Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all

For example you have odd number of players in tournament like 7 - what to do ? Give such player auto Win (but Massacre or just Minor victory)?
I need advice please ...

What we do in our group is that whomever does not have an opponent for the first round is seeded for the second round (assuming swiss style matchings) as though they had tied in their first match, beyond that all matchups are done as normal. For scoring, we simply average all other round scores together and fill that in for the round that they did not have an opponent.

Our group normally has someone, usually c'ttee member, on standby to play the opponent.

Usually have a couple of armies to try to get a fair game against the opponent!

Option 1
Have them play a "ringer" with a pre-approved not too hard/not too soft I'm just here for fun type list. Typically a red-shirt (rules judge) will also be a ringer for a game. HAve the game count as normal

OR

Option 2.
It counts as a full points win. (yes this means a full points massacre with all possible battle points given... no-one should ever be robbed of an opportunity to win a tournament just because they had a bye.)

The trick here is, the soft scores, such as painting and sportsmanship should be an average of their other scores for the tournament, so if in a 4 game tournament they scored 6 points, 8 points and 9 points out of 10 points, they would get 23/3 rounded to the closest which would be 8 points. IF they got 10, 10, and 9 for painting they would get 29/3 or 10 for painting.

Finally, the last round in a 3 or 4 round tournament, and the last 2 rounds in a 5 or 6 round tournament or the last 3 rounds in a 7 or 8 round tournament (etc etc) should have a bye given to the last place currently in the tournament who hasn't already had a bye. So in the last round that poor bugger with 3 losses gets the bye. If he had a bye, the poor bugger who has 2 losses and a draw gets the bye and so on and so forth. This is so you don't affect the money round games with free wins.

This system only works in power versus power matchups. Meaning that #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, and so on. Typically you'll have one or two random rounds and then match power versus power for the rest of the tourney

wow.. long winded, but pretty much complete.

I had to take a few classes in college for my Debate club scholarship.. that's the system we used to determine tournament winners so you know it's valid.

We usually go "Ringer" and regardless of result, you get the win with full points. If no ringer is available you get a 2 hour break 'on the clock' and get full points. You get seeded the next round as though you had won.

Sounds fine and dandy for the person without a game, but I wonder how if voting is involved (such as for Sportsmanship, Painting, etc...) they handle that. To me it seems like you are automatically getting the short end of the stick, but maybe they figure that in as the Ringer's vote.

Ragnar4 wrote: no-one should ever be robbed of an opportunity to win a tournament just because they had a bye.

And someone else should be robbed of an opportunity to win a tournament just because someone else had a bye? I was rather annoyed when I lost ot on placing high in a tourney because someone else got a bye. The battle points should be averaged with the other rounds.

Their battle points should be determined by trivia quiz.

It keeps people on their toes.

skyth wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote: no-one should ever be robbed of an opportunity to win a tournament just because they had a bye.

And someone else should be robbed of an opportunity to win a tournament just because someone else had a bye?

Short answer: yes.

Long Answer: The games you play is something you have controll over, you have no control over a Bye. I'll admidt, this system is probably a little abusive in 3 game tournaments, but why do you have battle points in 3 game tournaments when a bye will negatively impact the field?

In 5/6 game tournaments it's your fault if someone who has a bye places higher than you, not theirs, or the bye.

@Ragnar... So what do you do without battlepoints in a 3 game tournament? Rock paper scissors for the prize? Just happen to play games and hand out awards for painting?

So what is wrong with averaging the battle points from the other games they played and making that the battle score for the bye?

Malecus wrote:@Ragnar... So what do you do without battlepoints in a 3 game tournament? Rock paper scissors for the prize? Just happen to play games and hand out awards for painting?

You put greater weight on other things, such as painting, and sportsmanship. Also, there should be a greater dilineation for a Massacre, a Solid V, a Minor V, and a Loss. No such thing as a draw. You have very few games to shake the chaff from the wheat here, so you have to do it quickly.

Also, The only time you should have a shot at winning a tournament in a 3 game system is when you get the 1st round bye. The 2nd round bye should always go to someone who took a loss, and the 3rd round bye should always go to the worst guy in the tourney.

Skyth. I'm not entirely certain the math behind it, I just know that when I was in college and had to take tourney organization classes (yes, I had a class that was dedicated towards organizing tournaments... I was a speech/debate nerd on a scholarship) if you got a bye, you got a full points win. The bare minimum argument was "you should never be robbed of a chance to go to outs (outrounds) because you had a bye." I'm certain I could get the math and true reasoning behind it all if I went back and talked to my coach. But i'm too lazy, I'm just letting you know what we did. I think from a players perspective, someone who had a bye (which they had 0 control over) gets robbed of a tournament victory versus someone who played 3 games gets robbed of a tourney victory because a bye was given full points, the guy who got robbed because of an average point bye is more likely to quit and say "eff that tournament I'm never going back" than the guy who got to play 3 games.

The guy who plays 3 games has full control over his destiny. The guy who got the bye does not, should we punish the guy who doesn't have full control over his destiny?

Anyway, the group I played with came to rest on a very "sportsmanship oriented" rules set. Where you could lose all 5 games you played, and still win the whole tournament if you got enough sportsmanship votes. We all loved it, very much and not one person talks poorly about the tournament set we play... Find what's best for your group. My information is just a recomendation from what I know to be a very widely accepted rules-set.

Ragnar4 wrote:
The guy who plays 3 games has full control over his destiny. The guy who got the bye does not, should we punish the guy who doesn't have full control over his destiny?

Actually, once the bye figures in, neither has full control over thier destiny as giving full points for the bye means that the placing is artificially determined. Making the battle points for the bye an average of the other rounds keeps the guy (and everyone else) who gets the bye in 'full control over his destiny'.

One of our judges always has an army on stand by in the case of a no-show or lack of replacements and then joins the tourney and pulls light duty for things like running the quiz, organizing, ect. Players are fine with a judge playing in our area because they feel its better than unbalancing things or telling someone else they can't play. And if there is a rules dispute the judge always asks another judge for his game as opposed to putting his own judge foot down. Or guys are pretty good and prefer to try and help the other players with tips and that if they are new to the scene to help them enjoy the rest of the tourney.

skyth wrote:So what is wrong with averaging the battle points from the other games they played and making that the battle score for the bye?

Because, if given the chance, someone could have scored higher than that and you would be automatically robbed of the chance of winning (loser sometimes gets the bye). This thread is not relevant to fantasy specifically. I was selected for the bye in 'ard boyz 2nd round for losing in the first and forced to play a winner from the 1st round. Theory being that if I beat a winner then I'd be worthy still of placing. As it was I massacred that winner. I didn't place high enough to be top 3 but there was agitation on the matter. I was told it is rare though for the person who got the bye to honestly affect the outcome that much since they already lost first round.

It would be nice though if a judge kept an army to play the bye.