First, let me say I had fun playing a small tournament here at the FLGS Saturday. Six folks showed up and true to Armada form, it was cordial, tiny spaceship fun. Out of the six, I was the only one to go undefeated so I figured I was 1st. However, I was surpassed by a higher MOV from the guy to go 2-1 and just barely beat my last opponent for 2nd (1 tournament point, 21 MOV). This is the first time I've encountered this and I must say I've been sailing along in ignorance of the win criteria. So, is it right that the only undefeated player can go on to be something other than first? Should we as a community petition FFG to change the rules? I have my answers but I'd like to hear what y'all think. I'll give my answers later and provide what I think would be solutions.

This was brought up a while ago, but I can't remember who it was.

But you need to win big instead of just winning. Going 3 6-5s is not worthy of 1st place when someone can go 9-2, 10-1, and 5-6.

Here is it.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/232013-when-did-wins-stop-counting/

I have a feeling this argument is going to run around in circles again.

I understand the complaints, but I ultimately prefer the current method. It encourages risk taking, which makes for better games. Someone who goes 10-1, 10-1, 5-6 deserves to win the tournament more than the guy who goes 6-5, 6-5, 6-5. I really wish we had bigger tournaments with cuts because I feel like that's where Armada's scoring system shines. 4-5 rounds with a cut to the top 2-4 makes for a fantastic tournament. The problem with that is you need two days to make that happen.

Nothing Broken.

Nothing to Fix.

I'm not a terribly big fan of the current setup. For me it seems to reward lucky matchups a hair too much and does not reward points conservation for a loser. But I agree, without more rounds, I don't think there is a better setup.

When I played at regionals, I got 10th place with 17 points. 2nd place got 21 points, and 1st had 28. So I am rather content with what we have if I can say there was a 4 point split between 2nd and 10th. A lot of close games were played with most coming down to the last round.

I would like the insight of the people who played at Worlds.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Because most of the time, its irrelevant what your secondary measure is.

The Primary is what is important.

Having Degrees upon the Primary (Tournament Points), provides a wider spread than a Binary Yes/No.

The type of competition that is - and has - been pushed in Armada, from Day One, is objective based... Play the Mission, not to just wipe your opponent out. You're not just banking here for survival and death, you're above that... You are a fleet commander. How you get there is just as important as where you go... Pyrrhic Victories are losses in the Long term, so don't bank on them....

Armada itself doesn't encourage deathmatch play. Which is mostly incompatible with scoring based objectives. I mean, why bother with objectives if you're not going to score?

Seems to me it's a matter of practicality. Armada is a much longer game than X-Wing and it's simply not feasible to play three or four rounds and have a cut. Instead of winning more you just have to win harder.

If you count wins before considering MOV (or tournament points in this case) it would encourage people to bring a bunch of "safe" fleets and turtle up and that's just not a fun way to play. The tournament points system encourages aggressive play, and I think that's the game that's most fun.

Having fun is by far the biggest priority for me in a tournament. I'd rather lose 3 great games than win 3 boring ones where we dance around each other and nothing happens.

Let's be honest, sometimes you have bad luck, sometimes the dice go poorly for you, sometimes you play fleets that counter yours easily, sometimes you just happen to draw the 3 best players in the tournament. but if you go in looking to have fun with some cool people playing a game you really like, than it doesn't matter what the outcome is.

sure it would ideally be nice to play more games and shake out who is better today a little clearer, but it's just not realistic with the length of the game.

bottom line, I like the way it is set up.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Because most of the time, its irrelevant what your secondary measure is.

The Primary is what is important.

Having Degrees upon the Primary (Tournament Points), provides a wider spread than a Binary Yes/No.

The type of competition that is - and has - been pushed in Armada, from Day One, is objective based... Play the Mission, not to just wipe your opponent out. You're not just banking here for survival and death, you're above that... You are a fleet commander. How you get there is just as important as where you go... Pyrrhic Victories are losses in the Long term, so don't bank on them....

Armada itself doesn't encourage deathmatch play. Which is mostly incompatible with scoring based objectives. I mean, why bother with objectives if you're not going to score?

Because the system that I laid out ALSO focuses on objective play. I assume that in larger tournaments, if you had random opponent structure, you would have multiple undefeated. Then, within those undefeated, you would use MOV.

