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.

Have to say I haven't run into to any crazy horrible WAACers in the last 2-3 GT's I've played at and I'm normally around the top tables on the second day (i.e. people still in the running for winning something). I think people let the fear of a single bad egg keep them from running a tournament that many of the tournament goers would actually prefer.

If people are competing for a golden ticket to Vegas it's the responsibility of the TOs to fairly determine who are the top two players which boils down to best overall and 2nd best overall. It's also important to recognize there is the vocal minority that posts a lot on forums and blogs while there is also the silent majority. Dakka may at anytime have up to around 20,000 viewers but only a couple thousand at most are registered.

G

Not sure if anyone picked up on this but the story you are talking about in the original post happened in WWI not WWII ;P

One problem with soft scoring, specifically in sportsmanship, is that the scores don't vary much...People automatically mark full points sometimes, sometimes they don't...But there is little variance in the scores in general.

A possible way to fix this is to have a ranking given rather than a rating...IE rank the players that you fought against.

On another point, someone mentioned giving negative scores. Negative scores tend to drive people away and are exclusionary rather than inclusive. Unless you are intentionally tyring to drive people away from your tournament (I know of some that do).

I think the newer Codexes have resulted in less of the min-max that occured 5 to 10 years ago. The 6-man las/plas 'mauleed' marines are gone. The troops choices are, in general, better than previously. Point costs for troops has, in general, dropped (Orks and SW at least), making them more attractive. Plus, you know that you'll need more than 2x 5-man scout units in objective based games. There's still some extremes out there, but in general, it seems better than it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:A possible way to fix this is to have a ranking given rather than a rating...IE rank the players that you fought against.

Adepticon did this a few years ago (well, maybe more than a few) in the Sunday tourney. I thought it was a solid way to do it, but it has it's flaws as well. If you play three jerks, one of them has to be the 'least jerkiest' and if you play three beautiful armies, one has to be the ugly duckling. If it's over 5 or 6 games, that will help reduce the effect, but if it's only 3 games, it can happen.

Battlepoints should be the bread and butter of your tournament. If you're playing a game competitively, the victory conditions overall should always be a matter of winning the games.

Composition should definitely be in, no exceptions. The system I would use is something along the lines of "Build your army within the rules for a specific codex and only use up to the allotted number of points".

Painting is a simple check of three or more colours.

I define sportsmanship as not cheating or not hindering the game. If the opponent does so, get a judge as opposed to stabbing them after the game so you can stroke your epeen over how you got such good revenge.

OK, my turn.

Ratios:
Battle 50-65%, set high enough against the others so that you have to win a majority of your games to win overall.
They're fairly self explanatory, no argument agmongst us as to what they are. All kinds of dfifferent ways to run these, from VPs to VP ratio to set amount for a win to primary/secondary/tertiary (p/s/t) objectives each worth a different amount. Seen all of them and probably some I've forgotten over the years. I've come to enjoy that last one (p/s/t) over the last couple of years. But ultimately, as everyone in the tourney is being held to the same scoring system and (hopefully) knows what it is going in, all good. It's no fun being surprised towards the end of the first game by an announcement that losses are worth more points than a draw........... Yeah, it really happened. And yeah, players threw close games in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to score more points. I finished with one win and two draws, cause I don't throw games.

Appearance 20-25% Painting and Theme (if used) combined here. At least that way all the subjective army scoring is lumped together.
Now I'm a bit of an oddball here, I suppose. I'm not going to ban an unpainted army. But he's going to know going in that the only thing he can win is Best Sport. No Best General, no Overall. I'd much prefer to see painted armies on the table. Scoring here is far more subjective than other categories. I've seen the same exact army scored at two GTs in the same year and receive scores that varied by a large margin. And that was with the checklist scoring they used the last couple of years they ran GTs............. Before that, some of the systems were far more subjective and on at least one occasion, the judge and player awarded painting bonus points allowed a player with a non-winning record to win the Baltimore GT.

Theme has nothing to do with what units you took (ie how hard the army is). Again, this is a very subjective category, and people will have varying ideas as to what is or is not a themed army. To me, it's whether or not there is a coherent "story" that ties the army and it's units together. One of my IG, all RT era models, the Arkiv'l (archival) Regiment, or my 1st Lustrian IG (lizardmen IG) army. I think those are themed, regardless of how "hard" they are or are not.

