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.

Looking at the current tournament format, it seems like a pretty poor system to judge competitive play.
Currently, you are basically forced to massacre 3 opponents to have a shot at winning. This basically favors insanely offensive armies, and any army that just plays for a minor victory is left in the dust.

So I was thinking about how competitive tournaments could be changed for the better. Obviously most of them run a swiss style program so that winners play winners and top X (usually 8) playoff after so many rounds.

Anyways an idea came to me after playing a quick 1000 point game with a friend. I realized that a 1000-1200 pt game could easily be finished in an hour. (We finished in an hour playing 1000 pts, using armies we had never played before)

Switching to something like 1000 or 1200 pts for competitive play would allow for more rounds in a tournament.

Using a swiss style tournament you could play solely based on wins/losses. Battle/victory points would still be important and used tie breakers.
So with a 30 player tournament you would get a setup like this:

15x 1-0 15x 0-1
8x 2-0 15x 1-1 7x 0-2
4x 3-0 12x 2-1 14x x-2+
2x 4-0 8x 3-1 20x x-2+

Meaning you would need to lose 2 rounds before you were out.
Then you would use 3 rounds to play a top 8.
And you would have a 7ish hour tournament. (about the same time as they are now)

Note, you could always cut it short at 3 rounds and play a top 8.

Battle points would start to become a big deal if you lost a game. As you would need to fight tie breakers with around 7 other people.


Overall I believe a system like this would bring a better tournament scene that would reward the actual best player and not just the person who lucked into 3 massacre-able opponents.

Opinions, problems you see with it?

Problem is small games favor armies with the strongest units that you usually only see 1 of .. The bigger the game the less likelihood of a single unit dominating

any more than 3 rounds is rarely possible.. The best way to fix the tournament scene is to..

1. Get a uniformed FAQ that addresses problems and everyone uses
2. Do away with the massacre system. True victory is from winning not from beating up newbies. Proper tournaments use win loss ratio then you can use margin of victory as a tie breaker
3. Judges who know the rules.. This is a constant problem with this hobby. Store owners often are NOT good judges because they're too busy running the store to memorize rules
4. BALANCED MISSIONS (John schaffer is doing a good job)
5. Time management - this is a fairly serious problem with people who play hordes. Im sorry but the game should go the FULL length as anything else means the game has no credibility on skill.. Slow players should be penalized because thats how things work in life and pretty much EVERY other competitive system. OR the games are allowed to continue during the break. Either way games need to go the full length period. I think that deployment should be split from game time and then each player turn is allotted an equal portion of the total game time.. If you go over then you need to play faster or design a better army..

The BS about playing an army designed to NOT finish a game needs to go

To sum it up, the only way to have a true competitive experience is to give EACH player the same experience. You must have the same rules, judges who KNOW the rules, victories that are equal and give each player the same time chance to play a full game

Imagine football which was cut off after 3 hours by NBC due to having too many injuries or delays.. I dont mean the broadcast stops but the game ends.. or the refs just made up new rules or one team got into the playoffs because they beat the Lions 482-0 (lol).. No one would WATCH THE GAME BECAUSE IT SUCKED

I hardly see how dropping point values from 1500 (Isn't that what the UK runs for everything) to 1200 would really break the format in terms of single unit domination.

It definitely would change the game play a bit, but I don't think it would have that big of change.

This would do away with the massacre system and help for more balanced tournaments.

It would probably also bring back throw away units to stop people who try and bring one big expensive unit (maxed bike council/ biker nobz)

Try running a tournament or helping someone in your area run one with the rules you've come up with. Maybe it will work out good and catch on. Never know till you try.

There are some armies that benefit more from a small points value and some that get hurt by it. Space Wolves have to run 2 HQ's at 1000 points, and you either have an expensive HQ who can do nothing to help win, or an even more expensive HQ who makes your army smaller.

I even hate 1500.....I think 40K's "fairest" balance is 1750-2250. From a couple of tournaments and test playing, the guard armies that got hosed at 1500-1750 dominated at 2000-2250.

The problem with tournaments that I am seeing is when you have a new player playing a horde army, someone who is naturally slow, and someone who slowhammers to win.

Maybe start having people use chess clocks? Each turn for movement and shooting the player whose turn it is has it on, then when assaults happen both clocks get turned on, then when the turn ends, player 1 stops his clock? If you run out of time, player 2 can keep playing on his own....

Or count the score for all games that don't end as a 0.

I take issue with your premise. I have no sympathy for people who "don't play aggressively" and only get minor victories.

Minor victories occur when you *tie for the main objective.* Playing to not accomplish your goal isn't what I want to see out of "the best."

