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?

In a Death Match, that is the sole and only consideration.

If your Enemy is alive at the end, you have lost. Makes no difference what it takes and what you lose... You win only by completely destroying your enemy.

Points don't mean anything in a Death Match. Which is why Armada is not inducive of Death Match Play... You may still want to destroy your enemy to score points, but you're doing it to score points... Not as your sole consideration.

Armada further discourages it by giving you alternate ways of scoring said points - 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.

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?

In a Death Match, that is the sole and only consideration.

If your Enemy is alive at the end, you have lost. Makes no difference what it takes and what you lose... You win only by completely destroying your enemy.

Points don't mean anything in a Death Match. Which is why Armada is not inducive of Death Match Play... You may still want to destroy your enemy to score points, but you're doing it to score points... Not as your sole consideration.

Armada further discourages it by giving you alternate ways of scoring said points - Objectives.

"If your Enemy is alive at the end, you have lost."

Not true at all. If I take out two decked out star destroyers that won fire lanes 5/6 rounds, and the opponent still has a raider or two alive, I most likely won the game with a nice margin of victory (assuming the majority of my fleet is intact).

"You may still want to destroy your enemy to score points, but you're doing it to score points... Not as your sole consideration. "

Again not true. I have tabled opponents before where my "sole consideration" has been to do exactly that, table them. For example, where an opponent takes every single dangerous territory objective, that accomplishment is rendered meaningless if you table that opponent.

"Armada further discourages it by giving you alternate ways of scoring said points - Objectives."

True. And it works, to an extent.

I've won games by only killing one small ship, and pinging away at a rear hull with bombers in the superior positions objective.

That being said, I still think the current system favors the team death match up style of play. There is an inherent difficulty in trying to solely play the objective. It can force you into more precarious situations and make it more easy for your opponent to table you. Furthermore, if one player whose fleet is severely under matched chooses to closely play the objective while avoiding engagements, then that player is not rewarded as much for his efforts.

It's possible that the new objectives will balance this out, and if they don't I think one solution is to simply nominally increase the rewards derived from completing some of the various objectives. It will allow for undermatched fleets to play to their strengths, which are presumable reflected in the player's objective choices.

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree on the term "Death Match".

I don't believe Armada is one, or allows one.

You have a different definition. That's cool and all.

But unless definitions are defined (*and mine now is*), there can never be understanding.

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree on the term "Death Match".

I don't believe Armada is one, or allows one.

You have a different definition. That's cool and all.

But unless definitions are defined (*and mine now is*), there can never be understanding.

The definition isn't subjective.

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

Edit: An illustrative example that might drive home my point.

Fleet A is composed of max anti-squadron, while Fleet B contains zero squadrons. Naturally, Fleet B is going to have more capital ship firepower, and could more easily table the opponent. However, if Fleet A wins the objective, there is still a substantial possibility that the margin of victory will be small enough to prevent that player from winning a tournament, despite winning all its matches. In this example, the player is being punished because of his or her fleet composition, not his or her play.

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

What is this "team" you keep talking about? It's 1v1.

I disagree. Armada does not favor a death match. You can win 10-1 by killing 30 points, and scoring 6 rounds of Firelanes tokens giving you 300 points. So long as you don't lose anything, you win. A death match is where you are the last man standing. I'm not sure where you are getting your definition from, but words and definition can be subjective.

The current system just doesn't work all that well with small tournament pools, especially where player levels vary greatly, because then your 10-1s are just as often the result of a lucky matchup than a show of skill.

Last tournament with 8 players, I finished 3rd going 6-5, 9-2, 7-4. #1 went 10-1, 10-1, 4-7, #2 went 5-6, 8-3, 9-2.

I beat both players on the board that day.

It's still probably the best system there is given the game format, because we all had fun.

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

What is this "team" you keep talking about? It's 1v1.

I disagree. Armada does not favor a death match. You can win 10-1 by killing 30 points, and scoring 6 rounds of Firelanes tokens giving you 300 points. So long as you don't lose anything, you win. A death match is where you are the last man standing. I'm not sure where you are getting your definition from, but words and definition can be subjective.

I was using "team" as a substitute for "fleet," so you're just pointing out semantics here.

Yes, that is a good example, but like I said, my stance is not black and white. It's just that the 1) system caters towards one style of play over another, and 2) the system punishes players who pull bad match ups, which is of course, random.

The current system just doesn't work all that well with small tournament pools, especially where player levels vary greatly, because then your 10-1s are just as often the result of a lucky matchup than a show of skill.

Last tournament with 8 players, I finished 3rd going 6-5, 9-2, 7-4. #1 went 10-1, 10-1, 4-7, #2 went 5-6, 8-3, 9-2.

I beat both players on the board that day.

It's still probably the best system there is given the game format, because we all had fun.

100% agree. Really starts to work after 10-12 players.

The current system is not perfect but lemme talk about the PROs...

Worlds 2016 - It was a brutal cut to the Final Four. Luckily, we had a Final Four where peeps fought hard; otherwise, it would have been boring to turtle and have someone win by killing one squadron.

