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.

As of late, the owner of my most frequented gaming store has decided to abandon the Swiss system of tournament pairings both for 40k and for WHFB. Now, pairings for all three rounds of our 1-day tournaments (2-2.5 hour rounds with breaks, can only fit 3 into store hours) are decided randomly. With a decent mixture of experienced and inexperienced players present, this has transformed our tournaments into a literal luck of the draw setting, and whichever experienced player draws 3 pushover opponents is pretty much guaranteed a win.

The first time this happened, we were given no notice of the change in pairings, so I had a list tooled up to take on the magic-heavy Chaos lists I expected to face in the final two rounds, relying on luck and skill to get me through the first round. Instead, I drew a High Elf with a single mage (1850 list to be fair, but still...), and two dwarven gunlines. I solidly trounced all three, but both Chaos lists walked over the same 2 opponents (Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, and tied against each other), and I took 3rd place, thanks to time limits, a wierd scoring system (each model killed literally counted towards the tournament outcome), and softscores, without ever playing the two lists which placed above me.

Yesterday, I walked away from our 4th 40k tournament of the year (5th counting 'ard boyz prelims) with the highest round score (as I have each event), as well as grand champion honors for the 3rd time (my deficiency in paint scores is more than made up by round scores). Yet it felt cheap: While I still feel that I would have won against their armies (Good matchup against 2nd place, have beaten 3rd place player countless times), the players in 2nd and 3rd place for the round scores didn't get to face me, instead I drew the easy matches (two of my opponents went 0-3 on the day, one managed 0-2-1). Needless to say, I feel that this is far from fair, and in fact I waited until everyone had taken their prizes before speaking up about a scoring error (on my part, transposed my score with my opponents for one round) which caused me not to place. I didn't want the free ride.

The store owner still loves this new system, however, as it prevents someone in 2nd place from being knocked down to 4th or 5th (and getting no prize) by having to face the 1st place player (or vice versa) in the final round, while a 4th or 5th place player slips into that 2nd place spot without truly contending for it.

So my question to you, fellow Dakka-ites, is what can be done to balance out the system? Is this truly the best way already? Should I continue to push for a second set of matches on Sunday after preliminaries on Saturday? Request smaller point limits and try to squeeze in a 4th game in one day? Have some form of a seeding system where players who continue to place well have to face the lists that did well in the 1st or second rounds? Allow any player to challenge any other player with a higher current score before the remaining match-ups for the round are determined? Please, discuss the system which you use locally, what makes it fair and balance, and how I can best justify it to the other players and the store owner.

Ours tend to use tourney rankings (we have a national rankings system) with wildcard entries possible for those without a ranking (either new to the scene or returning after a long absence) FOR the FIRST round. After that, it's based off your results.

The problem with Swiss pairings is in a small group of users the same players end up playing each other all the time after the 1st round.

You even so much as admit this as you tooled up your army list to deal with the players you knew you would have faced in the final rounds of the WFB tournament. You even counted on facing scrubs in the first two rounds so you could win at rock/paper/scissors in the final game.

Swiss pairing also hurts the lower bracket guys, as again they only play less skilled players for 2/3's of the tournament and don't really have a chance to learn against a harder opponent. Swiss pairing is great in a competitive tournament where you have no idea who or what is going to show up. In a small community or local game store however, the type of system your store owner is using helps grow the community.

I think our store owner does Swiss, but I'm not terribly certain of that. I know I've tended to have descent pairings and some pretty fun games out of it, but that's due largely to the folks at the LGS being a nice group to play with.

Personally, I tend to enjoy the smaller games, but I'm fully aware that they're not for everyone. For example, I can squeeze far more variety into a 750 point Ork list than a Marine player can when they pay (at base) 25% or so more for an HQ and 266% more for basic troop. In 750 points, I can hit my minimums and still put some walkers or bikers or a cool unit or two onto the field. The Marine folks (and most of the other elite armies) just can't really bring things like their big tanks or fancy elite choices to the table that easily in a small list.

Maybe you shrink the points totals a bit, say from 1850 to 1500 or something like that, just make sure your players can all bring the army they want (or at least a descent chunk of it).

I like a modified Swiss system, with seeded brackets.

Round 1: Random
Round 2: Take the top 1/3 or so, put them in order, and pair off 1st w/last, 2nd w/second from last, etc. Middle third, do the same. Bottom third, likewise.
Round 3: Repeat.

Breaks up some of the expected pairings. Similarly, you can just randomize within brackets.

I believe you compete not so much for prizes and glory, but as a pathway to self discovery. I've played against grown men who have thrown dice when things didn't go their way...who have quit in the 4th turn, or even resorted to cheating. I've played against players who hung on to the last minute and pulled off an upset win with a good turn, who have laughed about their misfortune, and who turned a defeat into a learning experience.

I think not letting players play against the best takes away this path. I would not want to win a tournament getting matched up against 3 players who ended up 0-3. If you are in a competitive environment, then the chips have to fall where they may.

This isn't kids soccer where they don't keep score ( try that in the real world).

