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 the title stated How do you handle a ringer in a Tournament or your local TO. Please post want your local store does if the poll does not cover all the option

"Other." The local tourneys usually have a ringer who you don't have to play, and the worst you can get is a tie, but you can get better.

The "ringer" plays a normal game with the opponent, with a "balanced" list (i.e., not bearded to heck and back) and does their best to win - anything less and there is no point in playing.

The results only counts for the non-ringer

Double post

Ringer plays whatever the standard style for the event is. Plays games like normal, places like normal, but cannot win anything.

VikingScott wrote:What is a ringer in this context?

I assume it's someone who comes along to the tournament specifically to play people who don't have an opponent?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

VikingScott wrote:What is a ringer in this context?

I assume it's someone who comes along to the tournament specifically to play people who don't have an opponent?

Correct

Voted... C! Obviously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The "ringer" plays a normal game with the opponent, with a "balanced" list (i.e., not bearded to heck and back) and does their best to win - anything less and there is no point in playing.

The results only counts for the non-ringer

This. Also, after the first round, the Ringer is always paired against the player with the lowest score. And in the first round, (if I am organizing it, and if I know the players involved), the ringer is not paired against any of the genuine contenders, unless everyone's a contender. As a rule, in round 1 I try to put the ringer against someone new/inexperienced who is not likely to be in contention to win the tournament. This means the ringer's impact on the result is minimized, and the newbie gets at least one relaxed game against someone whose motivation isn't winning stuff & crushing people.

There's really not enough options in this poll. And some of them I have trouble believing are actually used by anybody. For example: Play as normal, but both players get a draw. Why does the ringer score? If they're scoring, why don't they just enter the tournament? Why make them play if they're just getting a draw? I could see offering a play, but not requiring it in that case.


In any event, the scheme I like is similar to what Cannerus said: The ringer always plays the bottom player, doesn't earn any points or prizes, and when you play the ringer you're guaranteed at least a moderate victory but any points earned beyond that against the ringer are counted in your score. This is most important in the first round if you have no seed data (to pair the ringer against the weakest player); it gives the bye player the chance to massacre the ringer and stay in the hunt.

I do think the ringer should always play the worst players, unless they are running a competitive army and playing just as hard as anyone else. In that case they are just another player, but exempt from winning. I dont feel that you should get an automatic massacre or draw from playing the ringer.

Used to always bring a ringer to all tourney to make sure spots were filled. I usually tried to have an army that had been shown in a White Dwarf for them to play with that was a good solid army but not a leaf blower style list (yes things like that have always been around). Brought someone who I knew could play the game well and asked/instructed them to make the games competitive and fun, if the opponent was a jerk and caused problems try and wipe the floor with him otherwise try and keep it close. If they were losing then it meant the opponent was good not that the ringer or army sucked.

In two of my tourneys my ringer army was used by a competitor. Once as a player was tripped by the staff in the Indianpolis convention center as he had his army on a display board and literally sent it flying about twenty feet across the hall. They other time the player had come in to Indy from out of town and had one of his army cases stolen from his car in the hotel parking lot overnight. The first guy had no luck but the second guy won best general that day.

Massacre should be given, then he is paired against the lowest score player, giving massacres (this can easily be done with no ringer, but gives the guy something to do for the next two hours).

This guy has nothing on the line, and is likely to be far less nervous, etc. than someone playing for the prizes and will make less mistakes than had they been in contention. Meanwhile, tournaments seem to be 3-4 games tops, and even one draw puts you out of the running for the top spot.

Fearspect wrote:Massacre should be given, then he is paired against the lowest score player, giving massacres (this can easily be done with no ringer, but gives the guy something to do for the next two hours).

This guy has nothing on the line, and is likely to be far less nervous, etc. than someone playing for the prizes and will make less mistakes than had they been in contention. Meanwhile, tournaments seem to be 3-4 games tops, and even one draw puts you out of the running for the top spot.