If we had a pure Swiss format with W-L, it really sucks to lose your 1st Round because you are out. Armada is the People's Game and this lets you have hopefully meaningful games all day.

When you are in the Pole Position, you can't let your foot off the pedal, so everyone is fighting hard each round.

We all know that matchups matter so there's luck involved... but let's put it this way...

In the World Series of Poker, we don't have repeat champions that often... but the elite players always seem to reach the final table.

In summary, elite players will likely reach the Final Four in most tournaments.

As for Worlds, I had the bye so I scored 8 in Round 1. Four players had 10-1s in the 1st Round of my grouping... did it affect my play? Heck yeah... I was playing to win bigger... to me, I wanted to make the Top Third to get the Objective Ship Marking Tokens or make the cut to the Final Four. Everywhere else in between did not matter to me (e.g., of course, dice and whatever would have been nice, but I play to try to win it all.)

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

What is this "team" you keep talking about? It's 1v1.

I disagree. Armada does not favor a death match. You can win 10-1 by killing 30 points, and scoring 6 rounds of Firelanes tokens giving you 300 points. So long as you don't lose anything, you win. A death match is where you are the last man standing. I'm not sure where you are getting your definition from, but words and definition can be subjective.

I was using "team" as a substitute for "fleet," so you're just pointing out semantics here.

Yes, that is a good example, but like I said, my stance is not black and white. It's just that the 1) system caters towards one style of play over another, and 2) the system punishes players who pull bad match ups, which is of course, random.

There were no semantics. I literally had no clue why you kept calling it a team death match.

If Armada was a death match game, like X-Wing where you kill everything, why do you care about earning points?

The system we have does not force a death match style. But it does encourage engagement which can turn into a 10-1 because you kill everything.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

What is this "team" you keep talking about? It's 1v1.

I disagree. Armada does not favor a death match. You can win 10-1 by killing 30 points, and scoring 6 rounds of Firelanes tokens giving you 300 points. So long as you don't lose anything, you win. A death match is where you are the last man standing. I'm not sure where you are getting your definition from, but words and definition can be subjective.

I was using "team" as a substitute for "fleet," so you're just pointing out semantics here.

Yes, that is a good example, but like I said, my stance is not black and white. It's just that the 1) system caters towards one style of play over another, and 2) the system punishes players who pull bad match ups, which is of course, random.

There were no semantics. I literally had no clue why you kept calling it a team death match.

Because a fleet operates as a team is all.

The current system is not perfect but lemme talk about the PROs...

Worlds 2016 - It was a brutal cut to the Final Four. Luckily, we had a Final Four where peeps fought hard; otherwise, it would have been boring to turtle and have someone win by killing one squadron.

If we had a pure Swiss format with W-L, it really sucks to lose your 1st Round because you are out. Armada is the People's Game and this lets you have hopefully meaningful games all day.

When you are in the Pole Position, you can't let your foot off the pedal, so everyone is fighting hard each round.

We all know that matchups matter so there's luck involved... but let's put it this way...

In the World Series of Poker, we don't have repeat champions that often... but the elite players always seem to reach the final table.

In summary, elite players will likely reach the Final Four in most tournaments.

As for Worlds, I had the bye so I scored 8 in Round 1. Four players had 10-1s in the 1st Round of my grouping... did it affect my play? Heck yeah... I was playing to win bigger... to me, I wanted to make the Top Third to get the Objective Ship Marking Tokens or make the cut to the Final Four. Everywhere else in between did not matter to me (e.g., of course, dice and whatever would have been nice, but I play to try to win it all.)

Did you earn your bye or was it given because of an odd number of players? And knowing what you know now, would you suggest taking the bye first round? Either for points or to stay fresh for round 2?

Edt: Assuming a player earned a bye of course.

US National Champion 2016. :-) (My reasoning was that I earned it so I should use it.)

Until it changes, I will never take a Bye again. There's another thread on this... but, especially at Worlds, taking a bye is increasing the likelihood that you will battle another National/GenCon/European Champion... a Group of Death if you will.

In a premier event, you need a 10 or 9 in first round to use the momentum to control your destiny. To use a college football analogy, don't leave it up to polls or the refs. Win big.

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree on the term "Death Match".

I don't believe Armada is one, or allows one.

You have a different definition. That's cool and all.

But unless definitions are defined (*and mine now is*), there can never be understanding.

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

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

If you want a game system where all you do is lineup your armies and thrash it out until one is destroyed... 40k and Warhammer's over there----->

If you want to use strategy and skill, here is where you will find it.

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree on the term "Death Match".

I don't believe Armada is one, or allows one.

You have a different definition. That's cool and all.

But unless definitions are defined (*and mine now is*), there can never be understanding.

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

All your example did is show that my definition was different to yours.

Like I said, we fundamentally disagree on the term "Death Match".

I don't believe Armada is one, or allows one.

You have a different definition. That's cool and all.

But unless definitions are defined (*and mine now is*), there can never be understanding.

