I think that many many players play at home with friends. We have seen such massive sales with Armada out selling Warmachine, Infinity, and Malifaux in the past that it can be one thing that occurs a lot.
From there, I think we will slowly increase in players as the campaign is rolled out and people get dragged in to one side or another
True. I do a lot of playtime at home with friends, but this logic also applies to X-Wing. This is not Armada-specific.
aYou are correct, I do not know FFG's exact business intent. I do that that the vast majority of businesses enjoy a profit
While this is a generality and not set in stone, I'm going to assume that the entire idea of releasing a product is to generate revenue for the company.
So if the idea is to turn a profit, then would you say that my analysis of the 3x people playing X-Wing based on Regional attendance, plus the fact that most competitive lists upwards of 150-250 dollars (data provided), then mathematically, this means that as far as competitive events are considered, that X-Wing players there have at least made FFG 3x the amount of profit than Armada has.
But none of this logically means that it would net them greater profit by focusing even more resources into X-Wing than they already do OR that they must take away resources from Armada even if it does.
If they pour more into X-Wing, it could easily mean that they run into diminishing gains on their return-on-investment. ie. the market for X-Wing becomes flooded and people turn away from it because it seems like there's just too much that they need to keep up with to remain competitive. I hit that point a while ago already. Also, the deeper they scrape into the barrel of obscure EU garbage, the less people are attached to the types of ships that they might put out there.
I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I think they should focus more R&D and production to Armada because X-Wing seem to be doing just fine lol
I'm getting greedy for sure, but I would definitely like to see Armada at an accelerated rate compared to X-Wing at this front. Maybe reverse the wave cycles to 6mo for Armada and 9 for X-Wing.
Okay, then I'm confused or you're confusing. All of this time it has seemed to me that you've been a wailing prophet, prophesizing doom, DOOM, for Armada because its fanbase can't keep pace with X-Wing.
I think your post is rather overdramatic. Stating that Armada has a downward trend in player attendance (which I said countless times now is probably because of the 9 months of waiting for a new wave), has roughly 1/3-1/4th the players that X-Wing does at events, and X-Wing generates substantially more profit than Armada is hardly saying DOOM.
A 3:1 ratio of initial buy-ins when the starter is 3x the price for Armada means that it's keeping pace with X-Wing.
Competitive X-Wing and Armada lists are very comparable in price.
X-Wing has 3:1 the amount of players at competitive events than Armada, therefore its evident that there's 3x the profit being generated from this playerbase.
The downward trend of player attendance at local events while X-Wing has steadily risen is most like due to the hiatus in product, as there is a 9 month gap while X-Wing has not.
So to sum up:
> X-Wing generates a ton more money than Armada in competitive events.
> X-Wing has 3-4x the amount of players in said events.
> FFG probably wants to avoid 9-month gap of new releases if they want to keep a upward trend of players, because more players equates to more money generated.
I think something people don't realize is that downward trend of players is more important than people give credit for. Leavers, in a game that require 2 players to play, generates more leavers. So if your product doesn't increase in players when it's already losing profits compared to its more successful big brother, then I think we all know who the red-headed stepchild will be in this equation.
Again, not the end of the world, but accepting this is important. I don't think many people are ready to accept this degree of realism because this is a Armada forum after all. Here, let's just play the wait and see game and see what this year's Worlds look like in terms of attendance. Talked to Biggs recently and there were 23+1 late entry for Nationals. In Wave 2. How many were present last year with Wave 1? Anyone know the numbers?
You're making the assumption that participation at tournament play is directly proportional the global pool of players.
Further you're presuming that as the pool of armada players grows or shrinks so too must the tournament play. I wouldn't disagree that there is a connection of sorts, but how strong that bond is can be easily tested. Further the ratio of this growth or decline be it is again critical to the theory.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if no one showed up at tournaments. Absolutely. I'm sure we all have friends who don't play in such things.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if everyone who bought it was also involved with tournaments. Errr no. Why? Because hobby stores are only so large and there are only so many. Likewise Cons have attendance caps.
