score system is right for a 400 point game with players capable of getting easily 600+ points in the right situation.

There are some list matchups where a blowout is not possible, and that punishes a winning 7-3 list just because they might not have been able to get a perfect game.

So because he/she played a more average set of games, did not take as many risks, he she gets more points even though I did and it backfired in 1 game?

You are getting rid of the need to take risks.

600 points is a HORRIBLE idea. That is 200 points of squadrons. Just make Rhymer the king and don't play then. You would need 3.5 hour rounds. I don't know about anyone else but a 11-13 hour tournament for 3 rounds does not sound appealing.

Look, your ideas and suggestions have merit but they are not considering the drastic level of changes that it would do to the game. Nor the balance for that matter.

Actually, I'm requiring more players to take risks.

Right now, a player with a comfortable lead does not need to take risks. They need to play average games to maintain the position.

The only players who need to take risks are the players who had a bad round and are behind in the points standings.

Now, winning players need to continue taking risks to win games, because their opponent no longer needs to absolutely get a 10-0 win to come back.

You and I must really be playing different games. That or have very different skill levels in out play groups. To win I have to take risks. I have to choose people Advanced Gunnery objectives, or other such objectives. Why? Simply because I have to take the risk to win.

Your style means people just need a 7-3. They just need to take out an opponents big ship or around that in points and they can win the tournament. This means you will see tank builds more than anything. It will change how people build lists. Why take squadrons now, if you lose just 70 points (small ship and 1-3 squadrons) you just gave up a 7-3. They just have to live and run away now since they get what, 4 points? Why play for more? What risk do they need to take? Why would anyone take anything other than large ships and Motti? You will see 3 ISD's and Motti as a primary fleet just because it can take damage and still run and kill things. Boring.

You and I must really be playing different games. That or have very different skill levels in out play groups. To win I have to take risks. I have to choose people Advanced Gunnery objectives, or other such objectives. Why? Simply because I have to take the risk to win.

Your style means people just need a 7-3. They just need to take out an opponents big ship or around that in points and they can win the tournament. This means you will see tank builds more than anything. It will change how people build lists. Why take squadrons now, if you lose just 70 points (small ship and 1-3 squadrons) you just gave up a 7-3. They just have to live and run away now since they get what, 4 points? Why play for more? What risk do they need to take? Why would anyone take anything other than large ships and Motti? You will see 3 ISD's and Motti as a primary fleet just because it can take damage and still run and kill things. Boring.

As you say, we must be playing different games, because this is what already happens in my local groups.

What it means is that nobody takes large ships period. The largest ship in our top 4 at Sacramento Regionals was an Assault Frigate Mk2B. The "run in, blast 'em, and run out" is already strong here. It basically makes taking large ships a liability.

The goal I'm trying to reach here, is a situation where run in and run out is harder to rely on for more than one match. Right now a player can safely aim for the tie in a round after a 10-0 win and comfortably expect to be at or near the top in the next round when they may have a more favorable matchup.

I don't see how reducing the point results is going to change that. Sounds more like a local meta issue.

And reducing the tournament points from five steps to three is going to cause more problems that it would solve. What is a Win, and what is a Modified Win? So a Win in X-Wing is if you beat your opponent's score by more than 12, which is 12% of the points value of their fleet. Apply that same percentage to Armada, and you have to beat your opponent by 50pts, which right now is a 6-4. So I swoop in, blow up one ship and dance around you for the rest of the game. Boom. Win. Five points. Someone else flies in and destroys every ship in their opponent's fleet. Boom. Win. Five points? Are those victories really comparable? An MoV of 50 to one that's a minimum of 400? So I could go in whole hog three games, table two opponents, get a bonus 270pts from Fire Lanes, make a slight mistake one round and lose by literally one point, and end the day with an MoV of 1,340 and a tournament score of 10. Then I lose the tournament to a guy who killed 150pts of stuff and cowered for the rest of the games?

In X-Wing, your fleet is 100pts, the cheapest ship is about 8 and the most expensive caps at, what, fifty or sixty? In Armada, you're spending 400, your cheapest option is still also eight (woo TIE Fighters!), and your most expensive caps at 216. It's a much bigger range of points and it requires a many-tiered results system to give you an accurate depiction of who really won.

As I said before, the scoring system isn't the issue, it's the limitation to three rounds. A fourth round would help clear up who was clubbing seals and who was actually doing well against tougher opponents. Maybe not perfectly, but it would give a better reflection.

I don't see how reducing the point results is going to change that. Sounds more like a local meta issue.