What annoys me about tournaments these days are that overall winners are no longer judged on their paint and sportsmanship, but on just how they crushed their opponents. You get nothing for painting your army or for making sure your opponent had fun. You get nothing for winning through strategy and tactics, only through slamming your opponent through a wall.

As for tournament pairings, the best players should play each other. There can be only 1! Anything else is a disservice to the competitors.

Malecus wrote:As of late, the owner of my most frequented gaming store has decided to abandon the Swiss system of tournament pairings both for 40k and for WHFB. Now, pairings for all three rounds of our 1-day tournaments (2-2.5 hour rounds with breaks, can only fit 3 into store hours) are decided randomly. With a decent mixture of experienced and inexperienced players present, this has transformed our tournaments into a literal luck of the draw setting, and whichever experienced player draws 3 pushover opponents is pretty much guaranteed a win.

The first time this happened, we were given no notice of the change in pairings, so I had a list tooled up to take on the magic-heavy Chaos lists I expected to face in the final two rounds, relying on luck and skill to get me through the first round. Instead, I drew a High Elf with a single mage (1850 list to be fair, but still...), and two dwarven gunlines. I solidly trounced all three, but both Chaos lists walked over the same 2 opponents (Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, and tied against each other), and I took 3rd place, thanks to time limits, a wierd scoring system (each model killed literally counted towards the tournament outcome), and softscores, without ever playing the two lists which placed above me.

Yesterday, I walked away from our 4th 40k tournament of the year (5th counting 'ard boyz prelims) with the highest round score (as I have each event), as well as grand champion honors for the 3rd time (my deficiency in paint scores is more than made up by round scores). Yet it felt cheap: While I still feel that I would have won against their armies (Good matchup against 2nd place, have beaten 3rd place player countless times), the players in 2nd and 3rd place for the round scores didn't get to face me, instead I drew the easy matches (two of my opponents went 0-3 on the day, one managed 0-2-1). Needless to say, I feel that this is far from fair, and in fact I waited until everyone had taken their prizes before speaking up about a scoring error (on my part, transposed my score with my opponents for one round) which caused me not to place. I didn't want the free ride.

The store owner still loves this new system, however, as it prevents someone in 2nd place from being knocked down to 4th or 5th (and getting no prize) by having to face the 1st place player (or vice versa) in the final round, while a 4th or 5th place player slips into that 2nd place spot without truly contending for it.

So my question to you, fellow Dakka-ites, is what can be done to balance out the system? Is this truly the best way already? Should I continue to push for a second set of matches on Sunday after preliminaries on Saturday? Request smaller point limits and try to squeeze in a 4th game in one day? Have some form of a seeding system where players who continue to place well have to face the lists that did well in the 1st or second rounds? Allow any player to challenge any other player with a higher current score before the remaining match-ups for the round are determined? Please, discuss the system which you use locally, what makes it fair and balance, and how I can best justify it to the other players and the store owner.

I would not play in the tournament unless I were there strictly to win. It eliminates game scores generating games where people are playing their competitive equals. The player's with lesser tuned lists usually have more fun in the 2nd and 3rd games than the first. The more competitive players play more tactically challenging later games against more equal skilled opponents. This eliminates that.

@Janthkin - Perhaps I don't understand what a true swiss matching system is then, because the "modified" version you described is exactly what we have used up until this recent change.

@MrGiggles - We've found that matches below 1500 become a rock-paper-scissors match: "I brought 90 orks that you can't kill in time with your land raider!" -- "I brought 5 heavy flamers that you can't outrange with 90 orks!" -- "I brought a land raider that heavy flamers can't hurt". Simply put, it's too easy to win based on your army selection alone there. Above 1850, you start to see time issues. The fun thing is when someone who doesn't play anymore (our store owner) pre-publishes the events and points totals for the year and scripts the scenarios without regard to either balance or time (The ground is trying to eat you. Dangerous terrain test every turn for everyone, you get armor saves if you move that turn. WTF?).

@Frazzled, Hobbs - You're reading pages out of my own book, really. I want to face the best people can throw at me, because I love the challenge. The new guy that thinks the best use for his bright lances are firing back at my lootas because they shot at him, the ork player that puts his battlewagons behind the gretchin squad that stretches across the field in multiple difficult terrain pieces, the guardsman that refuses to deploy in dawn of war because there's already a truck of 10 Nobz/KFF Mek and 30 shoota boyz at midfield already (because if you don't deploy, they're gonna back up and give you more room, right?)... instead of being challenged by the best lists there, I got to face these players this weekend. Woohoo.

Malecus wrote:@Janthkin - Perhaps I don't understand what a true swiss matching system is then, because the "modified" version you described is exactly what we have used up until this recent change.

A "pure" Swiss system doesn't have points, just wins & losses. Most 40k tournaments bring points into it, and apply the swiss system kinda like this:
Round 1: random
Round 2: 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc. Basically, you are paired against the person closest to you in points for each consecutive round, until you run out of rounds.

The bracketed system I like (assuming a 18-person tourney) looks like this:
Round 1: random
Round 2: 1v6, 2v5, 3v4, 7v12, 8v11, 9v10, 13v18, 14v17, 15v16.