I'm with you 100% Dras! There should be none of that! The system right now, however, heavily rewards the "go big or go home" strategy and marginalizes other valid courses of action … IMHO. I would hope that those I've played against have never thought of me as a "win at all costs" kind of person but I approach every game with the objective of winning. Isn't that the ultimate objective of every player that stands at the table?

I'm with you 100% Dras! There should be none of that! The system right now, however, heavily rewards the "go big or go home" strategy and marginalizes other valid courses of action … IMHO. I would hope that those I've played against have never thought of me as a "win at all costs" kind of person but I approach every game with the objective of winning. Isn't that the ultimate objective of every player that stands at the table?

I disagree. It does not marginalise any one course of action. Rather, it legitimizes three concurrently....

"Go Big or Go Home"... You say that, and you know what that says to me?

"Don't concentrate on just one aspect (killing your opponent)... You need to be good at at least three strategies... Simultaneously.......

1) Destruction of the Enemy...

2) Preservation of Your Forces...

3) Leveraging Objectives...

Failure in any one of those three will cost you a "big win"... "

Which is fine by me.

Because to win, you should be the best at it all..... Not the best at 1 aspect.

Reducing things to the "Win", simply becomes a race for the edge in, primarily, one of those aspects... Perhaps the second...

- You stop caring about preserving your forces, because all you have to do is kill the enemy first...

- You stop caring about the objectives, because all you have to do is kill the enemy first...

Now, you can attempt to do that right now... But what happens? At best, you kill enemy, at the cost of any and all objective based additional points, and the loss of some or most of your forces... And you know what... As a champion of one third of the game, you should be getting about one third of the reward of someone who is good at it all....

I am also an old, bitter, jaded Wargamer, who has seen far too many situations be broken with "Win at all costs. Killing the enemy is Winning."...

Its destroyed my enjoyment of the game. Of all of the aspects of the game. The subtle nuances, the distraction plays, the come from behinds... The learning and the growth... Its all seemingly crushed under "WIN."

So yes. I am heavily biased. I am unable to be persuaded or have my opinion changed. If Armada were to change to a "Win at all costs", or simply a "Wins First" system of competition. I'd stop playing. There'd be no point. People are instinctively going to aim for what will get them that immediate sense of victory, by whatever means necessary that is...

I picked up Armada because the objectives immediately added the storyline aspect to the game, even at the top competition levels...

I picked up Armada because it at least gave some nod to the context of lumbering ships and darting fighters at the same time...

I picked up Armada because, given the choice of two FFG games, it was the Slower, calmer, Scotch-Drinking, Beard-Stroking game, where a solid strategy would put you at an advantage, but having skill in multiple aspects of gameplay was always going to be the biggest advantage.

So no. Never put pure Wins first. Never let someone think they can reduce the game to how hard they can punch you.

As an inherently "unlucky" person. There'd be no point to me playing.

Old Age and Treachery will beat Youth and Enthusiasm any day...

In a three round sprint, it's not perfect but it does allow for all kinds of builds that can win.

Also, despite a number of these threads, usually put up by someone who feels created out of victory, I've yet to see a better alternative proposed.

Dras, I think I agree with everything you've said. Those 3 things are what I build my fleet to accomplish. It's probably why I'm not a 10-1 type of player. If I didn't have Eng Cpt on board, I could've used those 6 points for APT somewhere, or a higher bid to ensure Demo gets a triple tap, etc. It just seems to me that the player that builds a fleet crusher and can rack up two 10-1 victories and a loss should not be seen as a better to a player who achieved 3 6-5 victories.

I hear you on the luck thing also and my "marginal" victories this last weekend had a lot to do with bad rolls. Tell me how lucky it is to roll two damage on a full frontal ISD shot against the rear of a damaged MC30 at short range haha. And that was AFTER Screed! LOL I needed that thing dead but it didn't happen which caused me to ram Demo then loose Demo when that frigate activated and hit it with a full broadside. I could have activated Demo but surely the ISD could take care of him … NOT! Calculated risks that should've panned out but didn't. It's all part of the fun of the game and I do love Armada for its overall balance!

