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.

If a buy is required why don't they just do average points per game for everyone? Divide points earned over games played. Seems more far than giving the buy person a win loose or draw.

ruminator wrote:Problem is 2,500 point games is that some matches are lucky to get to T3 in the allotted time. This can make it difficult to go from minor-major win as it's only really come T4-T5 that the advantages really start to reflect in VPs. If people finish their matches then the scoring system works, problem is people don't get to finish their matches ...

All 3 of my games hit at least Turn 5, if not 6. Each game also ended with 45 minutes to an hour left in the round.

Then again, I played a compact Dread heavy BA army and faced nothing but Grey Knights and Deathwing, so it's not like we had that much to do during a turn. Helps that we never had a rules argument, too.

I just don't see how the top 2 players at the end of the second round play eachother and one can be booted out of the running, I mean look at any sport in the playoffs it is not like the two teams playing the championship don't get first and second, so why in our game does the guy who plays the championship round get booted to fourth or sometimes fifth. The two players at the lead table should just play to see who gets first and second dosen't make sense to me.

An add on to that, two guys that start the third game that are in third and fourth should play for third place.

Cain wrote:I just don't see how the top 2 players at the end of the second round play eachother and one can be booted out of the running, I mean look at any sport in the playoffs it is not like the two teams playing the championship don't get first and second, so why in our game does the guy who plays the championship round get booted to fourth or sometimes fifth. The two players at the lead table should just play to see who gets first and second dosen't make sense to me.

I had this discussion last night with my wife to explain why people were all butthurt about 'AB scoring and a local event's scoring that was recent. I personally don't care what the requirements of a tournament are as long as they are made clear before the event. If you don't like it, choose a different event. If you go, then you should have researched the format and scoring and should have no surprises about what you need to do to win.

It's not that I am complaining it is that I just don't like it I think there should be a better way that is all.

Cain wrote:I just don't see how the top 2 players at the end of the second round play eachother and one can be booted out of the running, I mean look at any sport in the playoffs it is not like the two teams playing the championship don't get first and second, so why in our game does the guy who plays the championship round get booted to fourth or sometimes fifth. The two players at the lead table should just play to see who gets first and second dosen't make sense to me.

An add on to that, two guys that start the third game that are in third and fourth should play for third place.

Which essentially means that everyone else just packs up and leaves, having no chance to place. You'll also start seeing the top table decide to 'tie' and split the prize, and go get a beer instead of playing. This happens all the time in systems where it's legal, like MTG. The two guys on the lead table aren't the best two players in the tournament, just the two guys that scored highest in the first two rounds. There's no reason to essentially give them a by to the next rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ruminator wrote:Problem is 2,500 point games is that some matches are lucky to get to T3 in the allotted time. This can make it difficult to go from minor-major win as it's only really come T4-T5 that the advantages really start to reflect in VPs. If people finish their matches then the scoring system works, problem is people don't get to finish their matches ...

With 14 players for round 1, we had the vast majority finish their matches. The exception was a very inexperienced player slowing down his games, and one of his going long. We usually have enough people finish early that we take little or no breaks between the 3 hour long rounds. Regionals and Finals usually go a bit faster, because you've filtered out the inexperienced players.

I am a fan of the 'ard boyz scoring system. Truthfully, it is quite difficult to have 30+ players compete in an environment that is complete without any sort of problems. Yes, matchups do throw the proverbial wrench into the fairness of the tourney, but such is life, no? SOMEONE is going to have to play that mech guard parking lot o' dread ( or my DE list of doom ) and there is simply no way around it.

The trick is, obviously, bonus points. Bonus points. Bonus Points. A full score on three games can equate to a major victory, which, in the grand scheme of things, is incredibly valuable.

Also, the tiebreak for any TO is clearly strength of schedule. During our Prelims the first and second player were tied with victory points, but since i played the two top players, and the other player worked his way through the middle of the pack, 1st place was given to me.

TL;DR - learn to play with what you are given.

We had 18 players , the first game I scored a massacre win , 2nd game was a brutal slugfest and we had a draw ( even bonus points ) 3rd game I had a minor victory with bonus points .