So already if follow the logic of this theory, it's not a 1:1 relationship of Armada players to Armada participants at tournaments/Conventions.
Well this is where pulling out sales data and convention/tournament attendance data subject it to some statistical tests. Which is now where the wheels fall off the car because we don't have sales data. (Or maybe we do and I missed it) Without it Hero's theory trends can neither be proven nor disproven.
Also true, as we don't know the exact numbers of unit sold and what not. However, using the information that we do see, which is tournament participation, we can make a quasi-accurate assessment.
You're making the assumption that participation at tournament play is directly proportional the global pool of players.
Further you're presuming that as the pool of armada players grows or shrinks so too must the tournament play. I wouldn't disagree that there is a connection of sorts, but how strong that bond is can be easily tested. Further the ratio of this growth or decline be it is again critical to the theory.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if no one showed up at tournaments. Absolutely. I'm sure we all have friends who don't play in such things.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if everyone who bought it was also involved with tournaments. Errr no. Why? Because hobby stores are only so large and there are only so many. Likewise Cons have attendance caps.
So already if follow the logic of this theory, it's not a 1:1 relationship of Armada players to Armada participants at tournaments/Conventions.
Well this is where pulling out sales data and convention/tournament attendance data subject it to some statistical tests. Which is now where the wheels fall off the car because we don't have sales data. (Or maybe we do and I missed it) Without it Hero's theory trends can neither be proven nor disproven.
Also true, as we don't know the exact numbers of unit sold and what not. However, using the information that we do see, which is tournament participation, we can make a quasi-accurate assessment.
Sure, yet you dont have any full numbers of tournaments that go on in the world or the attendance of game nights at stores even in just the US. So while "quasi-accurate" it is nothing meaningful because you cant atribute that to any trends except those you choose while ignoring the rest.
This means that there is no way to prove your statements or disprove them, this for ann intensive purposes they are just a guess.
All systems have flaws and mine is no better. However I am prefacing it all with the fact that these are my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of Historical Trend Analysis. It is not always right but so far I have been right a fair bit, yet it always requires a grain of salt to be applied.
Edited by Lyraeus
You're making the assumption that participation at tournament play is directly proportional the global pool of players.
Further you're presuming that as the pool of armada players grows or shrinks so too must the tournament play. I wouldn't disagree that there is a connection of sorts, but how strong that bond is can be easily tested. Further the ratio of this growth or decline be it is again critical to the theory.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if no one showed up at tournaments. Absolutely. I'm sure we all have friends who don't play in such things.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if everyone who bought it was also involved with tournaments. Errr no. Why? Because hobby stores are only so large and there are only so many. Likewise Cons have attendance caps.
So already if follow the logic of this theory, it's not a 1:1 relationship of Armada players to Armada participants at tournaments/Conventions.
Well this is where pulling out sales data and convention/tournament attendance data subject it to some statistical tests. Which is now where the wheels fall off the car because we don't have sales data. (Or maybe we do and I missed it) Without it Hero's theory trends can neither be proven nor disproven.
Also true, as we don't know the exact numbers of unit sold and what not. However, using the information that we do see, which is tournament participation, we can make a quasi-accurate assessment.
Sure, yet you dont have any full numbers of tournaments that go on in the world or the attendance of game nights at stores even in just the US. So while "quasi-accurate" it is nothing meaningful because you cant atribute that to any trends except those you choose while ignoring the rest.
This means that there is no way to prove your statements or disprove them, this for ann intensive purposes they are just a guess.
All systems have flaws and mine is no better. However I am prefacing it all with the fact that these are my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of Historical Trend Analysis. It is not always right but so far I have been right a fair bit, yet it always requires a grain of salt to be applied.