So, my proposed change would be that victories are counted first. A player that goes undefeated in a 4 or 5 (or even 3) round tourney is doing something right IMHO. In the event there is a tie in victories, the player with the higher tournament point MOV beats the player with the lower tournament points. After that, MOV determines rank.

Dras, I think I agree with everything you've said. Those 3 things are what I build my fleet to accomplish. It's probably why I'm not a 10-1 type of player. If I didn't have Eng Cpt on board, I could've used those 6 points for APT somewhere, or a higher bid to ensure Demo gets a triple tap, etc. It just seems to me that the player that builds a fleet crusher and can rack up two 10-1 victories and a loss should not be seen as a better to a player who achieved 3 6-5 victories.

I hear you on the luck thing also and my "marginal" victories this last weekend had a lot to do with bad rolls. Tell me how lucky it is to roll two damage on a full frontal ISD shot against the rear of a damaged MC30 at short range haha. And that was AFTER Screed! LOL I needed that thing dead but it didn't happen which caused me to ram Demo then loose Demo when that frigate activated and hit it with a full broadside. I could have activated Demo but surely the ISD could take care of him … NOT! Calculated risks that should've panned out but didn't. It's all part of the fun of the game and I do love Armada for its overall balance!

So, my proposed change would be that victories are counted first. A player that goes undefeated in a 4 or 5 (or even 3) round tourney is doing something right IMHO. In the event there is a tie in victories, the player with the higher tournament point MOV beats the player with the lower tournament points. After that, MOV determines rank.

I TOTALLY see your point. The issue I have is that we are in a system where if I were to play a 400 point fleet, go second 99% of the time, and run from you, I get the win. Obviously the objectives are there to stop something like that, so lets add that in. My objectives pander to my run and run strategy, so I pick Most wanted (you never get a shot on me, I win), Hyperspace assault (I deploy my ship rnd 5 and run, yay, still a win), and intel sweep (I put my three tokens right in line with my run path, I get 75 MORE run away pts. which means I now get more MOV!).

Sadly, I have SEEN people play these fleets and strategies. In your win first system, these fleets could win Worlds while someone with a completely balanced fleet that wins 3 out of 4 games with 10-1 victories can go home in the bottom HALF of the standings. But, I get it. I come from a football love'n family where you can come from C-USA and go undefeated and not be ranked because they said you didn't play tough enough opponents. But, like armada, that's the luck of the draw (and scheduling years in advance, but I won't pick hairs here...similar concept.)

I think they have room to tweek it, but I don't see a totally broken system. I do wish they could weight wins somehow, but I don't see how to mathematically and still make it possible to have folks stay competitive with a loss. Like someone further up said, If i drive 2+ hours to play a tourney and I lose my first game 6-5, and that means I statistically can't place in the prizes no matter what I do in the next 2-3 games, I'm going home and firing up e-bay to recoup my money.

So in a win vs loss system with MOV as 2nd qualifier, you have problems with small tournaments under 10 people.

For example:

6 people enter a tournament.

1st round: 3 winners, 3 losers. We can disregard losers because they cannot win 1st place.

2nd round: 2 winners, with one of those playing someone from the losers bracket.

3rd round: 1 winner, and all they have to do is win. 6-5 with 0 MOV is good enough because we only care about wins.

12 people enter a tournament

1st round. 6 winners, 6 losers.

2nd round: 3 winners, 3 losers.

3rd round: 2 winners with one of those playing someone from the losers bracket. At this point MOV matters, but you only need to get more than the other guy.

