Lets pretend for a moment that you have to bring 3 objectives, 3 deployments, and 3 terrain cards with to a tourney. What do you bring for your Blitz/Tarpit/MSU/DeathStar army?

Existing/revealed deployments:

[Core] Battle Lines

[ Core] Careful Approach

[Core] Hammer and Anvil

[Core] Head to Head

[Core] Standoff

[Core] Unprepared

[Ankaur]

[Hawthorne]

[Latari Box] ??

[Maegan] ??

[Uthuk Box] ??

You can go for objectives too if you want.

I think Im a fan of MSUs and archers, so Hammer and Anvil, Head to Head, and Standoff look like my go to choices

As an Uthuk player using Ravos, I'd choose Head to Head, Standoff, and the new deployment card in the Uthuk box.

Hammer and Anvil may not be so bad, either.

I like corner maro play so careful approach is a must. Maros new deployment card would also go well (its corner deployment and an unprepared on the other side), after that it's really whatever one gives me space to deploy with units behind other units.

I expect, that same objectiv and perhaps same deployments on all tables at tornament are played. It's important for a similar result. The final points will be used for the rating. The difference of points between some objectives is giant and can't give comparable results.

I can imagine there will be a system like Imperial Assault. There are seasons with a pool of pretended maps (deployment/objectives) for official tournaments.

BTW: At this moment I just dislike Careful Approach, the two most boring games we played til now...

4 hours ago, The Bishop said:

I expect, that same objectiv and perhaps same deployments on all tables at tornament are played. It's important for a similar result. The final points will be used for the rating. The difference of points between some objectives is giant and can't give comparable results.

I can imagine there will be a system like Imperial Assault. There are seasons with a pool of pretended maps (deployment/objectives) for official tournaments.

BTW: At this moment I just dislike Careful Approach, the two most boring games we played til now...

Locking the in objectives heavily influences list building is the issue. I'll put good money on a modification of Armada where you are using one players deployment cards chosen and one players objectives.

The comparable result is how well you can choose the correct objectives or deployment to lead your army.

7 hours ago, Darthain said:

Locking the in objectives heavily influences list building is the issue. I'll put good money on a modification of Armada where you are using one players deployment cards chosen and one players objectives.

The comparable result is how well you can choose the correct objectives or deployment to lead your army.

Part of this game is having a random objective. If the rotation is 5 objectives, that would be a pretty good spread to give room for army variety.

I don't see them allowing a player to hand pick some objectives and then force his opponent to choose one.

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Part of this game is having a random objective. If the rotation is 5 objectives, that would be a pretty good spread to give room for army variety.

I don't see them allowing a player to hand pick some objectives and then force his opponent to choose one.

Armada learn to play has random objective as well (when playing with the core set, which is all we have here currently as well for rules). Part of this game, for casual initial play may be the randomness, but I am extremely skeptical that will remain at all.

Most likely scenario is something like this:

1) Player with lowest bid chooses first or second
2) First player provides EITHER objectives or deployment cards, second player provides the other (likely lumping terrain with deployment?)
3) First player chooses EITHER the objective or the deployment type, second player chooses the other
4) Terrain placed first by whoever chose deployment
5) play the **** game.

Having objectives and playing them randomly is a foolish waste in a game where lists are built to take advantage of certain items. This also reconciles unique terrain and the like, which is very difficult to do otherwise.

Initiative rotates in this game, making it less important overall than Armada, so we need to have something to drive the bid for, the bid is about control, so if you cannot control the game state you are playing towards, there is little point in bidding and first player will be for all intents and purpose random.

22 hours ago, Darthain said:

Armada learn to play has random objective as well (when playing with the core set, which is all we have here currently as well for rules). Part of this game, for casual initial play may be the randomness, but I am extremely skeptical that will remain at all.

Most likely scenario is something like this:

1) Player with lowest bid chooses first or second
2) First player provides EITHER objectives or deployment cards, second player provides the other (likely lumping terrain with deployment?)
3) First player chooses EITHER the objective or the deployment type, second player chooses the other
4) Terrain placed first by whoever chose deployment
5) play the **** game.

Having objectives and playing them randomly is a foolish waste in a game where lists are built to take advantage of certain items. This also reconciles unique terrain and the like, which is very difficult to do otherwise.

Initiative rotates in this game, making it less important overall than Armada, so we need to have something to drive the bid for, the bid is about control, so if you cannot control the game state you are playing towards, there is little point in bidding and first player will be for all intents and purpose random.

We aren't talking about the learn to play set up here. The full rules of the game tell you to randomize your objective and deployment. That's in the full, 200 point army, set up rules.

Perhaps part of the point is to negate the benefit of bidding for initiative.

9 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

We aren't talking about the learn to play set up here. The full rules of the game tell you to randomize your objective and deployment. That's in the full, 200 point army, set up rules.

Perhaps part of the point is to negate the benefit of bidding for initiative.

Maybe, but then first player would be entirely random. You wouldn't include a selection mechanic to not use it. I'm sure we'll get OP rules by Aug/Sept, then we can all so supposing, as core rules have very little bearing on OP rules. The core rules share a deck in xwing, armada, and runewars. OP will certainly require each player to have their own deck.

Well, while we are guessing, I'm gonna go with...

Two players are randomly selected as "Champions", they select the objectives/deployments they want to use, then the TO locks them in a cage with a series of weapons, bats with nails in them, etc.

Two deployments enter. One deployment leaves.

I'm still curious to hear more people address the OP's hypothetical situation instead of arguing about how they think tournament rules will go. I want to hear the justifications for why they chose the three that they did and I'm eager to see if the same ones are consistently selected.

53 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

I'm still curious to hear more people address the OP's hypothetical situation instead of arguing about how they think tournament rules will go. I want to hear the justifications for why they chose the three that they did and I'm eager to see if the same ones are consistently selected.

Its really hard to say, as I've more often chosen the deployment I feel hurt my opponent than helps me. Unprepared if they have a lot of units, forces them to spread out along the length for example.