I am not advocating strongly for it, I am simply trying to see the problems with it. You have certainly pointed some out. In a small tourney, the MOV would matter much less and if you paired the leaders, it would lead to only one undefeated for the most part.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Because most of the time, its irrelevant what your secondary measure is.

The Primary is what is important.

Having Degrees upon the Primary (Tournament Points), provides a wider spread than a Binary Yes/No.

The type of competition that is - and has - been pushed in Armada, from Day One, is objective based... Play the Mission, not to just wipe your opponent out. You're not just banking here for survival and death, you're above that... You are a fleet commander. How you get there is just as important as where you go... Pyrrhic Victories are losses in the Long term, so don't bank on them....

Armada itself doesn't encourage deathmatch play. Which is mostly incompatible with scoring based objectives. I mean, why bother with objectives if you're not going to score?

Because the system that I laid out ALSO focuses on objective play. I assume that in larger tournaments, if you had random opponent structure, you would have multiple undefeated. Then, within those undefeated, you would use MOV.

I am not advocating strongly for it, I am simply trying to see the problems with it. You have certainly pointed some out. In a small tourney, the MOV would matter much less and if you paired the leaders, it would lead to only one undefeated for the most part.

The system does this with tournament points instead of win/loss already.

The system we have now allows a player to bounce back from a bad match up. This isn't a MTG tournament where you go play for 3 hours. You play Armada for 9 hours. I would hate losing my first game knowing I have no chance to get top 4 and I would likely not bother playing competitively. Armada tournaments are not run regularly like other win/loss tournaments. They need to be more forgiving if you expect players to give up an entire day to go play.

If you are going to go to a win/loss system, why not do single elimination instead? You would get the same result with what you are suggesting. And again, why go play tournaments when you can get eliminated first round after playing for 2 hours?

My suggestion is to assassinate your winner, absorb his or her powers, then take their prizes.

Only way to be sure.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Because most of the time, its irrelevant what your secondary measure is.

The Primary is what is important.

Having Degrees upon the Primary (Tournament Points), provides a wider spread than a Binary Yes/No.

The type of competition that is - and has - been pushed in Armada, from Day One, is objective based... Play the Mission, not to just wipe your opponent out. You're not just banking here for survival and death, you're above that... You are a fleet commander. How you get there is just as important as where you go... Pyrrhic Victories are losses in the Long term, so don't bank on them....

Armada itself doesn't encourage deathmatch play. Which is mostly incompatible with scoring based objectives. I mean, why bother with objectives if you're not going to score?

Because the system that I laid out ALSO focuses on objective play. I assume that in larger tournaments, if you had random opponent structure, you would have multiple undefeated. Then, within those undefeated, you would use MOV.

I am not advocating strongly for it, I am simply trying to see the problems with it. You have certainly pointed some out. In a small tourney, the MOV would matter much less and if you paired the leaders, it would lead to only one undefeated for the most part.

The system does this with tournament points instead of win/loss already.

The system we have now allows a player to bounce back from a bad match up. This isn't a MTG tournament where you go play for 3 hours. You play Armada for 9 hours. I would hate losing my first game knowing I have no chance to get top 4 and I would likely not bother playing competitively. Armada tournaments are not run regularly like other win/loss tournaments. They need to be more forgiving if you expect players to give up an entire day to go play.

If you are going to go to a win/loss system, why not do single elimination instead? You would get the same result with what you are suggesting. And again, why go play tournaments when you can get eliminated first round after playing for 2 hours?

Very good point.

I had this in my last tournament- top table, beat my opponent 6-5, and came third.

The really funny thing is the guy I beat didn't win either, because the second table had a 10-1 and we both got overtaken.

I'm more than happy with how the system works- he had better wins, he deserves to place higher.

I'll say that I was the one to win the tournament in question this past weekend, and it was purely due to a lucky matchup where I got a 10-1 in the final round. 2 less and I think WG would have actually been either tied or been ahead in tourney points with his final 6-5 win, and definitely would have won with a 8-3. My chances of winning the tournament going into it were slim, and I knew that, so I definitely took more risks and played much more aggressively. But I only did that because I knew I had a chance to come out on top. Had WG had this in mind, I think he also would have played more aggressively to secure first place with an 8-3 or higher.

The guys at table 3, the bottom table, also still had a chance to place in the top 4 for some goodies, and they were not playing for last place. Going to a win-loss primary decision would remove their ulterior motivation for playing well.

