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.

Swag Bag:




All Players get:
- Nifty Swag bag with Lanyard/Nametag and Pen
- A Bottle of water to keep refreshed
- 5 Custom BFS tokens
- 32 Chessex dice
- 45 degee LoS Template
maybe some other stuff we can find


Tokens and Templates by : Novastar Industries
Dice by Dragons Den/Gamers Gambit

got my ticket, cant wait Bob!

I'll be there as well.

But my badge had better say Eddy Miller like the photo promises...

alex of course ! lol

Only 6 more people to fill up at 64.

-ed

Link to GT/Skirmish Packet, Schedule and Faq : http://www.battleforsalvation.com/tournament-rules/

Registration still open have a few spots available: http://www.battleforsalvation.com/registration-2/

Open gaming starts friday late afternoon.

-ed

Looking forward to another awesome time!

zedsdead wrote:
Link to GT/Skirmish Packet, Schedule and Faq : http://www.battleforsalvation.com/tournament-rules/

Registration still open have a few spots available: http://www.battleforsalvation.com/registration-2/

Open gaming starts friday late afternoon.

-ed

How do you know you've made it as a 40k player? When a faq specifically addresses you.

Shades down.

Deal with it.

Looking forward to seeing everyone this weekend!

Haha, indeed. Didn't even notice it called someone out.

First the nova game turn announcement now this... Looks like the comp war starts with target ;p

Tables all setup and waiting on players to arrive for Skirmish game. here are a few pics of some of the tables.

How do you know you've made it as a 40k player? When a faq specifically addresses you.

Shades down.

Deal with it.

That's because you're a known breaker of rules, who makes the game un-fun for most of their opponents.

Oh, did I say that out loud....

 The Everliving wrote:

How do you know you've made it as a 40k player? When a faq specifically addresses you.

Shades down.

Deal with it.

That's because you're a known breaker of rules, who makes the game un-fun for most of their opponents.

Oh, did I say that out loud....

Oh stop you, I'm blushing!

Hey guys Bob Sinnott the TO is updating his blog with pics check em out:

http://theultrablog1.blogspot.com/

Day 2 Gold Bracket:


3-0 Players:

1 Mike Brandt vs jack Harpster
2 Nick Nanavati vs Brad Nichols
3 Matt DeFranza vs James Watkins
4 Cameron Pineiro vs Chris Johnson

follow the tournament in realtime over at www.torrentoffire.com

What a Great weekend. Great Turnout and the players were simply awsome.With the exception of some wonky air conditioning the Tournament went off smoother than any other we have hosted in the past. A big thanks goes out to the players, staff and Torrent of fire.

Here are the results:

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/tournament/Battle-for-Salvation/1/leaderboard

I will post a broader breakdown in the next day or so as well as pics.

I had a FANTASTIC time. The venue was great, the terrain was awesome and the atmosphere was great!

Congrats to all the bracket winners! I've heard BFS was a great event, and I wish I could have made it.

One thing that I find problematic with using the NOVA format right now is the way that brackets are determined. In both NOVA and BFS, the final member of the top bracket was a one loss player. That happens, and isn't really a problem. This issue that I see is that in both events, the one loss player happened to be a person who lost in round one and then went noob clubbing.

This isn't to say that the players who got in to the top brackets this way were undeserving. However, I do think is that in cases in which a one loss player goes to the top bracket, it should be the highest battle points among the players who lost their first game in round 4 (or 3 in the case of BFS). It follows that the players who keep winning (and getting power-paired against others that keep winning) are going to have less battle points, as they are facing tougher competition. "Submarining" should not be a viable strategy--intentional or not.

I had another fantastic time at BFS. It blew my mind that I was able to make it to top table ... not expected with such an intensely competitive field ... after Round 1 literally everyone 1-0 was a known name with a strong list and a great track record ... it was downright scary!

It was also great playing DeFranza with his terrifying jetstar list ... I was glad it came down to a turn 5 dice roll, where 6-7 were in my favor .. and happy to take home Battlemaster and 2nd-to-One. Ed and Bobby and all the BFS guys ran another awesome, laid back, competitive but super fun show. It's always one of the best and most socially rad GT's around (in part due to the sweet Palisades location, but primarily b/c of the people).


