Doing a small 6 person tournament. I'm the only one with 3 wins. At the end of Round three, I'm told I have the same number of tournament points as two other folks whom each have a loss. One of them I actually beat 6-5. My other 2 wins were 10-1.

They are saying that only tournament points count anymore. So if you win every match 6-5 in theory, you might still lose.

If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?

EDIT - lot of good points made in this thread. It's just frustrating that I didn't actually know the way scoring was done, especially considering how long I've been playing Armada. Because USUALLY winning all your matches also has you in 1st place. Little embarrassed here not knowing, but enough people have explained WHY it is the way it is, and it makes sense.

Winning hasn't ever been the first point of call.

Tournament Points has always been the #1 means for deciding an Armada Tournament.

Wins relative to those who you are tied with on Tournament Points has fluctuated from a #2 Tiebreaker for and against with MOV and that sort of thing.....

... But for Armada, Tournament Points have always ruled the Roost.

If you've got 2 10-1 and a 6-5, you have 26 tournament points.

Anyone losing, including the person you beat, has a 5-6 and a maximum of two 10-1s for a maximum possible of 25 points. So there's possibly a math error here.

And I think quality of the win has been the distinguishing trait in Armada. In a game that plays over six rounds, it is all about the quality of your decisions during those rounds, and it is fair to reward those who made better decisions on the whole rather than those that simply got better match-ups. I've also had plenty of conversations where people really valued the win/loss as the first criterion, in which case, I do think another game is more suitable.

Doing a small 6 person tournament. I'm the only one with 3 wins. At the end of Round three, I'm told I have the same number of tournament points as two other folks whom each have a loss. One of them I actually beat 6-5. My other 2 wins were 10-1.

They are saying that only tournament points count anymore. So if you win every match 6-5 in theory, you might still lose.

If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?

You said you beat one the players 6-5 that you tied with. If they went 10-1 on their other two matches, that would have them end at 25. Not possible for that tie.

Back on point: This system for tourney points and margins of victory is set up so that a 400-0 blowout nets you more than a 182-181 barely-win. It means that simply winning a scraped out match isn't enough. Tourney winners need to dominate. Apparently someone else was as dominant as you.

The point scoring has been laid out clearly since day 1 and is laid out in the current tournament rules. As much as I don't want to say it: You should have known that was possible before ever placing the first ship.

Minor correction. One day f my wins was 8-3. The other guy did have 2 10 point wins.

Winning isn't everything? You wan't Armada to have the same tournament scene like X-wing. That would be awful.

If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?

Well before you leave Armada (and I hope that you don't), I would ask.....what system would you propose to replace the current one? Simple wins and losses won't do when you only have a few games under each player's belt in a tourney. Going wins and losses first, then MoV could result in someone who wins 6-5, 6-5, 6-5 beating someone who wins 10-1, 10-1, then loses 5-6. I'd say that's just as unfair as your situation. And the game is too long for Round Robin....

I'm honestly interested in your answer...the only other competetive tourney scene I've been involved with (40k) often uses something similar to Armada's current setup, and it seems to work...

Honestly I think wins should be first and points break ties when the wins are tied.

Just makes no sense how I can go undefeated and still lose to someone who I beat.

Yeah you beat him... by the slimmest of margins. Hardy deserving of a crushing podium walk.

Honestly I think wins should be first and points break ties when the wins are tied.

Just makes no sense how I can go undefeated and still lose to someone who I beat.

That would encourage more passive play as people tried to sneak in a 6-5 on squadrons etc, rather than be aggressive and go for a bigger win. Having tournament points as the first port of call encourages more aggressive play because you need those points; a 6-5 is, as you discovered, sometimes little better than losing outright.

Good point - however I just am shocked because I honestly always thought that going undefeated trumped everything else.

Just weird because I've played in many tournaments and just never really understood how things ranked. Like, I've seen a guy with zero wins and a bye, take 2nd place.

While I wished that points earned in later rounds would be weighted more, I don't know how this would be fairly implemented.

The scoring system isn't perfect.

However, this method of scoring helps in list diversity where anyone can come back and win it all... the People's Game!

Nothing but games with people trying to do the bare minimum to only get a 6-5 win so they can have nothing but wins but the worst type of game.

NO THANK YOU!

The current system rewards people for taking risks and getting a higher margin of victory and you are rewarded for more points. It promotes battle. Your scenario would result in most games becoming a snooze fest with opponents trying to wait for engagement, hit/run, or standoffs.