And reducing the tournament points from five steps to three is going to cause more problems that it would solve. What is a Win, and what is a Modified Win? So a Win in X-Wing is if you beat your opponent's score by more than 12, which is 12% of the points value of their fleet. Apply that same percentage to Armada, and you have to beat your opponent by 50pts, which right now is a 6-4. So I swoop in, blow up one ship and dance around you for the rest of the game. Boom. Win. Five points. Someone else flies in and destroys every ship in their opponent's fleet. Boom. Win. Five points? Are those victories really comparable? An MoV of 50 to one that's a minimum of 400? So I could go in whole hog three games, table two opponents, get a bonus 270pts from Fire Lanes, make a slight mistake one round and lose by literally one point, and end the day with an MoV of 1,340 and a tournament score of 10. Then I lose the tournament to a guy who killed 150pts of stuff and cowered for the rest of the games?

In X-Wing, your fleet is 100pts, the cheapest ship is about 8 and the most expensive caps at, what, fifty or sixty? In Armada, you're spending 400, your cheapest option is still also eight (woo TIE Fighters!), and your most expensive caps at 216. It's a much bigger range of points and it requires a many-tiered results system to give you an accurate depiction of who really won.

As I said before, the scoring system isn't the issue, it's the limitation to three rounds. A fourth round would help clear up who was clubbing seals and who was actually doing well against tougher opponents. Maybe not perfectly, but it would give a better reflection.

I don't see how reducing the point results is going to change that. Sounds more like a local meta issue.

And reducing the tournament points from five steps to three is going to cause more problems that it would solve. What is a Win, and what is a Modified Win? So a Win in X-Wing is if you beat your opponent's score by more than 12, which is 12% of the points value of their fleet. Apply that same percentage to Armada, and you have to beat your opponent by 50pts, which right now is a 6-4. So I swoop in, blow up one ship and dance around you for the rest of the game. Boom. Win. Five points. Someone else flies in and destroys every ship in their opponent's fleet. Boom. Win. Five points? Are those victories really comparable? An MoV of 50 to one that's a minimum of 400? So I could go in whole hog three games, table two opponents, get a bonus 270pts from Fire Lanes, make a slight mistake one round and lose by literally one point, and end the day with an MoV of 1,340 and a tournament score of 10. Then I lose the tournament to a guy who killed 150pts of stuff and cowered for the rest of the games?

In X-Wing, your fleet is 100pts, the cheapest ship is about 8 and the most expensive caps at, what, fifty or sixty? In Armada, you're spending 400, your cheapest option is still also eight (woo TIE Fighters!), and your most expensive caps at 216. It's a much bigger range of points and it requires a many-tiered results system to give you an accurate depiction of who really won.

As I said before, the scoring system isn't the issue, it's the limitation to three rounds. A fourth round would help clear up who was clubbing seals and who was actually doing well against tougher opponents. Maybe not perfectly, but it would give a better reflection.

Actually, what I mentioned above is that a 5 point win would be a current 10-0 win by MOV, PLUS a mandatory fleet wipe. Otherwise, you get 4.

This makes 5 points much harder, and makes every point critical. 4 points for a full win (7-3 through 10-0 without fleet wipe), 3 points for a minor win (basically, a 6-4), 2 points for a tie, and 1 point for a loss better than 10-0 fleet wipe.

By compressing the points system, players don't get swings that are as insurmountable. Plus, they can get one or two big wins and still aim for a top 4 position with a minor win or a tie.

Part of what got me looking at this was the Sacramento Regionals, where the first place player ended up winning because the top table managed to get a 5-5 draw after 6 rounds and his 8-2 jumped in after facing a player much further down the ranking list due to score. Which is not to say he shouldn't have won, I played him first round and he had a great list and played well. But in my system, he would have been much closer to the top for the third round and playing another player in the top 4. He still would have won and likely jumped ahead with his win, but it would have been clearer mathematically how it had occurred.

BTW, I completely appreciate that a larger number of rounds would clear up all these issues. If it were possible to shorten the game length and squeeze in an extra 1-2 rounds, that would also negate all issues I am bringing up. But I don't think it can realistically happen without a major change to the game design.

So. . . A person could kill 50 points and get the same as the guy who killed 250 points in difference? How is that fair? How does that show skill or such?

As for your insurmountable swings, I have gone 5-5 with a win of 1 mov to winning the same tournament becuase I played smarter and took appropriate risks.

