Tournament Regulations are up

[Amanal 2,557]

While I agree on the points system a better one that fits in with some of the major constraints, in that many stores hold one day events, are always troublesome. At some point you are almost at the mercy of a SoS or grading system based on the "toughness" of your opposition.

I would recommend the Flames of War system:

6-1 if you won and lost nothing
5-2 if you won and lost 1 unit
4-3 if you won and lost 2+ units

Draw if you run out of time and you score:
3 if you lost nothing
2 if you lost 1 unit
1 if you lost 2+ units

We also had a rule that if one player ran out of time twice or more in an event he was a slow player and his matches that timed out were reversed to a win for his opponents.

[Kodos 36]

Killed units is not the best option, but I would take something similar

Win: 30 points, Draw: 20 point, Los: 10 point

Point Difference for killed units: 800: +/-10, 700-600: +/-8, 600-500: +/-7, 500-400: +/- 6, 400-300: +/-5, 300-200: +/-4, 200-100: +/-2 <100: +/-0

with mission points as tie breaker or mission point difference in killed points as tie breaker

So winning with killing everything but losing nothing is 40:0, winning but euqal lost units is 30:10 but winning with lots of killed units is 25:15

 

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

 It it can be argued - as a WARgame, the scoring emphasis can be as War: in which case, Victory IS preferred, but Victory over the enemy with preservation of your force is the goal.

This is legit for an Event or relaxed Campaign Day but not for a tournament were the overall winner should not be the one that got a lucky first round pairing but the best player

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kodos

[TheBigLev 222]

1 hour ago, Amanal said:

While I agree on the points system a better one that fits in with some of the major constraints, in that many stores hold one day events, are always troublesome. At some point you are almost at the mercy of a SoS or grading system based on the "toughness" of your opposition.

I would recommend the Flames of War system:

6-1 if you won and lost nothing
5-2 if you won and lost 1 unit
4-3 if you won and lost 2+ units

Draw if you run out of time and you score:
3 if you lost nothing
2 if you lost 1 unit
1 if you lost 2+ units

We also had a rule that if one player ran out of time twice or more in an event he was a slow player and his matches that timed out were reversed to a win for his opponents.

I like this scoring a lot. Winning nets you the most points, but it also reflects the degree of the victory. If drawing the best you can do is equal the loser is a close match, which also feels fair for the hard fought battles you lose.

 

I would not be so hard on slow play initially. First event give the slow player the benefit of the doubt and just talk to them after, encourage them to speed up. If after the second event said player is still slow I would find out why it's happening, if it's just analysis paralysis then I concur with your approach and would give the opponents the victory.

 

I have had people come out to gaming events who are inexperienced, who are young, or who have physical/mental challenges. I try to build a fun and open gaming community, which may be different than if you are building a competitive tournament scene.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

1 hour ago, Kodos said:

Killed units is not the best option, but I would take something similar

Win: 30 points, Draw: 20 point, Los: 10 point

Point Difference for killed units: 800: +/-10, 700-600: +/-8, 600-500: +/-7, 500-400: +/- 6, 400-300: +/-5, 300-200: +/-4, 200-100: +/-2 <100: +/-0

with mission points as tie breaker or mission point difference in killed points as tie breaker

So winning with killing everything but losing nothing is 40:0, winning but euqal lost units is 30:10 but winning with lots of killed units is 25:15

 

This is legit for an Event or relaxed Campaign Day but not for a tournament were the overall winner should not be the one that got a lucky first round pairing but the best player

 

Play more games, then.

No factor will ever separate best player than that.

Itherwuse luck of drawvwikk always dominate.

 

... this will mean, for legion, 2 day tournaments.

[Kodos 36]

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Play more games, then. 

and don't use total mission points for ranking

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kodos

[Drasnighta 26,832]

1 minute ago, Kodos said:

and don't use total mission points for ranking

For a certain definition of “best”.

Which you haven’t defined.

