In previous X-Wing tournaments, players have made TWO lists that lasted for the duration of the swiss rounds. At the start of each match, the player and their opponent would simultaneously declare which list they would play for that game (on the count of "three" they'd flip a dial that represented their choice - we could do something similar in Armada, eg flipping objective cards).

This allows players to bring lists with different strengths, vulnerabilities, and play-styles, and you've got an answer for almost every match-up. Going againt the Clonisher? You've got a list ready-built to fight it. Facing an Ackbar gun-line? Well, here's my Clonisher list!

Rather than potentially changing lists every round (which makes oversight difficult), we could have three or four rounds (probably four) with these two lists. Should new wave cards drop between rounds, we could make an allowance to adjust lists after round 2/for the top cut.

At the top cut, each player would choose ONE of their lists for the remainder of the tournament.

How does this sound?

I'm not sure. I also played that format in the Xwing vassal tournaments and liked it, but in Armada the temptation to use the 2 list format to abuse the initiative rules would be really strong.

For example, make two Demolisher lists: One with a comfortable 387 bid and the other with a fully-committed 369 bid

TO's choice, but I think the limitation of 1 list would actually encourage less extreme lists.

I'm all about X-TREEEEMMMM!!!!!

And will be running crazy lists regardless of rules

I'm not sure. I also played that format in the Xwing vassal tournaments and liked it, but in Armada the temptation to use the 2 list format to abuse the initiative rules would be really strong.

For example, make two Demolisher lists: One with a comfortable 387 bid and the other with a fully-committed 369 bid

TO's choice, but I think the limitation of 1 list would actually encourage less extreme lists.

Solid point.

Oh gods. . . You are giving Dodonna access to Demolisher! Are you sure this is wise?

Conversely, giving MC30's access to Screed.

Bah, not as important. One usually gets a crit with a MC30. Unless you are playing with Vassal and it hates you. . .

I am more worried about Rhymerball B-Wings and bomber command center GR75's

I dunno dude I've lost games because even post OE I could't get a crit from an MC30. High probabilty of success still has a chance of failure.

But yeah the rhymerball...shudder

Were you being greedy?

No. I just needed the crit effect to trigger ACM's. Two broadsides in the same game against the same ISD came back with no hit/crits. If either broadside yielded a hit crit I would have won by a significant margin.

Another thing I liked from a previous X-Wing tournament was a variation in the top cut. Bare in mind this was for a larger player base, and for an escalation tournament:

We had four rounds of swiss with a top 32 cut. Positions 1-30 were based on tournament points, but spots 31 and 32 were wildcard entries that were open for the players who didn't make the top 30 who scored the highest MOV in the final round.

Based on previous tournament turn-out for Armada we'd have to limit this to the final place in (probably) top 8, but it would still give players who couldn't otherwise make the top cut a reason to go all-out in the final round.

I like the wildcard idea, it would be cool for a top 8-16 situation. I also love the idea of having flexible lists, but not so much the idea of multiple lists to choose from, that definitely would cause even more extreme builds, which while it is fun to see those, for another individual tournament I wouldn't mind it being a little more balanced. So having list changes every round, or every other round seems like it would work out fine. Just say that if people don't have their new list posted by the deadline they have to use their previous posted one, which only benefits their opponent who now knows what to expect. As for the cut, I'm not sure as to what I think about lists changing during that, I feel like they shouldn't, but maybe it would just make it all the more fun!

I like the wildcard idea, it would be cool for a top 8-16 situation. I also love the idea of having flexible lists, but not so much the idea of multiple lists to choose from, that definitely would cause even more extreme builds, which while it is fun to see those, for another individual tournament I wouldn't mind it being a little more balanced. So having list changes every round, or every other round seems like it would work out fine. Just say that if people don't have their new list posted by the deadline they have to use their previous posted one, which only benefits their opponent who now knows what to expect. As for the cut, I'm not sure as to what I think about lists changing during that, I feel like they shouldn't, but maybe it would just make it all the more fun!

Okay, I'm sold on one list only, and allowing changes to that list, likely after the second round, and then again for the top cut.

But how to make the list changing fair and above-board?

We post our starting lists in the public forum, with very low odds of facing someone who built a "hard counter" in round one. Changing lists after the second round, you'll know who your opponent is for round three - publicly posted lists could easily have hard counters built against them. It may not be likely, but it's worth taking precautions.

I expect the changed lists will have to be sent to me directly, and then revealed when the round starts. Any other ideas for this, I'm happy to hear them.

Would a pseudo-sideboard system work? Say a 300 point core to your fleet, with 2 (100 point) sideboards to choose from? To avoid initiative shenanigans your initiative bid MUST be drawn against your 200 point core. Any points unused in sideboards are lost.

Objectives are different for each sideboard (if you want).

I would be in favor of using completely different lists everyround, as in no restrictions

K.I.S.S.

Indeed, restrictions would make the process far more complicated. Also, new toys may change entirely what someone wants to play.

Lots of cool ideas in here, but I'm wondering if we can design a system with no flaws.

I for one welcome the ideas of changing lists, but I feel that organising all that can be a real pain, and an unnecessary one: how about lists changes are totally free, you can switch sides and all, but both fleets are revealed simultaneously when starting the game? Of course, we would need a consistency check (I suggest creating fleets with Armada Warlords, then exchanging links), but this way we could field exactly whatever we want, with no designing counter lists to specific opponents.

Oooh, can we create a list raffle. Each create a list and each round we draw a random list from the pool.

