And JJs gets a 10-1... it all comes down to table 2. And only Kristjan has the score/ MOV to overtake JJs with a 9-2 or 10-1

@BrobaFett doesn't realize it, but he is playing spoiler now.

I know it has been said often in this thread, but thanks @BiggsIRL for working to post all this. It’s great to follow along and reminds me that this game is about people playing together and forming a community.

Any chance we can get an update on Table 13? I think my buddy is on that table.

Edit: never mind. He lost 7-4. Oh well. It sounds like he had a fun day of Armada.

Are matches still going on? I just got to my hotel room. is it worth it to swing down the road to the venue?

So cool...

Table 2 going to time. Round 4.

Time has been called.

Kristjan wins, 80-80, on 2nd player tiebreaker.

It'll be Yik and JJ.

Thanks again Biggs. Good luck tomorrow.

What are the top two lists?

1 hour ago, Girshin said:

um..yes.

There is rebel aces, and the n there is rebel aces. Two builds aren't necessarily the same or played the same. But that's actually besides the point. My point was, the list that won, the configuration, idea and improvements where initiated by Yik. During play-testing nothing could beat it so all 3 players in the group took it to Worlds and it won.

Also the title has never been seen as junk in "my local area". Plus there was way more subtlety around how that list was put together that was quite unique, e.g the upgraded flotilla. If Gallant Haven was nerfed and no other nerfs were made in the last FAQ then the list would still be borderline broken. The Galant Haven nerf was completely unwarranted quite frankly .

The real problem was relay and all the multiplier effects that the rebels had combined together. It was a big mistake to release Relay in its inital state, same with flotillas, they are way way too cheap considering how hard they are to kill.

Well, I suppose if we're going to thinly slice build that much, then sure. But that's an open question: exactly how many changes can be made to a list before it should really be considered a new build or archetype. The language "configuration, idea, and improvements" is vapid, for example. By configuration, I think something like "specific ships chosen," in which there were not substantive difference between Brik's list in November of 2016 and the Toronto crews in May of 2017. For "idea," I think big picture, which absolutely belongs to Brik. Improvements, ok, that I can grant. Brik didn't take the same exactly components to Worlds 2017 as he did to 2016 either, but I'd still describe the list as the same basic archetype. The idea was already present, but wave 5 pushed that archetype to new levels of absurdity.

And no, it wasn't seen as junk in my area either, largely because the originator of it, Brik, has been playing it since wave-1.

As for the rest, nerfs and so forth, no debate.

This is what I needed to get me back into the Armada spirit after yesterdays flop.

These results go to show JJ's resilience. Losing a game early on, but capable of coming back and placing second overall. That's impressive.

Congrats to all those that played today. ~8 pts a round isn't a bad pace for getting into the top 2. See ya tomorrow!

6 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

These results go to show JJ's resilience. Losing a game early on, but capable of coming back and placing second overall. That's impressive.

That's why it's the People's Game! You gotta play hard throughout!

Congrats to the top 2 and JJ making another final 4.

Still a little disappointed that we don't have an imperial in the top 2 however. Hope the Empire can rebound day 2. The rebel domination needs to end.

7 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

That's why it's the People's Game! You gotta play hard throughout!

Third place fought back from a 2-9. This is a year of insurgents.

First, huge thanks Biggs (and Tokra) for doing that. I actually can't believe there is just nothing available to get info about Xwing day1A, despite the much bigger size of the community.

Yet, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable with the format: 4 rounds seems way too small for World Championships. And of course it combines with the number of applications they rejected. I don't know what their acceptance rate is, but just from Boston, both PT106 did not get lucky to get a spot, and we were really motivated to train well for it. (OK, I could have attended Regionals to attempt to save a spot, but it was not needed on previous years to get there - I would have tried harder had I predicted it would be different this year. I think PT106 finished 2nd of our local regional).

Rent a large room, make a single flight of (all applying) players. Have them play like 7-8 swiss rounds on two days. Cut the top 4. This is really almost nothing to ask for. And the tournament would look so much more important, selective and intense.

The game is amazing, but not exactly the most popular, so why turn away people who really wanted to fly for it ? (and would arguably make the competition broader)

4 rounds just feels so little ... luck of the first two pairings and favorable match-up pairings become sooo important. The weight of a single mistake or dice roll gets so big too. Just imagine if it was 7 or 8 rounds of swiss split between two days. The selection would be so much sharper. With 8 swiss rounds against people with the same current scores, the selection process, dice and pairing luck get much better mitigated. And making the cut would feel even more rewarding.

And if people fly for the occasion, I guess they really would not mind playing over two days instead of 1.

It's nice that JJ made the cut as he's considered as the very best Armada player, so it helps my point that it is really not about who made or did not make the cut.