What is the “best” player?

Just the guy who wins the most?

...

 

I mean, to me, the best player is the one who not only wins, but wins by large margins CONSISTENTLY.

 

Shame I’m a TO and all.  I know what I’ll be doing for my non-op tournaments ?

[Hawkstrike 5,410]

10 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

You should have won harder. You shouldn't be rewarded for winning 6-5s when someone goes 10-1.

Sure, sure.  Rewarding getting paired against a newb so you can go baby seal clubbing makes for better tournaments than penalizing both players of equal skill who have a close-fought battle.

[Hawkstrike 5,410]

Double post.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Hawkstrike

[Kodos 36]

37 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

to me, the best player is the one who not only wins, but wins by large margins CONSISTENTLY.

?

So no Swiss System but everyone has play against any other player once and you can count total points.

The Swiss System should pair equal good players but that happens only after the 4th game if the first one is randomly paired

Than the guy winning high always needs less total victories than the guy winning close

Therefore going for an extreme list that wins high against some matchups is preferred (but lis to 0 against others) over a list that can handle everything.

It is now a while I was a TO but the problem with not rewarding victories is not a new on and the solution for rewarding winning high was to add victory points and not to replace them by in game mission points or kill points or whatever

PS: but it depends on the possible winning conditions, eg if it is possible to win by scenario or killing, it would be won by one: 3p, by both: 4p, lose by one: 1p, lose both 0p.

If there is just one condition, adding difference in mission points is another option, like win: 3p, win with >4 differenc: 4p etc

but going directly for misdion points = tournament points had never really worked 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kodos

[Undeadguy 5,749]

1 hour ago, Hawkstrike said:

Sure, sure.  Rewarding getting paired against a newb so you can go baby seal clubbing makes for better tournaments than penalizing both players of equal skill who have a close-fought battle.

Do you understand how the tournament structure works? If you score high, you play against a similar opponent. So 2 players with 10 points with play each other. The average points to win a make top table is 24, which means 8 points per round.

But I guess you should go back to clubbing seals. Looks like it's the only way you could win. 

[Amanal 2,557]

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Do you understand how the tournament structure works? If you score high, you play against a similar opponent.

Except of course FFG has fewer round that needed, thus once you lose there is no point playing more.

And with the SoS being far more important those players dropping the affect the players they played with a rubbish SoS.

While you speak true for Armada for Legion you only win or lose, this system is far from ideal.

5 hours ago, TheBigLev said:

I would not be so hard on slow play initially.

Agree with that, we did play fairly decent rounds. So we made it a challenge to play slow.

In about 5 years of play, I think I pinged one player. He was however playing slow on purpose as he won the games that timed out due to the way Flames worked.

[svelok 6,487]

11 minutes ago, Amanal said:

Except of course FFG has fewer round that needed, thus once you lose there is no point playing more.

Who quits a tournament because they're losing? That sounds like an awful play environment.

[NeonWolf 942]

10 minutes ago, svelok said:

Who quits a tournament because they're losing? That sounds like an awful play environment.

At the local level, I've seen plenty of people drop after a 1st round loss.  New players that have had few games, and only sign up for the tournament just for a chance to play the game, are common early drop candidates. 

A lot of it depends on how their opponent behaved during that first round.  If the opponent was playing WaaC then it is hard to convince the person that wants to drop to continue.  If, however, their opponent was gracious and helpful during the game, and especially if someone can redirect their frustration into something constructive about how to better play the game, then the newer players will continue into further rounds.

As for competitive level events, I have seen people drop after the first round or after multiple rounds.  It depends on why they are participating in the first place.  If they only showed up to make it into the Top 4 and they are out of the running after the 2nd round, they will drop because their goal is no longer achievable.  Other people may rage-quit if they have a bad experience with an opponent, however that is a different issue entirely.

[Kodos 36]

18 minutes ago, svelok said:

Who quits a tournament because they're losing? That sounds like an awful play environment.