24 people enter a tournament

1st round: 12 winners, 12 losers

2nd round: 6 winners, 6 losers

3rd round: 3 winners. MOV is very important now to determine 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

Once you get 24 people, the system really starts to work. The win vs loss system only cares about getting wins 1st and 2nd round, and winning big the 3rd round since the loser gets 0 MOV. But the system we have now also works, and I think better, when you get 20+ people. It takes into account your MOV from each game by translating them into tournament points which are a form of wins. 6-10 is a win. 1-5 is a loss. But it does not prevent someone with a loss from earning 2nd place.

I have yet to see a system that can work for small and large tournaments, but what we have now prevents a winners and losers bracket.

So is assassination legal or not, folks?

So is assassination legal or not, folks?

Define legal.

So is assassination legal or not, folks?

I can't find anything in the RRG about killing your opponent so they aren't saying you can't do it. I would challenge anyone to check with their local statutes about it, and /or local store rules. Very few TO's like cleaning up blood, that I have found.

Dras, I think I agree with everything you've said. Those 3 things are what I build my fleet to accomplish. It's probably why I'm not a 10-1 type of player. If I didn't have Eng Cpt on board, I could've used those 6 points for APT somewhere, or a higher bid to ensure Demo gets a triple tap, etc. It just seems to me that the player that builds a fleet crusher and can rack up two 10-1 victories and a loss should not be seen as a better to a player who achieved 3 6-5 victories.

I hear you on the luck thing also and my "marginal" victories this last weekend had a lot to do with bad rolls. Tell me how lucky it is to roll two damage on a full frontal ISD shot against the rear of a damaged MC30 at short range haha. And that was AFTER Screed! LOL I needed that thing dead but it didn't happen which caused me to ram Demo then loose Demo when that frigate activated and hit it with a full broadside. I could have activated Demo but surely the ISD could take care of him … NOT! Calculated risks that should've panned out but didn't. It's all part of the fun of the game and I do love Armada for its overall balance!

So, my proposed change would be that victories are counted first. A player that goes undefeated in a 4 or 5 (or even 3) round tourney is doing something right IMHO. In the event there is a tie in victories, the player with the higher tournament point MOV beats the player with the lower tournament points. After that, MOV determines rank.

I TOTALLY see your point. The issue I have is that we are in a system where if I were to play a 400 point fleet, go second 99% of the time, and run from you, I get the win. Obviously the objectives are there to stop something like that, so lets add that in. My objectives pander to my run and run strategy, so I pick Most wanted (you never get a shot on me, I win), Hyperspace assault (I deploy my ship rnd 5 and run, yay, still a win), and intel sweep (I put my three tokens right in line with my run path, I get 75 MORE run away pts. which means I now get more MOV!).

Sadly, I have SEEN people play these fleets and strategies. In your win first system, these fleets could win Worlds while someone with a completely balanced fleet that wins 3 out of 4 games with 10-1 victories can go home in the bottom HALF of the standings. But, I get it. I come from a football love'n family where you can come from C-USA and go undefeated and not be ranked because they said you didn't play tough enough opponents. But, like armada, that's the luck of the draw (and scheduling years in advance, but I won't pick hairs here...similar concept.)

I think they have room to tweek it, but I don't see a totally broken system. I do wish they could weight wins somehow, but I don't see how to mathematically and still make it possible to have folks stay competitive with a loss. Like someone further up said, If i drive 2+ hours to play a tourney and I lose my first game 6-5, and that means I statistically can't place in the prizes no matter what I do in the next 2-3 games, I'm going home and firing up e-bay to recoup my money.

That's cute, lose 5-6 on your first game and your out. You could win your first game 7-4 and your probably out.

Interestingly, the winner of the Marietta regional tournament used a turtle strategy that paid off because his opponents were trying to get a big win.

Dras, I think I agree with everything you've said. Those 3 things are what I build my fleet to accomplish. It's probably why I'm not a 10-1 type of player. If I didn't have Eng Cpt on board, I could've used those 6 points for APT somewhere, or a higher bid to ensure Demo gets a triple tap, etc. It just seems to me that the player that builds a fleet crusher and can rack up two 10-1 victories and a loss should not be seen as a better to a player who achieved 3 6-5 victories.