Good players end up lower in the rankings at times. Naboobo2000, Shmitty, Mikael Hasselstein, Admiral Theia, and many many more have ended up middle table before why should they not have an actual chance to win if they play harder and take more risks?

Your version requires less risks. You also won't see certain objectives anymore. Well, they will never be chosen anyways.

In the current system we have, you almost always have a chance to pull through.

Oh those objectives, are Fire Lanes, Intel Sweep, Contested Outpost, and possibly any of the reds. Why take the risk when all one needs is 50 points in the end.

Oh, your 10-0 and must wipe their fleet rule. Sorry to say, completely unrealistic. Expecially with Flotillas coming out. Not when a player can turtle up even more and not care. Oh and how does the system work with objectives? Why have them if all you need is 50 points? It will be **** impossible to wipe out a 20+ fleet of GR-75's so there goes anyone's hope of getting 400 points AND wiping out their fleet. Oh, you have 3 ISD's and Motti, we'll never going to get that 5 points there.

Your system doesn't work.

BTW, I completely appreciate that a larger number of rounds would clear up all these issues. If it were possible to shorten the game length and squeeze in an extra 1-2 rounds, that would also negate all issues I am bringing up. But I don't think it can realistically happen without a major change to the game design.

Oh, mind you, most big games (40k, Dropzone, etc) have 2 hour round limits. They do just fine with their Swiss systems which are like Armada.

BTW, I completely appreciate that a larger number of rounds would clear up all these issues. If it were possible to shorten the game length and squeeze in an extra 1-2 rounds, that would also negate all issues I am bringing up. But I don't think it can realistically happen without a major change to the game design.

How would you do that? Lessen the amount of turns? That would change the game completely. You would then have to increase the movement tools distance as well as change the board size. You couldn't play with squadrons either since they take the most time out of everything. It would be a completely different game at that point. Even with dropping it down to 5 turns.

Oh, mind you, most big games (40k, Dropzone, etc) have 2 hour round limits. They do just fine with their Swiss systems which are like Armada.

It is possible that at the higher end, 40K has changed to a system like Armada with a greater points spread. When I played, it was far more like X-Wing minus the cut, but that was a few years back. Also, the major tournaments were multi-day events in almost all instances, and frequently had hundreds of participants.

Also, 40k had 2 hour round limits because players could have upwards of 200 models on the board. Armada has fewer. It's the fiddly tools, i think, that slow the game down. As i said, I don't think it can be done without drastically altering the core game. It is definitely true that because of the long rounds, the current points swing is extremely wide at lower attendance levels.

You mean the tactical planning and strategic plays that goes into the game. My games usually got for a bit over an hour. This is because I know what I want to do and have planned them as my opponent makes their move. That is me thinking 3 to 4 steps ahead. However, not everyone can do that or wants to. That means they will analyze a situation and work out the problem. That is fine, not everyone is a fast player.

This isn't X-Wing. This isn't meant to be a game that you have 5 mediocre games in the span of a night. Instead you have 2-3 amazing games that were enjoyable, dynamic, balanced, and fun. That is Armada.

If you can't tell, I hate X-Wing. It is a so so game that follows 40k in the balance department.

Oh, 40k is still 2 hours long but now that people use Titans and such, in normal lists, model count goes down.

I came in third last weekend at a seasonal tournament. I had 20 tournament points, 2nd place had 21. I had a 1-9, a 10-0, and a 9-1. My second round was against someone who scored 6 in his first game, so I want disproportionately put with someone who played weaker than me.

In my last two games, I didn't lose a single ship, while I destroyed all but one ship from two opponents. Why should that be rated less well than two very mediocre victories?

It's so much easier to get a 6, 7, or 8 point victory than a 9, or 10 point victory. They should, of course, be held in greater esteem, even if you don't table your opponent.

...

Just noting, I find it very interesting that there is a mirror proposal in the X-Wing Forums...

Their proposal is to switch away from Win/Loss to MOV based Rankings... In order to Cut quicker and earlier and cut down on 2-day events...

...

Just noting, I find it very interesting that there is a mirror proposal in the X-Wing Forums...

Their proposal is to switch away from Win/Loss to MOV based Rankings... In order to Cut quicker and earlier and cut down on 2-day events...

The grass is always greener...

Op has many good observations, but I'm not sure his changes would alleviate the main problem: there should ideally be more Swiss rounds.

With only 3 rounds you've a decent system for declaring a WINNER. The runner ups are more a victim to fate than is ideal.

But imo the system works well enough. Better than X wing. And it does produce a clear winner - I don't care too much about the other standings.