I just feel the tournament could be much more epic, with a lower luck factor and a broader base, with a very minimal effort.

8 minutes ago, Fanfan said:

First, huge thanks Biggs (and Tokra) for doing that. I actually can't believe there is just nothing available to get info about Xwing day1A, despite the much bigger size of the community.

Yet, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable with the format: 4 rounds seems way too small for World Championships. And of course it combines with the number of applications they rejected. I don't know what their acceptance rate is, but just from Boston, both PT106 did not get lucky to get a spot, and we were really motivated to train well for it. (OK, I could have attended Regionals to attempt to save a spot, but it was not needed on previous years to get there - I would have tried harder had I predicted it would be different this year. I think PT106 finished 2nd of our local regional). 

Rent a large room, make a single flight of (all applying) players. Have them play like 7-8 swiss rounds on two days. Cut the top 4. This is really almost nothing to ask for. And the tournament would look so much more important, selective and intense. 

The game is amazing, but not exactly the most popular, so why turn away people who really wanted to fly for it ? (and would arguably make the competition broader)

4 rounds just feels so little ... luck of the first two pairings and favorable match-up pairings become sooo important. The weight of a single mistake or dice roll gets so big too. Just imagine if it was 7 or 8 rounds of swiss split between two days. The selection would be so much sharper. With 8 swiss rounds against people with the same current scores, the selection process, dice and pairing luck get much better mitigated. And making the cut would feel even more rewarding. 

And if people fly for the occasion, I guess they really would not mind playing over two days instead of 1.

It's nice that JJ made the cut as he's considered as the very best Armada player, so it helps my point that it is really not about who made or did not make the cut.

I just feel the tournament could be much more epic, with a lower luck factor and a broader base, with a very minimal effort.

It's frequently proposed that a larger fraction of both days be put into the final day's brackets, and I'm all for that.

However, as I understand it, Swiss style tournaments have an upper limit on how many rounds you can run with a given number of players before the top end beats each other into submission and you're back to little better than statistical randomness for your top end. Four or five rounds tends to have good results with the numbers Armada usually draws/is allowed to have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always down for more games, but there are tradeoffs here, even if we disagree with the ones FFG picked.

6 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

It's frequently proposed that a larger fraction of both days be put into the final day's brackets, and I'm all for that.

However, as I understand it, Swiss style tournaments have an upper limit on how many rounds you can run with a given number of players before the top end beats each other into submission and you're back to little better than statistical randomness for your top end. Four or five rounds tends to have good results with the numbers Armada usually draws/is allowed to have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always down for more games, but there are tradeoffs here, even if we disagree with the ones FFG picked.

Well, I agree swiss rounds and player pools are linked indeed. But here they're intentionally limiting the player pool by splitting it into two parts, and also rejecting competitive players from participating. This 'two flight' thing is just about their space allocation limit, otherwise it does not make any sense to have 'two world championships' just joining to play 3 final games.

WHY make world championships a much smaller thing that it could be ? Just rent one large room for 2 days and everything is solved.

9 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

It's frequently proposed that a larger fraction of both days be put into the final day's brackets, and I'm all for that.

However, as I understand it, Swiss style tournaments have an upper limit on how many rounds you can run with a given number of players before the top end beats each other into submission and you're back to little better than statistical randomness for your top end. Four or five rounds tends to have good results with the numbers Armada usually draws/is allowed to have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always down for more games, but there are tradeoffs here, even if we disagree with the ones FFG picked.

I think the wider net for the cut is the better way to go.

Also @BiggsIRL (or anyone) if you have a detailed list for the Top 4 would love to see them.

6 minutes ago, Fanfan said:

Well, I agree swiss rounds and player pools are linked indeed. But here they're intentionally limiting the player pool by splitting it into two parts, and also rejecting competitive players from participating. This 'two flight' thing is just about their space allocation limit, otherwise it does not make any sense to have 'two world championships' just joining to play 3 final games.

WHY make world championships a much smaller thing that it could be ? Just rent one large room for 2 days and everything is solved.

The problem as I see it is that with the current setup it'll just increase the amount of zombie players (My understanding is that there was a significant (>10%) amount of round 1 drops that didn't actually play).

7 minutes ago, PT106 said:

The problem as I see it is that with the current setup it'll just increase the amount of zombie players (My understanding is that there was a significant (>10%) amount of round 1 drops that didn't actually play).

I don't think that was the case, I was told we started with 34, although when the points-based sheets were put up, there were a significant number of 0 points listed. I think those were people with Day 1A tickets who did not show up, NOT drops after one round. In fact, I think very few people dropped at all. I could be completely wrong, but my understanding is that the grey-ed out point list is misleading in terms of who dropped/stayed.