I hear you on the luck thing also and my "marginal" victories this last weekend had a lot to do with bad rolls. Tell me how lucky it is to roll two damage on a full frontal ISD shot against the rear of a damaged MC30 at short range haha. And that was AFTER Screed! LOL I needed that thing dead but it didn't happen which caused me to ram Demo then loose Demo when that frigate activated and hit it with a full broadside. I could have activated Demo but surely the ISD could take care of him … NOT! Calculated risks that should've panned out but didn't. It's all part of the fun of the game and I do love Armada for its overall balance!

So, my proposed change would be that victories are counted first. A player that goes undefeated in a 4 or 5 (or even 3) round tourney is doing something right IMHO. In the event there is a tie in victories, the player with the higher tournament point MOV beats the player with the lower tournament points. After that, MOV determines rank.

I TOTALLY see your point. The issue I have is that we are in a system where if I were to play a 400 point fleet, go second 99% of the time, and run from you, I get the win. Obviously the objectives are there to stop something like that, so lets add that in. My objectives pander to my run and run strategy, so I pick Most wanted (you never get a shot on me, I win), Hyperspace assault (I deploy my ship rnd 5 and run, yay, still a win), and intel sweep (I put my three tokens right in line with my run path, I get 75 MORE run away pts. which means I now get more MOV!).

Sadly, I have SEEN people play these fleets and strategies. In your win first system, these fleets could win Worlds while someone with a completely balanced fleet that wins 3 out of 4 games with 10-1 victories can go home in the bottom HALF of the standings. But, I get it. I come from a football love'n family where you can come from C-USA and go undefeated and not be ranked because they said you didn't play tough enough opponents. But, like armada, that's the luck of the draw (and scheduling years in advance, but I won't pick hairs here...similar concept.)

I think they have room to tweek it, but I don't see a totally broken system. I do wish they could weight wins somehow, but I don't see how to mathematically and still make it possible to have folks stay competitive with a loss. Like someone further up said, If i drive 2+ hours to play a tourney and I lose my first game 6-5, and that means I statistically can't place in the prizes no matter what I do in the next 2-3 games, I'm going home and firing up e-bay to recoup my money.

That's cute, lose 5-6 on your first game and your out. You could win your first game 7-4 and your probably out.

Or win three and end up third. However you slice it, to use someone's analogy (not mine): you've wasted a two hour drive. That's a win at all costs mentality to me. If you didn't come prepared to loose all of your matches and still have fun and go home with nothing, then why did you show up? The strategies for winning a game or a tourney are all slices of the same pie.

IF I play for points, I'm out of the running if I get a 6-5 win or two

IF I play for wins, I'm out of the running if I get a loss or two

IF I play for MOV, I'm out of the running if it don't rack up enough points

IF I play for the objective, I might avoid shooting in favor of maneuver

IF I play a hammer anvil fleet, I might forego maneuver in favor of damage output

IF I play squadrons, I might sacrafice ship activations

IF I have a large bid, I probably sacrifice some of the above

The great thing about Armada is that all these things are happening and the game is wonderfully balanced. Perhaps the current system is better at encouraging the destruction of your enemy but aren't the subtle strategy decisions that are part of Armada the key thing that makes it different from XW? The objectives, the maneuver, the fleet builds, etc. Don't mean to poke but again, it seems counterintuitive and I'd be saying that if I had lost all of the matches and someone else was bringing this up.

I think for all the reasons you listed there will never be the perfect scoring system to determine who wins, because on top of all of that, you have to accommodate for a fluctuation in players at tournaments. There are too many variables to create a simple system that can catch everything.

I don't think what we have is the best, but it does its best in every situation.