Pro-painted armies. IMO, you didn't paint it, then the points you receive for someone else's work don't get counted towards your overall score. Can't win Overall, can't win Best Painted.

Sportsmanship. 20-25% This is a hard quantity to nail down. But I do think it needs to be included in the scoring. There have been many long threads on what this is, and I'm not going to dig too deeply into it. Suffice it to say, very few players should max out, judges should be able to give penalty points (yellow cards, if you will, with red cards meaning you're outta here), and it should be tracked by the judges for possible chipmunking. And this should be the only category that the players have a significant voice in. I'll touch more on who scores what at the bottom.

Comp. If included in scoring, no more than 10%, just enough to make a difference. I've seen a whole lot of different systems over the years, from checklists (40% Troops, two maxed Troops units, less than 10% wargear, fewer non-Troops than Troops-per category, not overall, etc etc) to pure subjective to mixed. Doesn't matter to me. I only ask one thing. If there's going to be a Comp system. It has to be advertised, laid out in advance so that all players know what it is. If it's a pure/partial subjective, post sample lists as to what the judge thinks hard/soft lists consist of. That way players new to the venue/tourney are not at a disadvantage to players that have attended that same tourney/venue before. Experience in the system does equate to an advantage.

Who scores what.
Already mentioned Sports, this should be player's scoring, with the judges only weighing in for penjalties and in some rare cases, awards.

Battle points, based on scenarios, pure and simple.

Pinting/Theme. Judges only for the points. However, one thing I do like to do is have the players as a whole cast votes for the Best Army. These votes are not worth any points and do not affect the final standings. But they sure come in handy as a tiebreaker for that Best painted award. Or alternatively, you can let each vote count as one point but those points are only used in the Best Painted category, again, never affecting the final standings. Drawback to this is the possibility of a group voting as a bloc for one of their members. heh, there's a reason I include club/group affiliations as part of registration info. Well, also to try and keep them from having to play each other in the early rounds as much as possible.

Comp, if used, judges only, no player input.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If people are competing for a golden ticket to Vegas it's the responsibility of the TOs to fairly determine who are the top two players which boils down to best overall and 2nd best overall. It's also important to recognize there is the vocal minority that posts a lot on forums and blogs while there is also the silent majority. Dakka may at anytime have up to around 20,000 viewers but only a couple thousand at most are registered.

G

But if we're talking about a Games Workshop event, promoting all areas of their 'GW Hobby' you're not looking for the top PLAYERS, you're looking for the top 'GW hobbyist'. Anything else promotes the idea that people who like playing games somehow have a better hobby than people who like painting and converting. Since GW promotes all areas of their hobby, their biggest event of the year should reflect this.

If they want to do this via overall scores, that's fine, but the score has to be fairly balanced between all the areas of the hobby. Otherwise you're penalising painters, converters, 'themed' hobbyists, who can only get a paltry 5% in their chosen field compared to competitive 'players'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pika_power wrote:Battlepoints should be the bread and butter of your tournament. If you're playing a game competitively, the victory conditions overall should always be a matter of winning the games.

Composition should definitely be in, no exceptions. The system I would use is something along the lines of "Build your army within the rules for a specific codex and only use up to the allotted number of points".

Painting is a simple check of three or more colours.

I define sportsmanship as not cheating or not hindering the game. If the opponent does so, get a judge as opposed to stabbing them after the game so you can stroke your epeen over how you got such good revenge.

What you've described there to me sounds like the perfect '40k Gaming Tournament'. Where the focus of the event is on 'gaming' and everything else is discounted. That's fine, but it obviously excludes a lot of people who participate in 40k....

Deleted

Fiercegoldfish wrote:Agreed.
If someone wants to get kudos for painting, have a separate competition or something for them. have a winner for gaming and then hold another competition for painting etc.

best thing I can think of for comparison is the following: When two teams play in the superbowl, it's all about the points. There are no good sportsmanship points or extra points for being flashy or having nice uniforms. Sure it helps the ratings that the cheerleaders look nice, but when they want to judge the cheerleaders they have cheer-leading competitions (football game=the game, cheerleaders=paint).