But this surely means that my statements are also factual unless someone lied about participation at a store championship or regional event. However, this is peer-reviewed in most cases and inconsistencies hardly ever happens due to multiple people attending them. The same can be said about everything reported on X-Wing list juggler, lists included. Can you say that the data displayed on that website are not factual and dismiss them completely? All this doesn't mean my argument isn't meaningful just because it is not 100% accurate. It's honestly the best we have right now unless FFG has these numbers (which they will, if TOs report them, and then the data is still prone to human error). At the end of the day, the numbers that are going to be valuable for us will all be prone to human error for the most part. Unless of course, we're talking about the MSRP for competitive lists. That is definitely not a guess because it's clearly visible how much they cost.
The charts you led with here is accurate because # of products released and time are probably the most concrete sets of data we have here. However, I think dismissing data just because it's not 100% accurate is a bit biased.
Sure, yet you dont have any full numbers of tournaments that go on in the world or the attendance of game nights at stores even in just the US. So while "quasi-accurate" it is nothing meaningful because you cant atribute that to any trends except those you choose while ignoring the rest.You're making the assumption that participation at tournament play is directly proportional the global pool of players.
Further you're presuming that as the pool of armada players grows or shrinks so too must the tournament play. I wouldn't disagree that there is a connection of sorts, but how strong that bond is can be easily tested. Further the ratio of this growth or decline be it is again critical to the theory.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if no one showed up at tournaments. Absolutely. I'm sure we all have friends who don't play in such things.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if everyone who bought it was also involved with tournaments. Errr no. Why? Because hobby stores are only so large and there are only so many. Likewise Cons have attendance caps.
So already if follow the logic of this theory, it's not a 1:1 relationship of Armada players to Armada participants at tournaments/Conventions.
Well this is where pulling out sales data and convention/tournament attendance data subject it to some statistical tests. Which is now where the wheels fall off the car because we don't have sales data. (Or maybe we do and I missed it) Without it Hero's theory trends can neither be proven nor disproven.
Also true, as we don't know the exact numbers of unit sold and what not. However, using the information that we do see, which is tournament participation, we can make a quasi-accurate assessment.
This means that there is no way to prove your statements or disprove them, this for ann intensive purposes they are just a guess.
All systems have flaws and mine is no better. However I am prefacing it all with the fact that these are my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of Historical Trend Analysis. It is not always right but so far I have been right a fair bit, yet it always requires a grain of salt to be applied.
But this surely means that my statements are also factual unless someone lied about participation at a store championship or regional event. However, this is peer-reviewed in most cases and inconsistencies hardly ever happens due to multiple people attending them. The same can be said about everything reported on X-Wing list juggler, lists included. Can you say that the data displayed on that website are not factual and dismiss them completely? All this doesn't mean my argument isn't meaningful just because it is not 100% accurate. It's honestly the best we have right now unless FFG has these numbers (which they will, if TOs report them, and then the data is still prone to human error). At the end of the day, the numbers that are going to be valuable for us will all be prone to human error for the most part. Unless of course, we're talking about the MSRP for competitive lists. That is definitely not a guess because it's clearly visible how much they cost.
The charts you led with here is accurate because # of products released and time are probably the most concrete sets of data we have here. However, I think dismissing data just because it's not 100% accurate is a bit biased.
You can't honestly state that you are able to collect more than 30% of tournaments can you? If so, how can you be sure?
Its not that your information is bad or anything, it is that your information has no real context. It is a jumble of numbers with no backing. That is the issue. We don't know what stores you asked, how active their community is, was the tournament an impromptu? Did it have a date change? To sick? Those variables that will change everything and we know nothing about them.
If we had List juggler or something like that then your data would have that backing but we don't.
I am dismissing data that has no capacity to be proven.
I agree that it is factual until proven otherwise. You can get store championships and regionals but not everyone goes to those. Some hate going to tournaments and then there is the fact that you can't get all of the tournaments.
Sure, yet you dont have any full numbers of tournaments that go on in the world or the attendance of game nights at stores even in just the US. So while "quasi-accurate" it is nothing meaningful because you cant atribute that to any trends except those you choose while ignoring the rest.