I think a good tournament format should encourage massacres (though perhaps the current format leans on kill points too often as secondary objectives), but allow for a major victory (primary objective complete, but not secondary) to be less than disasterous via battle points.

Kaffis wrote:I take issue with your premise. I have no sympathy for people who "don't play aggressively" and only get minor victories.

Minor victories occur when you *tie for the main objective.* Playing to not accomplish your goal isn't what I want to see out of "the best."

I think a good tournament format should encourage massacres (though perhaps the current format leans on kill points too often as secondary objectives), but allow for a major victory (primary objective complete, but not secondary) to be less than disasterous via battle points.

But when the top players start playing each other they are usually going to have minor victories. So if one top player gets matched against another, it basically takes them outa the tournament. How many battle reports have you read where someone gets a minor loss or draw first round and then wins the entire tournament because they have easy opponents to massacre the next two rounds?


I honestly think most armies are decently balanced at smaller point levels (as long as you play power lists). Space wolves might be the exception, but they are getting a new codex soon, so who knows.

Go run that style of Tournament then, and report back on how it goes. If it works great, you'll be a trendsetter. Fail or suceed, you'll have a better grasp on the reality of what it takes to run events.

7 Rounds would be one hell of a long day. You need a minimum of 30 minutes between rounds. Even if you enforced a hard rule of dicedown! at 1 hour, you still need time for players to fill out a score sheet, judge to enter them, assign new games for the next round, and move armies to new tables. So theoretically.

Registration etc at 8:00am
First round at 9:00
Second at 10:30
Third at 12:00
lunch 1:30 to 2:30
4th round at 2:30
5th at 4:00
6th at 5:30
7th at 7:00
Awards at 8:45 to 9:00

And that's if things went good.

I'd much rather run a two day event with 5-6 games, and actually give people time to enjoy games, rather than hit some schedule. If you make it work, no one comes to play.

mikhaila wrote:Go run that style of Tournament then, and report back on how it goes. If it works great, you'll be a trendsetter. Fail or suceed, you'll have a better grasp on the reality of what it takes to run events.

I have run events for many different games before. I do understand what it takes to run events.

Timmah wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Go run that style of Tournament then, and report back on how it goes. If it works great, you'll be a trendsetter. Fail or suceed, you'll have a better grasp on the reality of what it takes to run events.

I have run events for many different games before. I do understand what it takes to run events.

CCG's are not 40k.

I realize that, and as I said I have run many different events.

Why you always gotta come in and hate on me in any thread I post in mikhaila?

Its not hate Timmah, its sayign there's a difference to running different tournaments. just like there is a difference between a martial arts tournament and a CCG one.

Try you format at a real life mini tournament and tweek your idea based on that. It may turn out great.

I have run 40k tournaments before though, which I stated in my post.

I plan on trying this, but wanted to get community feedback on some problems I might run into before I do it, instead of during the event itself.

I did not want to get told I don't know how to run an event and that I don't understand how to run one.

Timmah wrote:I realize that, and as I said I have run many different events.

Why you always gotta come in and hate on me in any thread I post in mikhaila?

Hmm, why do you ask for opinions and problems, then complain when people take the time to reply to you?

Opinions, problems you see with it?

1. I don't 'hate on you'. I'm quite neutral to you even existing.
2. I don't post in every thread you post in.
3. You want feedback, you're getting feedback. Lots easier to learn from other's mistakes than to make your own. I run 2-5 events per month, and have probably found most every problem that could occur in running GW tournaments. Many were of my own making, and trying to do things better. Then you look back in hindsight and wonder what you were thinking.

You, personally, want this type of tournament. You value competition over everything else. That's fine, your opinion. But it will cause problems when you go to run this type of tournament. I'm not saying "don't run the tournament", I'm just stating my opinion on what I think are problems you will encounter both in running an event like this, and getting players to even show up.

-Player Fatique because of the number of games.
-Scheduling problems because nearly anything going wrong delays the following games, and turns a very long day into a marathon.
-The game plays very differently at that low point level. Much more RPS
-Not likely to get as many players, as you're only appealing to those like yourself that care about the competition, and not the other aspects of the hobby.
-Short games give no time for disputes, and you will want either more judges, or those that can make snap decisions so arguements don't delay games.

I give credit to anyone trying to step up and run a tournament. I also give harsh criticism to all plans I see, because not doing so is a disservice to you.

Well this post is a much better review of the problems I may have.

I plan on running a good tournament. I have multiple people who know rules very well, so we can solve disputes pretty easily (hopefully). Again disputes will be handled quickly and that will be the final word.