There are some guys around who go to a tournament to win it or make it at least top 4 and they atop playing as soon as there is no mathematical chance to make it.

They are not so common as as in 15 years I have only met 2 of them (I have encountered the 1 of them more often in different games)

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kodos

[jgibbs2 72]

I generally don't hand out participation prizes until the 2nd round to encourage everyone to play more than one game (just in case they get that sour opponent). Losers bracket games are generally much less competitive and more fun for both players. 

[Amanal 2,557]

21 minutes ago, svelok said:

Who quits a tournament because they're losing? That sounds like an awful play environment.

It doesn't matter, drop or play on FFG has a rubbish system. They call it Swiss and seed it swiss but it isn't even a proper direct elimination.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

2 hours ago, Amanal said:

Except of course FFG has fewer round that needed, thus once you lose there is no point playing more.

And with the SoS being far more important those players dropping the affect the players they played with a rubbish SoS.

While you speak true for Armada for Legion you only win or lose, this system is far from ideal.

Yea, FFG games really need that 4th round to feel like the system is working. 3 rounds with 30 people is also pretty good, but anything under 20 isn't great. I'm not happy with Legions system, but I'll give it a try. They can always restructure it if they get enough negative feedback, primarily from TOs. I'd hate for people to feel cheated when their SoS drops because their first round opponent left. 

[Kodos 36]

4 games minimum (should be no problem with 120 minutes per game) should be a thing also for small torunaments

[Armada Jim 298]

Is it just me, or is there really no downside to being Blue (1st) player? You get a win if there's a tie, your setup deck is used, the only thing that doesn't go your way is that you deploy first, so you lose one reactive placement, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the other advantages?

At least in Armada if you chose 1st player you had to use the Objectives from the 2nd player and 2nd player won ties to balance out. Unlike Armada, Legion's first activation can vary from round to round, but still, why would anyone ever choose Red? Am I missing something?

[Barney 102]

8 minutes ago, Armada Jim said:

Is it just me, or is there really no downside to being Blue (1st) player? You get a win if there's a tie, your setup deck is used, the only thing that doesn't go your way is that you deploy first, so you lose one reactive placement, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the other advantages?

At least in Armada if you chose 1st player you had to use the Objectives from the 2nd player and 2nd player won ties to balance out. Unlike Armada, Legion's first activation can vary from round to round, but still, why would anyone ever choose Red? Am I missing something?

Red player gets last elimination on choosing the set up cards, this can be a big advantage. 

[kaffis 407]

6 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

At the local level, I've seen plenty of people drop after a 1st round loss.  New players that have had few games, and only sign up for the tournament just for a chance to play the game, are common early drop candidates. 

A lot of it depends on how their opponent behaved during that first round.  If the opponent was playing WaaC then it is hard to convince the person that wants to drop to continue.  If, however, their opponent was gracious and helpful during the game, and especially if someone can redirect their frustration into something constructive about how to better play the game, then the newer players will continue into further rounds.

This, for sure. People who drop early are missing the best matchups of the day. Sure, they won't be on the top tables, but they'll get the most evenly paired matches near the end of the tournament, because Swiss is a sorting algorithm, at heart.

Your second paragraph is also really insightful, and shows how good players promoting good, positive communities will be less likely to encourage their early opponents to drop because they had negative play experiences and aren't having fun. I'd rather those people get rewarded by better SoS than the people who stomp newbies ungraciously into the ground and make them decide to just go home.

[Chucknuckle 2,811]

Personally, I think this whole thing is kinda funny. As a community, perhaps you should all consider that FFG tournaments are not the only tournaments? People are free to run Legion tournaments however they want. Coming from the 40K tournament scene, the idea that tournaments are ONLY run the way FFG says they should be run is just... baffling. And everyone adhere's to it so slavishly! People only ever run 100 point games of X Wing, because 100 point games is the tournament standard as set out by FFG. People only run 400 point games of Armada, again because that's how FFG runs their tournaments. 40K has a lot wrong with it, and I haven't played in a 'serious' tournament in many years, but every tournament I have attended has been really fun. Two day events, with five rounds of swiss and no cut.