Yes, and a tournament can be about just gaming.

The thing is, in the Superbowl, the only thing that matters is who wins. In 40k, we all admit that LOTS of things are equally important. Games Workshop even promotes this, and plenty of people specialise in areas other than playing. It's not 'just' a game you play where everything else is secondary (like in Superbowl), the painting and converting is considered by a large part of the community to be MORE important than playing.

At the end of the day, do you run an event for the whole hobby community, or just for one section of it? Either are equally valid...

ArbitorIan wrote:

Fiercegoldfish wrote:Agreed.
If someone wants to get kudos for painting, have a separate competition or something for them. have a winner for gaming and then hold another competition for painting etc.

best thing I can think of for comparison is the following: When two teams play in the superbowl, it's all about the points. There are no good sportsmanship points or extra points for being flashy or having nice uniforms. Sure it helps the ratings that the cheerleaders look nice, but when they want to judge the cheerleaders they have cheer-leading competitions (football game=the game, cheerleaders=paint).

Yes, and a tournament can be about just gaming.

The thing is, in the Superbowl, the only thing that matters is who wins. In 40k, we all admit that LOTS of things are equally important. Games Workshop even promotes this, and plenty of people specialise in areas other than playing. It's not 'just' a game you play where everything else is secondary (like in Superbowl), the painting and converting is considered by a large part of the community to be MORE important than playing.

At the end of the day, do you run an event for the whole hobby community, or just for one section of it? Either are equally valid...

I agree that both sides of the hobby are great and should be prodded along but what is wrong with having a gaming winner and then a modeling winner at the same competition?

Fiercegoldfish wrote:
I agree that both sides of the hobby are great and should be prodded along but what is wrong with having a gaming winner and then a modeling winner at the same competition?

Absolutely nothing

That's why a lot of people are advocating that we have a 'Best General', 'Best Painter', 'Best Sportsman' etc etc and give them all prizes, and don't have a 'Overall' winner at all. Everyone can enter the competition they want and win in the area they consider important. Nobody is 'better' because of which area they want to specialise in....

You hace to have overall for GW events so you can hand out the golden tickets to Vegas.

G

Not totally true actually GBF. It is up to the discretion of the TO to decide what winning section gets the Tickets (i.e. Best Overall and Best General). Granted every tournament is going to have a best overall but the second ticket can go to the winner of another category. Just a heads up

don_mondo wrote:Comp, if used, judges only, no player input.

I agree with just about everything Mondo said.

And, to add to his last point, at no time should someone who is participating in running the tournament (i.e. by judging comp, theme, helping decide pairings, etc.) be allowed to actually play in the tournament. Judges who are judging as an impartial party (typically painting, comp) should remain impartial.

I wholeheartedly agree also with the idea that comp scoring, painting rubrics, processes to decide pairings for first or subsequent rounds of the tourny should also be transparent before and during the tournament.

I used to be big on comp, but have come to realize that there is no system that can't be gamed. If you use a checklist, then the lists are customized to the checklists. If its a 40% troops thing, then the lists are maximized for that. I'm fine as long as I know the system up front, but have also been having fun without worrying about comp at all.

Hulksmash I think it's best to give the second ticket to the player with the second best overall score. As a TO that seems the most fair to me and maybe more importantly not controversial.

So far I have not seen much of a homogeneous consensus in regards to scoring other than most people appear to agree that the majority of the points should be drawn from battlepoints. I have also seen a good number of people say the rules for comp should be very clear. All in all I think this is a good discussion and hope that more people will join in with us here.

G

Why is that more fair? To be honest some of us paint for crap. If i painted super well I'd actually have won the last GT I attended. But I can't paint like a superstar which will normally keep me out of the overall. I think as long as you post where the tickets are going before the event it is fair. As for controversial how does that work. The guy who won the most gets a ticket to Vegas. It is still a tournament. I actually find it silly that someone who doesn't place in the top 4 of any category can walk away with a ticket to Vegas. Especially in a tournament with 15 swing points at the end for "favorite" votes (i.e. opponent, army, theme).

My take on it is as follows:
Get rid of Best Overall.
Best General:
0 points for being massacred. 5 for a minor loss. 10 for a draw. 15 for a major win. 20 for massacring you opponent. Person with most battle points is Best General.