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

All your example did is show that my definition was different to yours.

How so?

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.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

Edit: An illustrative example that might drive home my point.

Fleet A is composed of max anti-squadron, while Fleet B contains zero squadrons. Naturally, Fleet B is going to have more capital ship firepower, and could more easily table the opponent. However, if Fleet A wins the objective, there is still a substantial possibility that the margin of victory will be small enough to prevent that player from winning a tournament, despite winning all its matches. In this example, the player is being punished because of his or her fleet composition, not his or her play.

I think what Warlord Zepnick is trying to say - and let me know if i'm wrong - is that the objectives don't seem to matter enough to deter folks from just trying to kill each other. And certainly some of the objectives revolve around killing the other guy better (Advanced Gunnery, Most Wanted, etc). You have a limited selection of missions that allow big wins on objective points alone (Superior Positions, Fire Lanes, etc). Myself, I think the balance between missions and blow-em-up is fine, though the new missions will definitely offer options for non-combat based objective scoring.

But I'll point out a flaw in your example, WZ. That's a bad matchup, but it doesn't really have anything to do with missions. It has to do with that game-within-the-game, of fleet composition. Fleet A has chosen to go anti-squadron, presumably because there are a lot of bomber lists around and they feel they can harvest enough points from facing bomber lists to make up for any squadronless lists they encounter. It's a conscious choice...they're not being "punished", they're facing the consequences of their own decision making. Trying to achieve the right balance in your fleet is one of the joys of the game.

Now, if you're saying there should be objectives that allow a squadronless vs squadronful fleet to be equally viable, I'll agree. I think we're getting there...

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.

My main point is that the system encourages and favors a death match. My stance isn't black and white. You can still win by playing the objectives, but the system punishes teams that are under matched and are catered towards playing the objective to win.

Edit: An illustrative example that might drive home my point.

Fleet A is composed of max anti-squadron, while Fleet B contains zero squadrons. Naturally, Fleet B is going to have more capital ship firepower, and could more easily table the opponent. However, if Fleet A wins the objective, there is still a substantial possibility that the margin of victory will be small enough to prevent that player from winning a tournament, despite winning all its matches. In this example, the player is being punished because of his or her fleet composition, not his or her play.

I think what Warlord Zepnick is trying to say - and let me know if i'm wrong - is that the objectives don't seem to matter enough to deter folks from just trying to kill each other. And certainly some of the objectives revolve around killing the other guy better (Advanced Gunnery, Most Wanted, etc). You have a limited selection of missions that allow big wins on objective points alone (Superior Positions, Fire Lanes, etc). Myself, I think the balance between missions and blow-em-up is fine, though the new missions will definitely offer options for non-combat based objective scoring.

But I'll point out a flaw in your example, WZ. That's a bad matchup, but it doesn't really have anything to do with missions. It has to do with that game-within-the-game, of fleet composition. Fleet A has chosen to go anti-squadron, presumably because there are a lot of bomber lists around and they feel they can harvest enough points from facing bomber lists to make up for any squadronless lists they encounter. It's a conscious choice...they're not being "punished", they're facing the consequences of their own decision making. Trying to achieve the right balance in your fleet is one of the joys of the game.

Now, if you're saying there should be objectives that allow a squadronless vs squadronful fleet to be equally viable, I'll agree. I think we're getting there...

I think the deterrence is a great way to put it. Thanks for helping to clarify.

Despite my objection to the MoV system I too agree it's the best setup.

So I think the next tournament, I'll take a fleet with the sole purpose of playing safe and crushing people's day. Dammit, if I can't win, neither are you!!!

Excellent discussion! I'm in the camp that wins should come first with MOV being a tie breaker. I don't say that because I feel cheated in any way, but rather because that is what seems to make sense to me. It would seem that what some call "risk" is really saying forget maneuver and objectives and smash your opponent's ships. Yes, there are some objectives that, if ignored, will cost you "bigly" but it seems that a large majority tailor fleets to destroy other fleets. Some would say that a strategy of avoiding the major conflict is dull. I'd agree that it makes for a boring game but isn't that just a valid a strategy as a big joust? And doesn't that player risk the tournament placing because at the end, the person whom he is tied with may have achieved bigger wins throughout his three rounds? Yes, this is much less of an issue in larger tournaments. Changing to a win > points > MOV system (as opposed to points > MOV currently) would have no effect on the larger tournaments as there should be several people (or at least 2) in each win/loss category.

Parkdaddy and I didn't get to play unfortunately. Like I said, I had a blast and I have lost no sleep because I didn't get a coin (or medal or whatever) but it seemed counterintuitive.

So, here's a question: if wins don't matter then why bother with tournament points, why not just rank off of points scored? IMHO, I do think the total destruction of a fleet is the preliminary objective of a large majority of the fleets and the tourney system encourages that. With Corellian Campaign coming out, you'll see players fight very differently in order to preserve combat power over the course of the campaign and then there will be a wider variety of strategies.

I am vehemently, violently opposed to anything which even hints at encouraging "Win At All Costs."