I think your basketball metaphor is bad, but I'm happy to engage with the rest! My problem with the take on tournament organization is that it tends to increase the potential for bad matchups. When the missions are all over the place, it becomes impossible to have the tools for all the missions you might have to play. I agree about how that tests players adaptability. Every list is likely to be better a some the missions being played and worse at others, which leads to more matchups between bad-for-this-scenario and good-for-this-scenario lists. I think this increases randomness/chaos and reduces the likelihood that one of the best players wins, which is a negative for me. As a player, I find many missions not particularly fun for one reason or another (hello, Highly Classified!). While it may be more challenging, I find it frustrating to have missions that I find poorly balanced for tournaments AND not fun continually included in tournaments I would otherwise like to attend. I give these missions a chance, too, my judgments are not just "in theory" from the tournament balance or the fun perspective. I would disagree that a "challenging" (struggling to come up with a better term for this) mission set makes the game more about in-game decisions. When your list is not well-prepared for a given mission, you're at a disadvantage before you've even deployed, reducing the value of your in-game decisions on the final result.