Best Painted:
Using a checklist, and more than one judge, pick the best painted.

Best Sport:
I can take or leave this award. But if you have it, it should be based on player observation. Ie. people vote for their most sporting opponent at the end of the tourney (secretly, because otherwise it'd be a bit awkward) and the guy who gets the most gets the spot.

That's just what I'd prefer. I don't think doing it the other way is incredibly terrible, but I much prefer seperating out and recognising the different aspects of the game, and rewarding all of them.
Also, it's vital that whatever scoring system you're using, it's known about beforehand, and well advertised. If you are using comp, players NEED to know. Same goes for painting scores- if there's gonna be a checklist, publish the checklist! This way, people can see what you're going for, and decide whether to attend or not based on that.
I'm pretty happy to see that most people are in favour of splitting the three categories out.

Hulksmash I bet if you had more time to paint you could improve your appearance scores. Maybe though that is not a big priority for you.

G

Bunker wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do college basketball teams get bonus points for having pretty uniforms at the NCAA tournament?

Do Olympic athletes get a few seconds shaved off their times if they say "good game" to and shake hands with their opponents?

Frankly, if painting, sportsmanship, comp, etc. are being included in the overall results then you're not talking about a "tournament" at all--you're talking about a hobby competition. The difference is important yet apparently lost on the Warhammer community.

I'm not advocating having unpainted armies and giving license for douchebaggery, but to include soft scores and still call the event a "tournament" is laughable. The winner isn't the best player, he's the best hobbyist.

This. A tournament should be about who plays the game the best, not who is the nicest and has the prettiest models. You can have separate events for those if you;d like, but they should not, in any way, affect the outcome of the actual game results.

And yet the overwhelming majority of tournaments seem to have scoring that involves something other than just winning games.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If people are competing for a golden ticket to Vegas it's the responsibility of the TOs to fairly determine who are the top two players which boils down to best overall and 2nd best overall. It's also important to recognize there is the vocal minority that posts a lot on forums and blogs while there is also the silent majority. Dakka may at anytime have up to around 20,000 viewers but only a couple thousand at most are registered.

G

But if we're talking about a Games Workshop event, promoting all areas of their 'GW Hobby' you're not looking for the top PLAYERS, you're looking for the top 'GW hobbyist'. Anything else promotes the idea that people who like playing games somehow have a better hobby than people who like painting and converting. Since GW promotes all areas of their hobby, their biggest event of the year should reflect this.

If they want to do this via overall scores, that's fine, but the score has to be fairly balanced between all the areas of the hobby. Otherwise you're penalising painters, converters, 'themed' hobbyists, who can only get a paltry 5% in their chosen field compared to competitive 'players'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pika_power wrote:Battlepoints should be the bread and butter of your tournament. If you're playing a game competitively, the victory conditions overall should always be a matter of winning the games.

Composition should definitely be in, no exceptions. The system I would use is something along the lines of "Build your army within the rules for a specific codex and only use up to the allotted number of points".

Painting is a simple check of three or more colours.

I define sportsmanship as not cheating or not hindering the game. If the opponent does so, get a judge as opposed to stabbing them after the game so you can stroke your epeen over how you got such good revenge.

What you've described there to me sounds like the perfect '40k Gaming Tournament'. Where the focus of the event is on 'gaming' and everything else is discounted. That's fine, but it obviously excludes a lot of people who participate in 40k....

Yep, just like Golden Daemon excludes those of us who prefer to play instead of paint.................

Point being, a tourney should be focused on the gaming element, and the 'soft scores' are an adjunct. That's why the Battle Points element should be strong enough so that you cannot win overall without winning a majority of your games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:Why is that more fair? To be honest some of us paint for crap. If i painted super well I'd actually have won the last GT I attended. But I can't paint like a superstar which will normally keep me out of the overall. I think as long as you post where the tickets are going before the event it is fair. As for controversial how does that work. The guy who won the most gets a ticket to Vegas. It is still a tournament. I actually find it silly that someone who doesn't place in the top 4 of any category can walk away with a ticket to Vegas. Especially in a tournament with 15 swing points at the end for "favorite" votes (i.e. opponent, army, theme).

