So with the land endures announcement, maybe the community should get together to choose deployments and objectives for pseudo-organized play? I'm all for tournaments having their own objectives and deployments too as the variation may be welcome. Also for all smaller groups out there (includes my own), you should check out the

I was just thinking that this should happen. Just take a vote? Or everyone suggest 3 each of deployments/objectives and go with the highest requested one?

What about regionals and worlds? I think we could pull something together.

1 hour ago, Datskor said:

So with the land endures announcement, maybe the community should get together to choose deployments and objectives for pseudo-organized play? I'm all for tournaments having their own objectives and deployments too as the variation may be welcome. Also for all smaller groups out there (includes my own), you should check out the

So, historically what are some case examples?

I’m willing to invest my time to help run/play something at GenCon. Beyond that, I’m not sure what forum would be likely to get a bunch of attendees. I offered to run something at Adepticon but no one took me up on it.

As far as objectives/deployments go, I would suggest we allow the previous World Champion to choose them. Another benefit to winning at World’s... 😀

I'm not sure we need to go so far as nationals/worlds, but I know that people still regularly get together and play Axis and Allies: War at Sea at GenCon, and that ended in 2013 and never had any competitive play. So the idea of a handful of people grabbing some tables at major events and getting 4-6 people together seems reasonable.

We don't have casual tournaments often enough to have seasonal objectives, but we tend to use the tournament objectives in the casual games, so having three new ones to pick from that are fairly regular for a period of 3 months before switch seems reasonable.

I propose we leave the FFG format of rotating a single new objective/deployment in, and just decide on three that we'd like to play. Some feel more balanced than others.

Sorry to say this, but not eben the Vassal tournament had a good turnout - and that was free!

6 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Sorry to say this, but not eben the Vassal tournament had a good turnout - and that was free!

Well, that's partly because the Vassal module was a work in progress. I know I didn't take the time I says I would to spruce it up.

Also, we had to deal with time zones, which always makes online tournaments a little tricky.

But I think you're right that it's telling that our own community members struggled to get games in for the tournament (and I didn't follow up as regularly as I should have). It's a shame.

1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

Sorry to say this, but not eben the Vassal tournament had a good turnout - and that was free!

If someone would like to teach me how to vassal I would gladly learn. 😁

19 hours ago, sarumanthewhite said:

As far as objectives/deployments go, I would suggest we allow the previous World Champion to choose them. Another benefit to winning at World’s... 😀

A rather pointed comment I made on Discord a while back after worlds is that any OP objective now needs to have points that persist past unit death. If I can killdoze you and accidentally get the tokens (Supply Raid), then I can ignore the objective.

I would recommend:

3 Deployments:

1) An equal footing one (Careful Approach, Maelstrom, etc.)

2) A split deployment one (Faolon’s, Gorgemaw’s deployments, Mutual Reinforcements, a community one?). Add in the requirement that people have to put a unit in each deployment in some cases?

3) One with an advantage/disadvantage (unprepared)

3 Objectives

1) Token grabbing (an improved supply raid)

2) Hold or take territory (like Break their defenses)

3) Ou god it hurts, just murder everything objective (Up in flames, demoralize their forces).

I think Initiative One is right that making it bidding and letting each person elimate 2 is going to make a lot of repeat matches.

What about a similar format to Armada where one side chooses initiative and the other chooses from amongst the opponent’s 3 objectives, etc? Would it be easy for someone to break this? It would seem to make bidding more interesting...

On 1/14/2019 at 6:28 PM, sarumanthewhite said:

What about a similar format to Armada where one side chooses initiative and the other chooses from amongst the opponent’s 3 objectives, etc? Would it be easy for someone to break this? It would seem to make bidding more interesting...

That also leads to lots of repeat matches.