You're making the assumption that participation at tournament play is directly proportional the global pool of players.
Further you're presuming that as the pool of armada players grows or shrinks so too must the tournament play. I wouldn't disagree that there is a connection of sorts, but how strong that bond is can be easily tested. Further the ratio of this growth or decline be it is again critical to the theory.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if no one showed up at tournaments. Absolutely. I'm sure we all have friends who don't play in such things.
Could Armada sell perfectly well if everyone who bought it was also involved with tournaments. Errr no. Why? Because hobby stores are only so large and there are only so many. Likewise Cons have attendance caps.
So already if follow the logic of this theory, it's not a 1:1 relationship of Armada players to Armada participants at tournaments/Conventions.
Well this is where pulling out sales data and convention/tournament attendance data subject it to some statistical tests. Which is now where the wheels fall off the car because we don't have sales data. (Or maybe we do and I missed it) Without it Hero's theory trends can neither be proven nor disproven.
Also true, as we don't know the exact numbers of unit sold and what not. However, using the information that we do see, which is tournament participation, we can make a quasi-accurate assessment.
This means that there is no way to prove your statements or disprove them, this for ann intensive purposes they are just a guess.
All systems have flaws and mine is no better. However I am prefacing it all with the fact that these are my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of Historical Trend Analysis. It is not always right but so far I have been right a fair bit, yet it always requires a grain of salt to be applied.
But this surely means that my statements are also factual unless someone lied about participation at a store championship or regional event. However, this is peer-reviewed in most cases and inconsistencies hardly ever happens due to multiple people attending them. The same can be said about everything reported on X-Wing list juggler, lists included. Can you say that the data displayed on that website are not factual and dismiss them completely? All this doesn't mean my argument isn't meaningful just because it is not 100% accurate. It's honestly the best we have right now unless FFG has these numbers (which they will, if TOs report them, and then the data is still prone to human error). At the end of the day, the numbers that are going to be valuable for us will all be prone to human error for the most part. Unless of course, we're talking about the MSRP for competitive lists. That is definitely not a guess because it's clearly visible how much they cost.
The charts you led with here is accurate because # of products released and time are probably the most concrete sets of data we have here. However, I think dismissing data just because it's not 100% accurate is a bit biased.
You can't honestly state that you are able to collect more than 30% of tournaments can you? If so, how can you be sure?
Its not that your information is bad or anything, it is that your information has no real context. It is a jumble of numbers with no backing. That is the issue. We don't know what stores you asked, how active their community is, was the tournament an impromptu? Did it have a date change? To sick? Those variables that will change everything and we know nothing about them.
If we had List juggler or something like that then your data would have that backing but we don't.
I am dismissing data that has no capacity to be proven.
Sure, Store Champs is one thing that is very local/region specific in terms of gathering data, but Regional numbers is not.
Until we have a reporting structure like sozin's List Juggler, this is the best we have. So if those numbers don't work, we can look at the Regionals spreadsheet from schmitty. Are you saying those are invalid numbers as well? Does that have no capacity? The community has pretty much accepted those in large so what's the problem?
I think you're just picking hairs right now mate. I'm literally using schmitty's regionals attendance # because the only one I know in my area for sure is the SoCal one (being 21). For the MSRP for competitive lists, I think that's just one math problem away from hard data.
Speaking of which, I wonder how much DeMSU, Rebel Carriers, and Fireball cost?
Speaking of which, I wonder how much DeMSU, Rebel Carriers, and Fireball cost?
Search for it.
There was a topic on that very subject not a handful of weeks ago.
Speaking of which, I wonder how much DeMSU, Rebel Carriers, and Fireball cost?
Search for it.
There was a topic on that very subject not a handful of weeks ago.
I got this one:
Is this the one you're referring too? I'm going to compile some stuff tonight and hopefully get a better average of #s based on some popular meta lists.
I have truthiness' list, my own list, clone's list, do anyone have a Fireball regionals list or something else? I'll probably just average them once I list them out.