I'm in the same boat and have resigned myself to it. Course, I'm usually comparing myself to other IFL members that have won GT Best Painted, GT Player's Choice, Golden Daemons, etc etc. I paint fair-to-middling, not worried about excelling at it. Maybe I could improve if I sat down and really worked at it, but that's time could be gaming.......... I enter the GTs knowing there's no way I'm going to win overall due to that. Yet I've been in 20 or so GW GTs, cause I enjoy them and the friends I've made at them over the years. And I've finished as high as 5th overall, several times in the top 10, and second for Best General once (when it was combined Battle and Sports). I guess my point is that I choose to focus on the gaming aspect of the game and accept that I'll be middle of the road on apinting. So be it. Maybe that slants my opinion that most of the tourney score should come from battle points. But seriously, can you really say that giving Best Overall to a player with a 2-3 record is right, just because he has a beautiful army? If Battle Points aren't balanced properly, it can happen.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Battlepoints should be the bread and butter of your tournament. If you're playing a game competitively, the victory conditions overall should always be a matter of winning the games.

Composition should definitely be in, no exceptions. The system I would use is something along the lines of "Build your army within the rules for a specific codex and only use up to the allotted number of points".

Painting is a simple check of three or more colours.

I define sportsmanship as not cheating or not hindering the game. If the opponent does so, get a judge as opposed to stabbing them after the game so you can stroke your epeen over how you got such good revenge.

What you've described there to me sounds like the perfect '40k Gaming Tournament'. Where the focus of the event is on 'gaming' and everything else is discounted. That's fine, but it obviously excludes a lot of people who participate in 40k....

A tournament implies competition in a game. For fluff, many Games Workshop stores run campaigns. For painters, they run fluff. For kids who play to yell "WAAAAGH!!!" there're Game Nights. For those who like to play to win, there should be an event specifically for them, as opposed to an event sort of directed towards them, but with a hodgepodge of attributes from other aspects of the game such as painting and narrative, causing the competitive players to moan about the comp scores, the painters to moan about the grey armies of doom and the fluffy players to moan about the WAAC players, meaning no one has a good time. The best thing to do is separate the aspects out. It's been done for everything except the tournament scene.

@GBF

I paint for other people too. I paint pretty well. But pretty well isn't enough to compete in overalls on the west coast. Add in that painting is subjective. I paint to a generally middling to high middling level. I just think that to heavy a of weight in soft scores is silly. I'm just not willing to put 20-30 hours per squad in my army which is the only place I really could have improved my score at the last GT I was at. It isn't reasonable. And since this hobby isn't all about painting I shouldn't have to.

@Topic

I also hate the subjective point swings at the end of the tournament voting. They should only be used as tie breakers for any specific spot not count towards overall points.

I'm of a mind that a tournament should only be about battle points. Appearance, theme, and comp are all too subjective, and I'm not sure I see why it matters if you paint real pretty at a tournament, that's what painting competitions are for. Sportsmanship scores sound like a good idea but it's been so horribly implemented that I'm not partial to them, either...way too easy to dick people out of points. "I didn't have fun because he beat me so he gets a big fat zero!", that kind of bs.

I'm also very strongly opposed to the idea of comp scoring. Not only do I find the idea that I can be penalized for taking a legal army insulting, but comp often doesn't achieve what the organizers think it does. I don't see how most people can say with a straight face that they're encouraging people to use a "variety" of armies, when they're imposing pointless restrictions and telling you what you can and can't bring (and yes, that's exactly what they're doing, saying "Oh you can bring whatever you want, you just won't win the tournament because your score will get tanked" doesn't change anything).

The only way comp works, and the only way you'll get ME to play in a comped tournament, is if the organizers write army lists for each of the armies, and actually provide you with your army for the day. I'm not about to waste my time and money building and painting an army I'll never field outside of said tournament, and I also don't feel like trying to figure out what the organizers like and what they don't. It's easier if they just say "Here, use this list".

Pika_power wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Battlepoints should be the bread and butter of your tournament. If you're playing a game competitively, the victory conditions overall should always be a matter of winning the games.

Composition should definitely be in, no exceptions. The system I would use is something along the lines of "Build your army within the rules for a specific codex and only use up to the allotted number of points".