When the smoke cleared I was deadlocked at around 50 points with another player for third place , before we could figure out victory points he graciously bowed out and let me have the spot.
I think keeping track of victory points is very time consuming and adds to an already long day. I think a better system would be strength of opponent . Figure out who each player played and where they placed and whomever had the harder competition advances . Easy , clean, fair.

Can we just change the title of the thread to "'Ard Boyz Sucks"?

As for the time limit, I ended up having well over 30 minutes to spare every round, with first round going into 7 turns. Our group knew what the time limits were and we modified our lists to reflect it so we got our turns in. IE if you know you cant get full turns playing a Kan wall/ Green tide because of the model movements modify your lists. I cant claim people were slow playing but a few games didnt make it past round three. (14 in attendance)

mikhaila wrote:

ruminator wrote:Problem is 2,500 point games is that some matches are lucky to get to T3 in the allotted time. This can make it difficult to go from minor-major win as it's only really come T4-T5 that the advantages really start to reflect in VPs. If people finish their matches then the scoring system works, problem is people don't get to finish their matches ...

With 14 players for round 1, we had the vast majority finish their matches. The exception was a very inexperienced player slowing down his games, and one of his going long. We usually have enough people finish early that we take little or no breaks between the 3 hour long rounds. Regionals and Finals usually go a bit faster, because you've filtered out the inexperienced players.

The rules packet specified 2.5 hour rounds, though.

Well, new players have just as much right to play in the tournament as those that are veterans. My first Ard Boyz was two years ago when I first started playing. I had been playing the game for maybe a month and went to Ard Boyz with an old Grey Knights list. I wasn't a very good player, but the first game I played I ended up getting a Minor Victory, then went on to get massacred my last two games. Of course, after all was said and done and I was recapping my losses to other casual gaming friends I found that those that massacred me were cheating pretty heavily.

Last year I ended up getting only 3rd in an Ard Boyz because a new player brought an infantry guard army that had only 6 heavy weapons squads, 3 of which were heavy bolters the other 3 lascannons. He was new, and he got massacred all three games propelling people ahead of me while I played moderate players... is it fair? Maybe not, but that's the game.

I agree that 3 games isn't so great and does not allow for enough variance but you can't have a 5 game tournament in 1 day and I don't see it being a 2 day tournament, people wouldn't show up the next day, it's not as well organized and is free.

jbunny wrote:Every tournament I have been in has given at least a Major Victory to the person with a bye. Giving them a draw or a loss is not fair either.

Don't like it? Don't go back.

That's not entirely fair either. Better for the player with the bye but worse for the rest of thhe group should the mission be a very close score for many people. The best way to do a bye and keep things even for everyone is to give the bye an amount of points equal to the average of the top X winners (we had 10 people so we had average of the 5 winners assuming ever game was a W-L situation with no draws) that way their points are in line with the points from the rest of the round and no-one can get upset that the bye got a free ride to the top tier of the tournament during their bye round.

When there's a Bye in a tournament (which I generally hate; much better to have a Ringer), I generally prefer to see that person get equal points to the hghest scored by any player that round. That way they don't lose ground from not getting to play, but also don't get an unearned advantage over everyone else.

Byes suck, though. You're there to play x number of games. Not x-1 and sit with your thumb in your... mouth for two+hours while everyone else plays a game.

Bye's do honestly suck at tourneys. When I went too the Ard boyz for me I knew my chances were slim too none because I was playing GK's an army I hadn't touched yet in their current codex. I lost ever single game but learned some valueble insite too playing the army. Going into the third round I could have just left and my opponent would have faired much better but wheres the fun in that. I honestly really hate it when people just up and leave because they know they won't win overall because too me it's just bad sportsmenship honestly. For the Boston Brawl we had 3 people decide too leave before the finally round and it actually screwed up my pairings and a couple of the awards, and what's worse is one of the people would have actually won something for comming in dead last (several FOW boxes).

The primary point of a gaming tournament is the games. Getting a full day (or weekend) of gaming, often against new people and seeing new armies, on terrain which isn't the same stuff you use every week at your FLGS.

People who quit early are usually sadly missing the point, and are often being selfish and inconsiderate, by denying other people the games they came for.

That being said, sometimes leaving can be acceptable and understandable, like if you have a family emergency.