I believe that is so. A bunch of archtypes went through as I recall...
There were Rieekan lists as well.
Nm, I started watching Stranger Things and the next thing I know it's 1am and I'm afraid of the dark again. I'll look into it tomorrow.
OK HERE WE GO. Time to flip those Brace tokens Admirals.
Ackbar trolls my wallet.
The purpose of this article will be to evaluate some of the Wave 2 metagame in respect to cost for competitive lists. What I did was to break apart the Wave 2 competitive metagame by archetypes and then break down a few lists with what I can find from Store/Regional Winners lists on the forum. This is no way suggests that these are the only lists out there, but these should give us a good idea how much some of these more competitive lists cost. All pieces are broken down by the least expensive option at MSRP.
Disclaimer:
I am having trouble finding Regional-winning or multiple Store Championship winning Fireball and Rhymerball lists. If anyone have a link to them, please let me know! Or better yet, break it apart yourself and let me know on the price! I am posting variants that I have fought against that are brutal and effective.
For Regional data, I used schmitty's thread here:
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/218949-revised-regionals-data
Archetypes Examined:
Rhymerball (2 variants)
DeMSU (2 variants)
Rebel Gunline (1 variant)
Rebel Carriers (2 variants)
Rebel Swarm (1 variant)
Imperial Samples:
4
Rebel Samples:
4
Rebel Archetype Cost Analysis
Rebel Gunline
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2016/03/bfg-armada-mp-beta-starts-thursday.html
List analysis:
MC80 - 1x Home One Exp
MKII - 1x MKII Exp
CR90 - 1x CR90 Exp
Missions, tokens, playing tools - 1x Core Set
Intel Officer - 2x Neb
Engine Techs - (in Neb)
2x ECM - (in CR90 and MKII)
2x XI7 - (in Neb)
Leading Shots - (in CR90)
Gunney Team - (in MKII)
TRC - 1x MC30c Exp
4x YTs - 4x R&V Exp
Buy list without overlaps:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x MKII Exp - $39.95
1x CR90 Exp - $19.95
2x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
4x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$349.50
***Bonus round!***
Took a look at a 3x MKII Ackbar build with 4x YTs and it came out to $379.40)
http://nanotanks.pythonanywhere.com/fleet/str/400u63s8u36u3u6u41s8u3u6u41s8u3u6u41q30n4o3o7o11
Rebel Swarm
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
3x MC30c Exp - $29.95
2x CR90 Exp - $19.95
8x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$389.30
Rebel Carriers #1
http://warhammertruthiness.blogspot.com/2016/06/martinsburg-wv-regionals.html
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x MKII Exp - $39.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x CR90 Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
1x R&V Exp - $19.95
2x Rebel Squadron Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.55
Rebel Carriers #2
http://xwingtactics.blogspot.com/2016/05/biggs-in-pittsburgh.html
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
1x Raider - $19.95
2x CR90 Exp - $19.95
2x Rebel Squadron Exp - $19.95
2x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$329.45
Rebel Total MSRP Average: $344.45
Imperial Archetype Cost Analysis
DeMSU #1
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/203083-is-clontroper5s-build-invincible/?p=2061041
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
2x MC30c Exp - $29.95
3x Gladiator Exp - $29.95
3x Neb Exp - $19.95
4x Raider Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$389.35
DeMSU #2
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/215949-adepticon-armada-tournament-report/?p=2144569
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
3x Gladiator Exp - $29.95
3x MC30c Exp - $29.95
2x Raider Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$319.55
Fireball
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x ISD Exp - $49.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
2x Raider - $19.95
1x Imperial Squadrons Exp - $19.95
4x S&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.50
Rhymerball
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x ISD Exp - $49.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
2x Raider - $19.95
1x S&V Exp - $19.95
4x Imperial Squadrons Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.50
Imperial Total MSRP Average: $331.96
All sample lists averaged: $338.21
If you have a competitive list that you'd like to share, please break it down if possible and list it out like I did. Be curious, because I sure am! Since Wave 4 is out not out, it's still too early to start breaking it down because we don't know what will be tournament-successful.