And some of the conversions and cool minis you'd see at 40K events would make a legion players head spin! People are already losing their minds about models being 2mm taller because of a scenic base! I remember one guy who put garden hose connectors on all his Chaos vehicles so he could click them all together ala Devastator from the Transformers. I remember one guy who put giant space sails on all his Dark Eldar skimmers, doubling them in size. I've seen "counts-as" used for entire armies, scratch-built models, you name it. And no one cared because it was all in the name of fun and everyone was just really cool. Not to say I haven't also seen some heated discussions around the rules. Sometimes people take their toy soldiers a bit too seriously. But for the most part people were able to remain grounded, remember that they're just playing with plastic wardollies, and stay cool.

SO I guess my response to any kerfuffle about the FFG tournament regs is... ignore them if you want. Do your own thing. Come up with a 'Legion Premier League' tournament system that does all the things YOU want to do. Diversify the gaming scene so that not everyone has to use the same game format all the time. Have cool custom scenarios, tie scenarios to tables, alter the point size, have doubles tournaments, have side-board events, give prizes for creative or impressive hobbying, have hobby points contribute to the overall score, or don't, it's your game so just... get weird with it.

16 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

 It it can be argued - as a WARgame, the scoring emphasis can be as War: in which case, Victory IS preferred, but Victory over the enemy with preservation of your force is the goal.

 

It can also be argued that building a force capable of handling a range of different missions, and being able to play that force effectively in a range of missions, therefore leading to a larger margin of victory over the course of the event, is a valuable skill that should be measured in a tournament. Not just scraping in a win in each game.

 

[beefcake4000 371]

7 hours ago, Armada Jim said:

Is it just me, or is there really no downside to being Blue (1st) player? You get a win if there's a tie, your setup deck is used, the only thing that doesn't go your way is that you deploy first, so you lose one reactive placement, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the other advantages?

At least in Armada if you chose 1st player you had to use the Objectives from the 2nd player and 2nd player won ties to balance out. Unlike Armada, Legion's first activation can vary from round to round, but still, why would anyone ever choose Red? Am I missing something?

Depends on a bunch of factors but in the simplest sense: 

Red gets last choice of cards which is really powerful by itself. 

Red deploys second so can react to whatever blue does which can be powerful and if you have the same deployments as your opponent you will get last which could be a huge factor. Your opponent having more deployments as blue does mitigate these a bit however, adding another level of depth. 

[DerBaer 1,223]

16 hours ago, jgibbs2 said:

I generally don't hand out participation prizes until the 2nd round

You should not hand out participation prizes to someone, who did not participate in ALL rounds of swiss. After all, that participation prize is there for actually participating in a tournament, not for participating in one or two rounds of a tournament.

Edited May 19, 2018 by DerBaer

[Kodos 36]

8 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

40K has a lot wrong with it, and I haven't played in a 'serious' tournament in many years, but every tournament I have attended has been really fun

40k tournaments have changed a lot in the last years and it is not as relaxed as it was back in 5th, even in not so serious events.

It also has an official size now and it is hard to get people into playing anything else than the official 2k points in 2.5 hours with the problem that most games end turn 3 because they ran out of time. There are also different restrictions around and depending on were you live you are not able to play the same list on 2 different tournaments.

Victory conditions are another topic as there are those that still use the same for years now ignoring all chances in scenarios while others use the random mission points ending with the possibility that some people can earn 20 tournament points easily (like winning 20:10) while others get 10 in the same round (winning 10:5)

 

As there are not many official 40k events, model wise tournaments are a lot less restrictive than those from other companies, but his depends in the TO and some execute WYSIWYG more strict than others. Just because your heavy converted army is legal in one tournament does not mean it won't be forbidden in another one.