I'm waiting for just a regular bare bones 400pt regular style tournament.

Looks like I might be waiting a while. (?)

I realized I should sit this one out as I'll be doing a lot of travelling with family in the next two months, until August.

but also

I'm waiting for just a regular bare bones 400pt regular style tournament.

Looks like I might be waiting a while. (?)

Being able to change lists mid-tournament makes sense in this format for a couple reasons:

- Being locked into an underperforming list for a one-day tournament is unfortunate. Being locked in for 6-8 weeks... well, that sucks.

- The prospect of new toys being made available during the tournament means we'll want to play with them.

I'm going to make this whole thing as uncomplicated as possible though, dude.

I like knowing what the opponent's list is a week ahead. I think it adds to the gamesmanship - planning deployment, etc.

also I would rather not play games after midnight, but timezones sometimes put a crimp in that one.

I'm waiting for just a regular bare bones 400pt regular style tournament.

Looks like I might be waiting a while. (?)

Being able to change lists mid-tournament makes sense in this format for a couple reasons:

- Being locked into an underperforming list for a one-day tournament is unfortunate. Being locked in for 6-8 weeks... well, that sucks.

- The prospect of new toys being made available during the tournament means we'll want to play with them.

I'm going to make this whole thing as uncomplicated as possible though, dude.

I agree with that. wasnt thinking about it.

If the rules are basic besides being able to switch up, I'd go for that too. I just don't like wonky "outside the game" rules or teams in particular.

...not that what I myself "need" is important. I just won't play until something I like comes along. Noones feelings will be hurt.

Changing lists to match an opponent just seems meh. I like normal Vassal tournaments becuase I can test one list against more people with more dynamic ideas.

If you want to allow players to use different fleets throughout an event, I'd recommend doing it the way Warmachine does:

Each player shows up with two fleet lists he can use throughout the tournament. Before each match, he examines the two fleet lists his opponent can choose between and then each player secretly chooses one of his two fleets to use for that match. Proceed from that point as normal.

I don't think it would actually be necessary like it is in Warmachine (where lots of factions and a strong preference for BS skew lists requires the possibility of a BS silver bullet counter list) but that's probably the best way to do it. Most likely you'd get "anti-Rebel" and "anti-Imperial" builds for the two separate fleets, but there are lots of other options as well.

I would worry that you could get people going more for skew lists if that was a possiblity, though. "Oh, you didn't bring adequate squadron defenses for either fleet? Guess it's Rhymerball time yet again!" The skew list problem in Warmachine has gotten extreme (no idea if it will still be the case with the upcoming MkIII reboot) and it's extremely unfun. I wouldn't want that to happen in Armada.

I'm not fond of the two-set-lists idea, because it adds complexity without addressing any of the issues that were the reasons I proposed changing lists in the first place, while introducing new issues of its own (namely, encouraging skew lists). It sounds like it was introduced in WM to diversify out heavy skew lists that required a hard counter, which is less of an issue for us I think (never having played WM myself).

It doesn't encourage people to try new things in a tournament context based on lessons-learned.

It doesn't allow for people to update their tactics as the overall meta evolves over the 1-2 months of the event.

It doesn't allow the incorporation of Wave 4 once it's been spoiled.

It also wouldn't jive well with the idea of challenges. Not that I'm taking a hard line on the challenges thing--I'm fine either way on that point--but if we decided to do challenges, allowing changing lists will dramatically broaden the options for the challenges without having to worry about certain challenges excluding some players with certain list types (kill a ship using only squadron damage, win a game using only large ships, etc).

I think the best argument against constantly-changing lists is the added overhead for the TO in terms of list-vetting. This should be very easy to resolve, though: require that lists be submitted to the TO as Fab's* links. This will make vetting lists as easy as clicking the link and checking for issues.

The other good point I saw was building specifically to counter an opponent, since you'll know who you're playing. I think this is a valid issue, and would require that lists be submitted to the TO directly and not publicly posted until after a certain cutoff time. If the TO were playing too, a second judge could be assigned to hold the TO and TO's opponent's lists in escrow until after the cutoff.

Anyway, I've been a little long-winded here, but I'm not actually strongly set on one way of doing things. Just throwing some thoughts out there for consideration.

* No offense, Nevetz: I like Warlords' UI better for list-building, but Fab's has historically had fewer inaccuracy issues, which I think is more important for this use case.

You can use what it suits you more, Ardaedhel, I'm the first one to defend each player's freedom, especially if we are talking about free tools

Anyway, I ran many tests on Warlords, and everything in list building is working fine since the last update

And thanks for your efforts Nevetz. It's a tremendously professional list builder.

I'm waiting for just a regular bare bones 400pt regular style tournament.

Looks like I might be waiting a while. (?)

Being able to change lists mid-tournament makes sense in this format for a couple reasons:

- Being locked into an underperforming list for a one-day tournament is unfortunate. Being locked in for 6-8 weeks... well, that sucks.

- The prospect of new toys being made available during the tournament means we'll want to play with them.

I'm going to make this whole thing as uncomplicated as possible though, dude.

I agree with that. wasnt thinking about it.

If the rules are basic besides being able to switch up, I'd go for that too. I just don't like wonky "outside the game" rules or teams in particular.

...not that what I myself "need" is important. I just won't play until something I like comes along. Noones feelings will be hurt.

ow, my feeling. You bastard!

And thanks for your efforts Nevetz. It's a tremendously professional list builder.

Hehe thanks, but I'd always want to add more and more to it, especially since I work on similar projects like Warlords for my agency, and I can give very little time to Warlords (ps: working on the full-mobile version of the builder, it is proceeding very slowly but I do hope to bring it online as soon as I can).

For those wanting a mixed faction games.

Go with:

Max 1 ship from opposite faction

Max 1 title from opposite faction

Max 1 unique captain from opposite faction

Max 2 squadrons from opposite faction

Each upgrade from the opposite faction costs 5 extra points.

Something along these lines should stop it getting obscene.

For those wanting a mixed faction games.

Go with:

Max 1 ship from opposite faction

Max 1 title from opposite faction

Max 1 unique captain from opposite faction

Max 2 squadrons from opposite faction

Each upgrade from the opposite faction costs 5 extra points.

Something along these lines should stop it getting obscene.

Great suggestion, Gink - reckon we'll just go single faction for the next tournament, though.

With the civil war wrapping up, I'll announce the next tournament and call for sign-ups in a few days time.

Stay tuned!

With the civil war wrapping up, I'll announce the next tournament and call for sign-ups in a few days time.

Stay tuned!

Let's see what happens

Looking forward to the next online tournament!

With the civil war wrapping up, I'll announce the next tournament and call for sign-ups in a few days time.

Stay tuned!

WHY HAVEN'T YOU POSTED YET!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be back in 3.23 minutes. ;-)

Bahaha! I was hoping to get it sorted at work today, but it is cuh-razy here!

I have one last suggestion before you finalise the rules. Since we're doing games with people from different time zones, if we could possibly be allocated a couple opponents at a time and a couple of weeks to play them in it could be easier than having one per week.

If that idea doesn't match the rest of how the format works feel free to reject it.

Thanks.

I was looking at standard Swiss pairings, which would mean one opponent at a time (Rule 5? ). But yeah, two weeks per round was the plan.

Great, if the schedule is that relaxed, sign me up right away!