I think for all the reasons you listed there will never be the perfect scoring system to determine who wins, because on top of all of that, you have to accommodate for a fluctuation in players at tournaments. There are too many variables to create a simple system that can catch everything.

I don't think what we have is the best, but it does its best in every situation.

In that case it is the best. I guess I'm old fashioned in that the winner should win haha.

So is assassination legal or not, folks?

It's only illegal if you get caught.

But definitely immoral. Also not covered in the rules.

I think the shortfalls in the scoring system are mostly related to time constraints. The win scale is probably the best compromise we have. It's hard to split up events over more than a day as its hard on people coming from out of town. 5 games of Armada in one day is pretty gruelling.

Lol well my example undermined your "death match" criteria, so I guess it isn't so subjective after all.

DEATH MATCH is a term used in the rulebook as an optional rule.

It is part of the UNLIMITED ROUND optional rules.

I believe it also includes "to the bitter end" and "no objectives".

Ergo, if you're not using that, you're not playing a Death match as defined in Star Wars: Armada.

I guess I'm old fashioned in that the winner should win haha.

Instead of looking at it as "I won a game" look at it as "I scored 7 points in that round"

If I score 7 points in 3 rounds. And an opponent scores 9 points in 2 rounds and 4 in another. Who won?

I guess I'm old fashioned in that the winner should win haha.

Instead of looking at it as "I won a game" look at it as "I scored 7 points in that round"

If I score 7 points in 3 rounds. And an opponent scores 9 points in 2 rounds and 4 in another. Who won?

What you just described is the entire reason this thread exists.

Group A think winning every game should decide 1st place.

Group B think scoring most points through the tournament should decide 1st place.

I know. I was suggesting that there is no "winning" every game. There is only a "win" at the end when scores are totaled.

Basically, don't walk away from a match where you got 7 points and say "I won that".. say "I got 7 points"

Another way to look at it if people still want to feel a "win" at that point is to grade them like this:

6-5 "Bare victory" -- "Bare defeat"
7-4 "Minor victory" -- "Minor defeat"
8-3 "Moderate victory" -- "Moderate defeat"
9-2 "Victory" -- "Defeat"
10-1 "Great victory" -- "Great defeat"

So you don't "win", you had a "minor victory".

"How did you do?"
"Pretty good, I had 3 Minor Victories. The winner had two Great victories and a Bare Defeat"

That makes more sense than I won 3 and the winner won 2 and lost 1.

I tend to look at 6-5 "wins" as essentially draws - a draw biased in my favor, but a draw nonetheless. I waffle back and forth on whether 7-4 should also be considered a draw, it's on the line between a draw and a full-fledged win. An 8-3 is the first score where I'm confident in saying that I won (or lost, if I got the 3).

I know. I was suggesting that there is no "winning" every game. There is only a "win" at the end when scores are totaled.

Basically, don't walk away from a match where you got 7 points and say "I won that".. say "I got 7 points"

Another way to look at it if people still want to feel a "win" at that point is to grade them like this:

6-5 "Bare victory" -- "Bare defeat"

7-4 "Minor victory" -- "Minor defeat"

8-3 "Moderate victory" -- "Moderate defeat"

9-2 "Victory" -- "Defeat"

10-1 "Great victory" -- "Great defeat"

So you don't "win", you had a "minor victory".

"How did you do?"

"Pretty good, I had 3 Minor Victories. The winner had two Great victories and a Bare Defeat"

That makes more sense than I won 3 and the winner won 2 and lost 1.

This. I think this goes a long way in helping to clarify how Armada tournaments are not singular battles. They are a war, or a whole operation/campaign. I can't help but think of the saying, "you may have won the battle, but you lost the war." And I feel like that perspective of looking at tournaments really adds to the epic feel of the game. As a former student of military history, that's how a lot of wars were decided. It took breakthrough campaigns to really win a war. It's a really crude comparison because it's so much more complex in real life, but I still hold that opinion