Knowing how the MOV converted to tournament points and how many points each ship was worth, I was able to, in the final round, determine which exact ships and squadrons would make acceptable losses for securing the 10-1. So I was able to use those as bait, fireships, whatever to table my opponent, score the objective points, and get the 10-1. It was highly calculated, but not without risk. Why didn't I do that in my earlier rounds? I did, it just didn't work.

And that is why I like the tournament point system. It keeps all of the tables (within reason), competitive because losing a single match does not mean you can't win the tournament. And it keeps the undefeated players at the top from trying to coast in the final matchup, unless you're just so far ahead that no possible combination of points could actually depose you as long as you win the final match (as in the top table at Gigabites, last Saturday). Even in my final match at the regional last week, my opponent chose Intel sweep in hopes of scoring big to jump the ranks, took several gambles...and lost.

But I will say that the system works better the more players there are. Like I said, I got lucky in my matchup by playing against a less experienced player because there were only six of us. The tournament point gap between he and I was pretty big going into it. While such a lucky matchup could happen in the first round of a larger tournament, it becomes far less likely as the rounds progress.

My suggestion is to assassinate your winner, absorb his or her powers, then take their prizes.

Only way to be sure.

The rules don't say you can't do that.

My suggestion is to assassinate your winner, absorb his or her powers, then take their prizes.

Only way to be sure.

The rules don't say you can't do that.

Dras? Ruling?

My suggestion is to assassinate your winner, absorb his or her powers, then take their prizes.

Only way to be sure.

The rules don't say you can't do that.

Dras? Ruling?

Dras posted this in https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/236618-dual-turbolasers-and-other-dice-mod-effects/ if you want any insight.

Throwing out a thought for those who like that it supports risk taking, etc. Why encourage only one form of play? Wouldn't a system of partial Win/Loss and partial MOV encourage a greater variety of play styles?

For example, lets say you have two fleets in the current system. The first is a jousting fleet that is likely going to win if flown well, but not win big because it will probably lose a ship or two. The second is a fleet that is likely to win big or mitigate a bad match up by limiting MOV to marginal (hence fast ships that can escape bad draws). The current system encourages taking the second fleet only because the odds are that one of the second style will get lucky in draws and win 4 of 5 games by a large MOV.

However, if wins counted first and then MOV within wins, players would have to strategize on fleet style. They could bet on being able to get all wins, but if someone else got all wins and higher MOV, then they still wouldn't get first. If they wanted to play risky, then they still need to get wins in those match ups that are bad draws. No more finding oneself in a bad matchup and playing not to lose too much MOV.

In other words, in case this isn't clear, I am suggesting that having wins count as the primary gauge followed by MOV would actually ADD variety the types of lists that could win a tourney.

Because most of the time, its irrelevant what your secondary measure is.

The Primary is what is important.

Having Degrees upon the Primary (Tournament Points), provides a wider spread than a Binary Yes/No.

The type of competition that is - and has - been pushed in Armada, from Day One, is objective based... Play the Mission, not to just wipe your opponent out. You're not just banking here for survival and death, you're above that... You are a fleet commander. How you get there is just as important as where you go... Pyrrhic Victories are losses in the Long term, so don't bank on them....

Armada itself doesn't encourage deathmatch play. Which is mostly incompatible with scoring based objectives. I mean, why bother with objectives if you're not going to score?

This is exactly the argument for changing the current system.

This is exactly the argument for changing the current system.

You don't like objectives?

This is exactly the argument for changing the current system.

You don't like objectives?

I love objectives.

The problem with playing them and crafting your fleet with the specific goal of winning an objective in mind is that the current system favors the team-death match style of play.

This is exactly the argument for changing the current system.

You don't like objectives?

I love objectives.

The problem with playing them and crafting your fleet with the specific goal of winning an objective in mind is that the current system favors the team-death match style of play.

Well, we have a disagreement on the definition of the term "death match" then.

This is exactly the argument for changing the current system.

You don't like objectives?

I love objectives.

The problem with playing them and crafting your fleet with the specific goal of winning an objective in mind is that the current system favors the team-death match style of play.

Well, we have a disagreement on the definition of the term "death match" then.

Your definition of team-death match isn't kill as many of the opponent's pieces as you can to score the most points?