If you are playing in a small to medium sized tournament, 10-20 players, giving out massacres can affect standings.

yeah, I don't think the round should default to a Massacre, that seems a bit too generous?

voted C, because I'd rather have that than someone needing to sit out with a bye & do something like average their other 2 games together...

I'm really confused by this.

You have a person coming just to even up the numbers in the event of there being an odd number of competitors? And then have to invent lots of conditions and rules so that they don't score, and that the people who play him still do? And then you have to limit his army in case the 'ringer' is accientally really good?

If you have a spare person, with an army, why not just make him a competitor? Then you have an even number of competitors and there's no need for any more rules.

At the most you might have to say "You got a free ticket, so you can't win prizes" but that's about it, right?

Or am i misunderstanding the concept?

I think the problem is that if a ringer did well, it could be perceived by the other players that the event was rigged (especially if the ringer is a known friend/associate of the TO)

Yep, what Calvin said. Usually the ringer is a 'staff member', if you will. In smaller tournies with only one judge, it's likely taht judge.
So, the ringer should never be in contention for any prizes nor (other than the random match in the first round) should he be in a position to influence the final standings. Example, I ran our Ard Boyz prelim. Looking good, even number of players, all that. But as I'm announcing table assignments, we get a late arrival. Now giving him free points for a bye or playing and giving him a massacre would award his late arrival. And while it wasn't much, there were prizes on the line and the chance to advance. So I pulled out my army and played him. I didn't cut him any slack, and used the same army list that I went undefeated with at a different Ard Boyz the next day (The store got permission to do this as they already had an event scheduled for Sat). Only problem we had was interruptions for rules queries, etc, that cut into our game time. So when I made the standard 'time's getting short, don't start a new turn' announcement, I offered him the opportunity to play into the break or not. Game was very much up in the air at that point, he chose to let it end. Worked in his favor giving him a draw at the end of 4 turns. One more turn and I would have won easily.
Then second round I bumped myself all the way to the bottom of the pool so i couldn't affect the top players standings, letting them fight it out amongst themselves. had a player leave after round 2, so got to relax the 3rd round.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:
If you are playing in a small to medium sized tournament, 10-20 players, giving out massacres can affect standings.

This happenned at our 'AB prelim. There was an odd number of players and they gave the extra guy a massacre in first round. He got third at the end for playing 2 games.

When there's no ringer pretty much the fairest way to do it is to award full points to the odd man out. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative of giving him less while simultaneously not letting him play the full number of games.

Using a ringer/filler player is the best answer, but not always an option.

Mannahnin:

An honest question, why is that the best resolution? If there are 9 players in a 3-round tournament then exactly 1/3 of the scores would be inflated artificially. I'm sure that in larger turnouts this inflation may come out in the wash, but does it? Beyond the first round I imagine the impact could be dampened by giving the lowest-scoring players the byes, but what about determining the random first bye?

Why not simply give a Major Victory? Or a Massacre without any extra BP? I think full points is a bit extreme to reward someone for their patience.

Like I said, maybe it does all even out...when I think about it, though, full points seems almost as arbitrary as averaging the 2 games played & taking that as the score for the 3rd game? Inevitably having an odd number of players will plague the results, but the people who had to actually do something tactically sound to earn full points shouldn't suffer for that?

(p.s., I'm not trying to be argumentative here, hope that wasn't inferred! )

@bob: I think the only easy answer to something like that is that there needs to be more than 3 rounds for a tournament to actually accomplish what it's trying to. Unfortunately 40k has to have ridiculous round times and make itself completely impractical. At three rounds giving 1d20 points for the round is just as sound as any set number since there are upsides to scoring the odd one out low, middle or high.

Cannerus
I totally agree with you there. In fact, for me there really can't be any satisfying type of closure without a full-on multi-day affair.
But it's like you said, that is quite impractical given the business nature of most LGS & the investment of time, money & resources necessary to have that work on a grander scale...