50% of the score goes to the list writer. 50% to the player.

I'm definitely interested in a large-scale battle tournament. Half the games I play are that size. Also, as a Vassal noob, can someone explain to me the reasoning, in individualized tournaments, that someone should be required to use the same list all the way through? Any advantages gained by being able to adjust and learn are shared equally by all players, who can all do the same thing.

I'm definitely interested in a large-scale battle tournament. Half the games I play are that size. Also, as a Vassal noob, can someone explain to me the reasoning, in individualized tournaments, that someone should be required to use the same list all the way through? Any advantages gained by being able to adjust and learn are shared equally by all players, who can all do the same thing.

It was once explained to me - You can build lists against specific people, as people will show trends for their preference - even if they have the ability to choose the list around as well. It becomes an additional mental game against players rather than against a generic, faceless 'meta'.

And the last thing we want is conflict directed at other players, rather than something vaccuous.

::shrug::

I really don't know.

I won't be playing, anyway.

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 really don't see the need for multiple lists. We don't do it face to face, so why do it here?

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.

I really don't see the need for multiple lists. We don't do it face to face, so why do it here?

The distinction, and my reasoning for proposing it, was that an IRL tournament is an intensive event taking place over the course of one or maybe two days. The Vassal events stretch out over the course of one to two months. Not only are there changes in the context of the game over the course of that time, but you have plenty of time to build new lists between rounds that incorporate lessons-learned.

So, why not treat the lists more as they would be handled in a league rather than a tournament? This addresses these issues without introducing significant complexity or what-ifs (at least, it seems that way to me).

A Wave 3 Tournament ?! I think you need to title this tourney "I'm not Dead!" https://youtu.be/dGFXGwHsD_A?t=51

My stipulation is that I Demand The next Tournament to contain wave 3.

Do not Disappoint me...

As a side note I would also like wave 4 but... We probably don't have enough spoiled yet. Maybe we can allow all the currently spoiled cards? Such as madine, vet gunners etc...

I'm guessing Clon is demanding Wave 3 because he too has run the numbers on a 5 activation Demo + flotillas Rhymerball...

My stipulation is that I Demand The next Tournament to contain wave 3.

Do not Disappoint me...

As a side note I would also like wave 4 but... We probably don't have enough spoiled yet. Maybe we can allow all the currently spoiled cards? Such as madine, vet gunners etc...

I'm guessing Clon is demanding Wave 3 because he too has run the numbers on a 5 activation Demo + flotillas Rhymerball...

Demsu Rhymerball MUHHAHAHAHA!!!!

Author: Clontroper5

Faction: Galactic Empire

Points: 399/400

Commander: General Tagge

Gladiator II-Class Star Destroyer (62 points)

- Demolisher ( 10 points)

- Wulff Yularen ( 7 points)

- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)

- Engine Techs ( 8 points)

- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)

[ flagship ] Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- General Tagge ( 25 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Suppressor ( 4 points)

- Slicer Tools ( 7 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Vector ( 2 points)

- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Bomber Command Center ( 8 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Repair Crews ( 4 points)

1 Major Rhymer ( 16 points)

4 TIE Advanced Squadrons ( 48 points)

2 JumpMaster 5000s ( 24 points)

5 TIE Bomber Squadrons ( 45 points)

How about players can change fleets between rounds, but players must submit a legal fleet to play before the pairings for that round are released. This allows players to apply learned lessons without the mind games or intimidation because no one knows who they're playing when they submit their fleet.

My stipulation is that I Demand The next Tournament to contain wave 3.

Do not Disappoint me...

As a side note I would also like wave 4 but... We probably don't have enough spoiled yet. Maybe we can allow all the currently spoiled cards? Such as madine, vet gunners etc...

I'm guessing Clon is demanding Wave 3 because he too has run the numbers on a 5 activation Demo + flotillas Rhymerball...

Demsu Rhymerball MUHHAHAHAHA!!!!

Author: Clontroper5

Faction: Galactic Empire

Points: 399/400

Commander: General Tagge

Gladiator II-Class Star Destroyer (62 points)

- Demolisher ( 10 points)

- Wulff Yularen ( 7 points)

- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)

- Engine Techs ( 8 points)

- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)

[ flagship ] Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- General Tagge ( 25 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Suppressor ( 4 points)

- Slicer Tools ( 7 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Vector ( 2 points)

- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Bomber Command Center ( 8 points)

Gozanti-class Cruisers (23 points)

- Repair Crews ( 4 points)

1 Major Rhymer ( 16 points)

4 TIE Advanced Squadrons ( 48 points)

2 JumpMaster 5000s ( 24 points)

5 TIE Bomber Squadrons ( 45 points)

...It's like one legitimately dangerous guy with a mob of feral chihuahuas on a leash out for a walk with his 4 annoying friends who pretend they can totally throw down in a real fight but in reality learned everything they know about fighting from professional wrestling.

In short, I'd love to see how it plays but I'm not initially optimistic .

How about players can change fleets between rounds, but players must submit a legal fleet to play before the pairings for that round are released. This allows players to apply learned lessons without the mind games or intimidation because no one knows who they're playing when they submit their fleet.

It's too much hassle for an event organizer to potentially validate fleet designs over and over and over again throughout an event. If/when something slips through the cracks you've got room for illegal fleet builds either due to ignorance or malevolence, depending.

If you want someone impartial to just sit around and vet lists... I'll volunteer for that.

I mean, its not like I have anything else to do at the moment while waiting for commissions to arrive