Edit: Updated with correction to Carriers #2!
Edited by HEROI checked through each one twice, but it's still prone to human error. Let me know if you spot any mistakes!
The only mistake I see is not watching Stranger Things sooner.
OK HERE WE GO. Time to flip those Brace tokens Admirals.
Ackbar trolls my wallet.
The purpose of this article will be to evaluate some of the Wave 2 metagame in respect to cost for competitive lists. What I did was to break apart the Wave 2 competitive metagame by archetypes and then break down a few lists with what I can find from Store/Regional Winners lists on the forum. This is no way suggests that these are the only lists out there, but these should give us a good idea how much some of these more competitive lists cost. All pieces are broken down by the least expensive option at MSRP.
Disclaimer:
I am having trouble finding Regional-winning or multiple Store Championship winning Fireball and Rhymerball lists. If anyone have a link to them, please let me know! Or better yet, break it apart yourself and let me know on the price! I am posting variants that I have fought against that are brutal and effective.
For Regional data, I used schmitty's thread here:
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/218949-revised-regionals-data
Archetypes Examined:
Rhymerball (2 variants)
DeMSU (2 variants)
Rebel Gunline (1 variant)
Rebel Carriers (2 variants)
Rebel Swarm (1 variant)
Imperial Samples:
4
Rebel Samples:
4
Rebel Archetype Cost Analysis
Rebel Gunline
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2016/03/bfg-armada-mp-beta-starts-thursday.html
List analysis:
MC80 - 1x Home One Exp
MKII - 1x MKII Exp
CR90 - 1x CR90 Exp
Missions, tokens, playing tools - 1x Core Set
Intel Officer - 2x Neb
Engine Techs - (in Neb)
2x ECM - (in CR90 and MKII)
2x XI7 - (in Neb)
Leading Shots - (in Neb)
Gunney Team - (in MKII)
TRC - 1x MC30c Exp
4x YTs - 4x R&V Exp
Buy list without overlaps:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x MKII Exp - $39.95
1x CR90 Exp - $19.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
4x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$329.50
***Bonus round!***
Took a look at a 3x MKII Ackbar build with 4x YTs and it came out to $379.40)
http://nanotanks.pythonanywhere.com/fleet/str/400u63s8u36u3u6u41s8u3u6u41s8u3u6u41q30n4o3o7o11
Rebel Swarm
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
3x MC30c Exp - $29.95
3x CR90 Exp - $19.95
8x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$409.25
Rebel Carriers #1
http://warhammertruthiness.blogspot.com/2016/06/martinsburg-wv-regionals.html
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x MKII Exp - $39.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x CR90 Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
1x R&V Exp - $19.95
2x Rebel Squadron Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.55
Rebel Carriers #2
http://xwingtactics.blogspot.com/2016/05/biggs-in-pittsburgh.html
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x Home One Exp - $39.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
1x MC30c Exp - $29.95
2x Raider - $19.95
3x CR90 Exp - $19.95
2x Rebel Squadron Exp - $19.95
2x R&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$369.35
Rebel Total MSRP Average: $354.41
Imperial Archetype Cost Analysis
DeMSU #1
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/203083-is-clontroper5s-build-invincible/?p=2061041
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
2x MC30c Exp - $29.95
3x Gladiator Exp - $29.95
3x Neb Exp - $19.95
4x Raider Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$389.35
DeMSU #2
https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/215949-adepticon-armada-tournament-report/?p=2144569
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
3x Gladiator Exp - $29.95
3x MC30c Exp - $29.95
2x Raider Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$319.55
Fireball
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x ISD Exp - $49.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
2x Raider - $19.95
1x Imperial Squadrons Exp - $19.95
4x S&V Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.50
Rhymerball
Buy list:
1x Core Set - $99.95
1x ISD Exp - $49.95
1x Neb Exp - $19.95
2x Raider - $19.95
1x S&V Exp - $19.95
4x Imperial Squadrons Exp - $19.95
Total MSRP:
$309.50
Imperial Total MSRP Average: $331.96
All sample lists averaged: $343.19
If you have a competitive list that you'd like to share, please break it down if possible and list it out like I did. Be curious, because I sure am! Since Wave 4 is out not out, it's still too early to start breaking it down because we don't know what will be tournament-successful.