Painting is a simple check of three or more colours.

I define sportsmanship as not cheating or not hindering the game. If the opponent does so, get a judge as opposed to stabbing them after the game so you can stroke your epeen over how you got such good revenge.

What you've described there to me sounds like the perfect '40k Gaming Tournament'. Where the focus of the event is on 'gaming' and everything else is discounted. That's fine, but it obviously excludes a lot of people who participate in 40k....

A tournament implies competition in a game. For fluff, many Games Workshop stores run campaigns. For painters, they run fluff. For kids who play to yell "WAAAAGH!!!" there're Game Nights. For those who like to play to win, there should be an event specifically for them, as opposed to an event sort of directed towards them, but with a hodgepodge of attributes from other aspects of the game such as painting and narrative, causing the competitive players to moan about the comp scores, the painters to moan about the grey armies of doom and the fluffy players to moan about the WAAC players, meaning no one has a good time. The best thing to do is separate the aspects out. It's been done for everything except the tournament scene.

In the U.S. it is already being accomplished. GW sponsors the Ard Boyz for all 3 game systems. Only battlepoints are scored and it's encouraged to bring the hardest army you can bring to the table.

GW does? Interesting. So what's the GT doing around?

Different strokes for different folks. This year in the U.S. there are no GW GTs, only Indy GTs. The top two finishers in each Indy GT get slot to go to the Las Vegas GW GT in 2011. The Ard Boyz (IIRC) finals top two finishers get slots for the Vegas GT.

I think it's cool to have specialized events for specific things. Examples - 'ard Boyz - pure gaming event - you win or you lose, Golden Demon - painting and converting only. But for the Grand Tournaments - I suggest the following:

I think the issue about comp rears its head because of one category - Overall Champion - and the fact that it has the most loot attached to it. All the other categories feed into "overall" - and thus if you have a Comp category - it pisses people off towards overall. I suggest that for a GT type tournament that you eliminate Overall from the categories.

Have a Best General, Best Painted, Best Themed, Funnest Opponent etc category. You could even break it down by Codex if you wanted - or a 1, 2, 3rd place for each. Split the prize support evenly across those. Yeah - there may be less prize support for winning a category because you spread stuff out more. But at the end of the day, do people really play in tourneys for the loot - or for the fun of competing and maybe getting their 10 seconds of fame for winning something? I think most people do the latter. The more people who get their name called and get to come up front - even if it's just for a trinket - the better.

I'm actually not in favor so much in regards to Comp. It's the big thing that makes me think you have to scrap the Overall category. Comp is subjective - no way around that - and it does create an imbalance in the game. What I think should replace it - and maybe appeal more to people is a Theme category. yeah - I know it's still subjective as well, but you don't limit people on what they can take army wise. Theme would be about the fluff, display, modeling, storyline, etc. The people that really get into writing a background, naming characters, etc. They could use anything in the codex to do this - which is where I think the improvement comes from.

This way everyone has their "thing" they can go for. I'm a helluva guy and love just to play and have fun - so I go for funnest player. xxxx is a top shelf player - he guns for best General. xxxxx..well gak - he wins all the painting stuff. Etc, etc...overall - I think more people have fun - get less bent out of shape about "cheating" and "broken lists" - are less tempted to cheat for the big prize - and you get more positive feedback on your tournaments.

You also have in effect - Four or five separate events going on simultaneously. And they all speak to different aspects of the tournament scene. People have more - or multiple niches to compete for - and overall it's a lot better thing.

As to the Golden Ticket mess that GW has created this year. I guess you could take the two people who did the best across the board on all categories. Weigh them equally. Give them the Golden Tickets. No prize or loot - just the ticket to Vegas. Then hopefully at the end - you've got the top people across everything in the hobby being represented in Vegas - which is what I think GW wants to have happen.

Respectfully submitted for the discussion.....

The best thing in my opinion, is that there is no one best way to do things. Different styles of tournaments with different scoring, scenarios, scenery, etc. There's no reason to do it the same way all the time.

And anyone that feels strongly about how a tournament should be run, can always organize their own.

Pika_power wrote:GW does? Interesting. So what's the GT doing around?

We don't have those in the US anymore..................