Timing/player fatigue, yes 6-7 games is alot. However the majority of the field will only play 3-4. I might cut the event.

Final point, yes it is a format that plays towards the competitive gamer. However I believe there is enough of those players in the area to support it. (hopefully)

Anyways, thanks for your input. I'm still in the planning stages for this event, so I might switch things up a bit.

3 rounds followed by a top 8 seems like it could go a lot smoother. (or even 3-4 rounds followed by a top 4)

Timmah wrote:I have run 40k tournaments before though, which I stated in my post.

I plan on trying this, but wanted to get community feedback on some problems I might run into before I do it, instead of during the event itself.

I did not want to get told I don't know how to run an event and that I don't understand how to run one.

Well in that case take the feedback for the positive and a challenge. Run it and give us feedback. As She Who Must Be Obeyed would say in volunteer world: "Never bring up a new idea, because you just volunteered to try it out."

mikhaila wrote:Go run that style of Tournament then, and report back on how it goes. If it works great, you'll be a trendsetter. Fail or suceed, you'll have a better grasp on the reality of what it takes to run events.

At 1 hour per game, I hope he's planning on 750 pts/side...

Time is only an issue for inexperienced players. Even against a less experienced player a focused player can get them moving and finish the game. If your opponent plays slowly spend your timing planning your future moves. If they are really taking along time get a judge to warn them.

Although it seems like the Massacre system is much worse than the UK GT system that favors squeezing out minor wins it really isn't that much worse. In the UK GT system the dynamic turns 180 degrees to armies that play keep away or invest heavily in super units like Farsight/Bike Councils. The problem with the tournament system is the game itself. Best to make due instead of looking for perfection, it is unattainable.

Time is only an issue for inexperienced players.

In a two hour game, maybe. In a one hour game? In your 7th one hour game?

mikhaila wrote:Time is only an issue for inexperienced players.

In a two hour game, maybe. In a one hour game? In your 7th one hour game?

I don't think an hour is out of the question at 1000 points. Again, me and my friend went after each other with armies we had never played before. (lots of looking up rules ect.)

And we finished easily inside of an hour.

Of course it wouldn't hurt to have 5 turn games.

It's not so much that two people can finish a game in an hour that you have to consider. It's can the people playing 15 games finish in an hour, then do it 5 or 6 more times.

To really test it, post up scenarios similar to what you want to run. Ask people to make up armies at the points level of the tourney. Lots of people on dakka could try out the format, and give you feedback. Never base what will happen on just what you've seen in a few games.

I'd suggest making it a two day event.

Have the heats on the first day then on the second you have the finals for the top 8 and something fun for everyone else (mini campaign or something)

I like the rules for the tournaments but I feel that 3 turns is too short for a game. The time allotted needs to be longer. Tournaments are no fun since its all just rushing to do everything, gotta run to get lunch, no time for a smoke break. It really sucked at hardboyz when 2 of 3 players i went up against were guard. Their turns take so long that I only got 2 turns on one game and did manage to get 3 on the second.

This is why some of us have been pushing the idea of chess clock - that way the time is split equally between you and if a player is too slow then it screws him, not his opponent.

Yeah I would totally support a Chess clock in tournaments. Would be nice to actually see the 4th or 5th turn at a tournament sometime.

When games workshop is bought out by Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast and GW are subsidiaries of the same company then you will see a change in the GW policy.


Until then there will never be a universal tournament system ; rules update ; rules balancing ; support for local events.


It's to much work and GW doesnt give a gak.


They havent done it after 20 years why would they start now.

Adepticon has the best run tournament in the country / world.


Seriously, go look at how 40k is done at adepticon. Fantastic.

If Adepticon is doing everything right, why shouldn't GW just let things continue on?

It's not fair to armies that have large units of models and favors smaller elite units of armies.

IE Horde Tyranid would be screwed; large guard armies would be screwed.


It's just punishing the player for something that really shouldnt be punished for ; it takes time to finish moving 200 models then add in rule debates etc..


Edit:

Time format is difficult to judge as armies vary in size and are not equal in size some take longer to play naturally than others.

Double Edit:


I don't agree with 100 percent of the Adepticon Faq ; but it is very fair. The format they use of Primary, Secondary , Tertiary as well as their mission structures work very well.


It's a well run event.

GW wishes they could run a event like Adepticon format at a national scale , but they wont and they cant.


Also, GW use to do something like this with Roguetrader ; but not close to it.

If they wanted they could "endorse" judges through online testing higher and etc.. so that you could have a sanctioned GW event with player scores counted on a national level with a Judge aproved by GW following a specific rule etc... They dont they suck.