So, 2 of each expansion is with what others you choose to be baseline competitive
For Rebel Carriers 2, you get one of the Corvettes in the starter, so you don't need to buy the third. You also get one SW-7 with Home One, which means you only need one of the Raiders.
Otherwise, some pretty good work, and the range confirms roughly what we discovered earlier.
http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/tourneys
Average cost of X-Wing lists vs. Armada:
$188 vs. $338
Average Armada lists are ~1.80x more expensive than X-Wing equivalents.
Sources (November 2015 meta):
https://tm42xwing.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/beginners-shoppers-guide-to-competitive-lists/
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/11/star-wars-is-x-wing-pay-to-win.html
Applying player ratio to average cost of lists:
3.57:1
Math: (188 x 3.57) : (338 x 1) = 671:338
Ratio: 1.96:1 of Total Average MSRP per player at Regional events
What this means:
X-Wing players bring in roughly 2x the money that Armada players in shared Regional events.
Disclaimer: I did not use the latest 2016 metagame competitive lists for X-Wing because I couldn't find any. Looking at recent 2016 Regional results for the top 8 for X-Wing in a couple of cities, I didn't see anything too alarming (expensive or inexpensive), so I would yield a 5-10% average difference.
Edit: Updated with Carrier #2 correction to Armada average and fixed math on bottom because I'm drunk and doing this ROFL for no good reason.
Edited by HEROSources:
http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/tourneys
Shared cities local meta data (Regionals)
Springfield (X-Wing 2016 vs Armada 2016):
101:30
Vancouver (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
71:11
New York (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
74:16
Melbourne (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
66:10
Michigan (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
91:18
New Mexico (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
37:12
FFG Center (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
107:35
Martinsburg (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
68:30
Tacoma (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
90:21
Warsaw (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
46:11
Marietta (X-Wing 2016 vs. Armada 2016):
77:33
Outdated Data (2015 vs. 2016, not used):
Fargo (X-Wing 2015 vs. Armada 2016):
40:9
Sacramento (X-Wing 2015 vs. Armada 2016):
73:11
Raleigh (X-Wing 2015 vs. Armada 2016):
64:19
Average Player Ratio X-Wing vs. Armada in 2016 in shared cities:
75:21
15:1 ratio
Average cost of X-Wing lists vs. Armada:$188 vs. $343
Sources (November 2015 meta):
https://tm42xwing.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/beginners-shoppers-guide-to-competitive-lists/
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/11/star-wars-is-x-wing-pay-to-win.html
Applying player ratio to average cost of lists:
15:1
Math: 188x15 : 343:1 = $2,820 : $343
Ratio: 8.22:1 of Total Average MSRP per player at Regional events
Disclaimer: I did not use the latest 2016 metagame competitive lists for X-Wing because I couldn't find any. Looking at recent 2016 Regional results for the top 8 for X-Wing in a couple of cities, I didn't see anything too alarming (expensive or inexpensive), so I would yield a 5-10% average difference.
Not bad considering that in terms of coats and play space an Armada player is equal to 2 X-Wing players.
Considering that X-Wing regionals in 2013 wasn't that big either, I think we are doing fine for year 1.
@Ly
Refresh bro, I completely messed up that last ratio calculation!!!
Considering that X-Wing regionals in 2013 wasn't that big either, I think we are doing fine for year 1.
There were not X-Wing "Regionals" in 2013. While it's true there were Regionals hosted in 2013, they were not nearly as official or prestigous and pretty much every store hosted one. They would be akin to the "Store Championships" of today, which didn't start until 2014, when the "proper" FFG Regionals started, with geographically divided regions and application-based Regional site determination.