Also, I think the impact of full points for a bye would definitely become less impactful as the number of competitors increased?

Exactly. The bigger the spread, be it from more rounds or more competitors, the better the end result will be and the less any one shining moment will matter. If that opponent goes on to massacre or do really, really well against his other opponents he likely would have gotten a decent result in the first round anyway.

thank you for the logical & level-headed discussion! it's always nice when things don't devolve into shouting matches from atop soap boxes...

still, something about watching someone take a nap for 90 minutes in a tourney & get full points just makes me feel...dirty...

Ha. I like good discussion as well. He only "screws" anyone who places beneath him. Everyone else is unaffected

radical bob wrote:Mannahnin:

An honest question, why is that the best resolution? If there are 9 players in a 3-round tournament then exactly 1/3 of the scores would be inflated artificially. I'm sure that in larger turnouts this inflation may come out in the wash, but does it? Beyond the first round I imagine the impact could be dampened by giving the lowest-scoring players the byes, but what about determining the random first bye?

Why not simply give a Major Victory? Or a Massacre without any extra BP? I think full points is a bit extreme to reward someone for their patience.

Like I said, maybe it does all even out...when I think about it, though, full points seems almost as arbitrary as averaging the 2 games played & taking that as the score for the 3rd game? Inevitably having an odd number of players will plague the results, but the people who had to actually do something tactically sound to earn full points shouldn't suffer for that?

(p.s., I'm not trying to be argumentative here, hope that wasn't inferred! )

Bob- Fair question. This is a good point. Actually, come to think of it, I have played in at least one event where rather than automatically giving max points, the Bye player was given the same points as whoever scored highest in the first round. This meant that they weren’t given MORE points than anyone else, and also meant that they probably got a tough pairing for R2 to attempt to earn more points. Averaging their other two games is, I think, also a reasonable approach. I’ve heard of that too. Honestly, I didn’t remember either of the above off the top of my head; haven’t had to deal with the issue in a while.

I don’t think a Draw or reduced points is fair, as the player should not be denied the chance to do as well as anyone else. Losing the chance to play a game is bad enough without adding insult to injury.

The events I run (usually 10-20 players) I act as the ringer and generally play whoever came in late or whoever is the youngest, newest person there. I take fun lists but still play competitively, my job there is to give them a game, not give them a free win.

Typically someone has to leave early or just drops out so i usually only play one or two games before the numbers are evened up again.

Mannahnin
You know I never really considered the implications of a 2nd round match-up for someone who was given full points for a bye. That would definitely require them to earn [or at least appreciate] the extra points. Also the idea of awarding whatever the high score was, so if the competition was tight there would be less of a head start right out of the gates...

Ozymandias
That's, I think, the best way to go about it. However, I completely understand that TOs will not always have the time to devote to playing a stand-in match, what with rules disputes & such. Not to mention pairings for later rounds & judging paint scores or what not.
In that case, it has to just revert to something slightly less precise...

Mannahnin wrote:Actually, come to think of it, I have played in at least one event where rather than automatically giving max points, the Bye player was given the same points as whoever scored highest in the first round. This meant that they weren’t given MORE points than anyone else, and also meant that they probably got a tough pairing for R2 to attempt to earn more points. Averaging their other two games is, I think, also a reasonable approach. I’ve heard of that too. Honestly, I didn’t remember either of the above off the top of my head; haven’t had to deal with the issue in a while.

I don’t think a Draw or reduced points is fair, as the player should not be denied the chance to do as well as anyone else. Losing the chance to play a game is bad enough without adding insult to injury.

I like averaging the player's scores from his other rounds, as it leaves his overall score completely in his own hands. On the other hand, if you automatically assign the "bye" to the player with the lowest score, his average is likely to suck (except for the guy w/the round 1 bye, who was just unlucky).