Does anyone have a link to the most current tournament rules? When I google it I only get the old points, i.e. The 5-5, etc scoring

Always use the main Armada page (or whatever game's main page you need). Google has a history of linking to older versions of rules documents.

I do wish instead of MOV points being retained, that just what you killed points are....a 6-5 no one fired a shot should not be worth the same as a 6-5 both got destroyed because they actually played the game. Tournament points would still be the first reason to win...but instead of MOV you could use kill points. That way players that even lose and get a 5 might have killed a bunch and can move up the rankings.

Here's a question, would the tournament scene be improved by using the direct MOV, rather than converting it to a 10-point scale? It's more complicated, but I seriously doubt it's beyond the math skills of a player base that gets used to using it. What I'm trying to avoid are the marginal situations. I mean the times when you're three points, two points, one single measly point away from the next level of tournament points, or that someone gets a whole additional tournament point, possibly changing the tournament standings, for a tiny handful of points that push it over the threshold. I don't see the utility of scrubbing out granularity in the wins. We have many more than 10 points at stake on the table, why do we use a 40x less granular system to measure that victory?

I'm sure there's probably a good reason, but I don't play a lot of other wargames. What's the reason.

Honestly I think wins should be first and points break ties when the wins are tied.

Just makes no sense how I can go undefeated and still lose to someone who I beat.

When Tournament Points are tied the first count back is how well you did when you played if you were matched with the person with whom you have drawn. So if you and I played and you won, in a count back you win.

It gets a little more complicated in a three way draw as you probably didn't play and win against the other two players you have tied with.

Coming from other tournament backgrounds I prefer tournament rankings on wins first then strength of opposition for tie breakers, and if really needed strength of opositions oposition if needed in larger events, that said I do also understand the current system and don't mind it it's just not my prefered method...

Something FFG wont do, but I hope the comunity might do at some point in the future if ffg ever drops tournament support... Is a compositional score as well which will adjust the match scores ala what I would see in my spint on the warhammer fantasy tournament scene...

I'm sure there's probably a good reason, but I don't play a lot of other wargames. What's the reason.

I think the idea is to average it all out and have players hang around and complete the tournament.

Even with two tight losses a single good win could see you make the top half of a small tournament.

Okay bye!

Something FFG wont do, but I hope the comunity might do at some point in the future if ffg ever drops tournament support... Is a compositional score as well which will adjust the match scores ala what I would see in my spint on the warhammer fantasy tournament scene...

Comp scores are also the subject of unending debate....after all, who gets to decide the composition criteria? Should the "ideal" fleet be a large base, a med base, and 2 small base ships? Or is it 1 large/med and 3 smalls? With many fewer units available to us any comp restrictions would end up stifling fleet innovation and unnecessarily penalize creative lists.

It's also not very fluffy as Rebels (and Imperials to a lesser extent) made do with whatever they had. There's no Codex Astartes in Star Wars!

Doing a small 6 person tournament. I'm the only one with 3 wins. At the end of Round three, I'm told I have the same number of tournament points as two other folks whom each have a loss. One of them I actually beat 6-5. My other 2 wins were 10-1.

They are saying that only tournament points count anymore. So if you win every match 6-5 in theory, you might still lose.

If true, I think I'm done with armada permanently. If winning doesn't mean anything anymore then what is the point?

I like the scoring system, sorry that it sounds like you're not a fan. I agree that it gets more fair the more rounds you play, and most tournaments are only 3 rounds, but you are saying that wins should be what counts, them people will only turtle EVEN MORE as there is zero incentive for you to actually engage anything. Let me 6-5 3 times with a 0 MoV by running away, and they guy who tabled two opponents and had a minor loss still loses, even though he has 25 tournament points and the "winner" has 18?

The scoring system is as great as it ever was right now. Essentially winning a game counts as a bonus point, and then the MoV factors in to determine the rest of your points. I can understand your frustration to a degree, but changing the rules to the way you are suggesting doesn't sound like an improvement

Oh look, it's this one again.

Armada tournaments are scored on MoV because the game is so long that the only practical way to determine the best player in the space of one day is to evaluate their performance to a more granular level than straight W/L. I have yet to see an alternative proposal that doesn't discourage engagement, require multiple days to resolve, or increase the impact of the first matchup.

I also have yet to see one of these threads started by somebody who didn't just go 3-0 in a little tournament and not win MoV.

The more I think about it the more this gets my goat.

This is a piss-poor complaint after the fact. Everybody has the scoring rules available up front. The rules tell you the things you have to do to win. Didn't do those things? Then you didn't deserve to win. Better luck next time.