While it's true that this is only Armada's first year and X-Wing's fourth, it would be much more appropriate to compare X-Wing's 2013 "Regionals" to Armada's 2016 Store Championships. I attended three "Regionals" for X-Wing in 2013 and they averaged about 20 players. I attended three Armada Store Championships this year and they averaged about 10 players.
Considering that X-Wing regionals in 2013 wasn't that big either, I think we are doing fine for year 1.
There were not X-Wing "Regionals" in 2013. While it's true there were Regionals hosted in 2013, they were not nearly as official or prestigous and pretty much every store hosted one. They would be akin to the "Store Championships" of today, which didn't start until 2014, when the "proper" FFG Regionals started, with geographically divided regions and application-based Regional site determination.
While it's true that this is only Armada's first year and X-Wing's fourth, it would be much more appropriate to compare X-Wing's 2013 "Regionals" to Armada's 2016 Store Championships. I attended three "Regionals" for X-Wing in 2013 and they averaged about 20 players. I attended three Armada Store Championships this year and they averaged about 10 players.
Armada takes up twice the space and costs far more per player than X-Wing. So if Armada is averaging 10 players per store championship that is roughly equivalent to 20 X-Wing players.
Think about it in a space sense of the store.
If a store can hold an event but can only cater to 20 X-Wing players how many Armada players can that store host? Obviously just 10. So that means that 10 players on Armada is going to take up twice as much space and cost far more making the ratio sound.
@Ly
Refresh bro, I completely messed up that last ratio calculation!!!
I like the numbers but I still think that the comparison is wrong. It is like comparing the Chinese Navy to the US Navy. One just has had far more time and has far more experience than the other.
I figured when I saw that Average MSRP ratio.@Ly
Refresh bro, I completely messed up that last ratio calculation!!!
I like the numbers but I still think that the comparison is wrong. It is like comparing the Chinese Navy to the US Navy. One just has had far more time and has far more experience than the other.
I see nothing wrong with comparing the USN to any other navy, experience or not. We just know that when it comes to experience, capital ship strength, naval reach, and % in surface engagements, air supremacy and fighting chance, we're better
I figured when I saw that Average MSRP ratio.@Ly
Refresh bro, I completely messed up that last ratio calculation!!!
I like the numbers but I still think that the comparison is wrong. It is like comparing the Chinese Navy to the US Navy. One just has had far more time and has far more experience than the other.
I see nothing wrong with comparing the USN to any other navy, experience or not. We just know that when it comes to experience, capital ship strength, naval reach, and % in surface engagements, air supremacy and fighting chance, we're better
The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.
You could say the same about a high school football varsity team vs a middle school peewee team. Doesn't make the comparison right.
I figured when I saw that Average MSRP ratio.@Ly
Refresh bro, I completely messed up that last ratio calculation!!!
I like the numbers but I still think that the comparison is wrong. It is like comparing the Chinese Navy to the US Navy. One just has had far more time and has far more experience than the other.
I see nothing wrong with comparing the USN to any other navy, experience or not. We just know that when it comes to experience, capital ship strength, naval reach, and % in surface engagements, air supremacy and fighting chance, we're better
The US Navy compares to the Russian Navy. Oh and don't dismiss the Chinese. They don't have many carrier's yet and they have little blue water experience but they have Sunseekers.
Why not? If we're comparing # of players for peewee and varsity, that's perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is one of the numbers being measured in towns because they need to know if programs like those should be invested and/or promoted. Why does player experience matter in that respect for example?
What we could do now is to sit on these numbers, wait a year, and re-evaluate, or keep it updated as the year carries on so we can see fresh numbers with Wave 4.
If you're going to use the analogy that experience aka maturity matters in the navy, it wouldn't be the first time that numbers eventually carried the day e.g. the USN vs. the IJN in WWII. I would love to talk about this more in another thread or PM though, I really, really enjoy Naval warfare, especially in WWII.