To JGrand: That's a tough one; in 2011, it was win-path based entirely (which is the most fair way to go about such things, since how badly you beat someone is a more or less irrelevant metric with randomized first round pairings). The problem was, people who had "tough" first rounds then complained loudly that losing in round 1 or 2 or 3 meant they couldn't sneak into the top bracket.

First world problems in a sense ... lots of great players aren't going to make top bracket every time they show up at a GT ... but that fueled the past 2 years being more lenient with who could sneak in (which is equally variable / random, mind you ... even with win-path).

The flipside is by doing that, there's a slight argument you can newb-bash your way up. Perhaps going back to win-path pairing is a good thing to mull over in the intervening year. We'll be continuing to look at a lot of what we do and how we do it - I'd like to think it's a hallmark that we're always trying to find a way to make it better for everyone.

That is a component of the counter-argument, however ... if losing at any point permits a chance at sneaking in, should you only lose once, that does incentivize / reward a higher % of the playerbase than win-path-only. Food for thought both ways.

To JGrand: That's a tough one; in 2011, it was win-path based entirely (which is the most fair way to go about such things, since how badly you beat someone is a more or less irrelevant metric with randomized first round pairings). The problem was, people who had "tough" first rounds then complained loudly that losing in round 1 or 2 or 3 meant they couldn't sneak into the top bracket.

First world problems in a sense ... lots of great players aren't going to make top bracket every time they show up at a GT ... but that fueled the past 2 years being more lenient with who could sneak in (which is equally variable / random, mind you ... even with win-path).

The flipside is by doing that, there's a slight argument you can newb-bash your way up. Perhaps going back to win-path pairing is a good thing to mull over in the intervening year. We'll be continuing to look at a lot of what we do and how we do it - I'd like to think it's a hallmark that we're always trying to find a way to make it better for everyone.

That is a component of the counter-argument, however ... if losing at any point permits a chance at sneaking in, should you only lose once, that does incentivize / reward a higher % of the playerbase than win-path-only. Food for thought both ways.

I understand that it is tough either way. It is definitely possible for two heavyweight players to collide round 1, and it is a shame that one of them would be out of the running for top bracket if it went back to the win based path. At the same time, it almost seems like a close round 1 loss may be the "easiest" path to the top bracket (or even brackets). Of course, these two events only make up a small sample size. It could just be coincidence.

I suppose the random nature of pairing is unavoidable. The club affiliation was a good idea this past year though. Just my two cents on something I noticed. Congrats on a good showing at BFS!

So just some food for thought on the "sneak" in argument. The 1 loss player who made the top bracket at BFS on a tie breaker in round 1. He the. Did obviously have two easier rounds for 2 and 3. To me it is really only the third game that matters here though, if I drew an easy game 1 opponent and won, and you drew a hard match and lost then had an easy opponent in theory we both had one hard and one easy game. Then the third game is all that really matters as far as difficulty of schedule.

It is also possible that I win game one in an easy game, and then draw an easy player who had an even easier round 1 game.

At some level you are essentially picking a low seed in the NCAA tournament. If you deserved to get in you would have won all your games, if you get in with one loss and go on to win getting in was not a problem, if you lose again not a problem.

Essentially a player arguing that he had a harder road, well your ability to get in was I your hands if you won, you lost.

Maybe we need the Bcs, win path + battle points + strength of schedule....

Trust me as a second bracket player, that bracket was plenty tough on its own, full of gt winners...though I'm impressed MVB considers me a know name on the GT circut.

I as well had a great time, my only complaint was with a few drops in round 6 but nothing the organizers could really do about it. But it ended up with me facing an opponent from a much lower bracket (a friend of mine) which was not the ideal match for either of us I think. Excellent event and I advise any who can make it to do so.

So just some food for thought on the "sneak" in argument. The 1 loss player who made the top bracket at BFS on a tie breaker in round 1. He the. Did obviously have two easier rounds for 2 and 3. To me it is really only the third game that matters here though, if I drew an easy game 1 opponent and won, and you drew a hard match and lost then had an easy opponent in theory we both had one hard and one easy game. Then the third game is all that really matters as far as difficulty of schedule.

It is also possible that I win game one in an easy game, and then draw an easy player who had an even easier round 1 game.

At some level you are essentially picking a low seed in the NCAA tournament. If you deserved to get in you would have won all your games, if you get in with one loss and go on to win getting in was not a problem, if you lose again not a problem.

Essentially a player arguing that he had a harder road, well your ability to get in was I your hands if you won, you lost.

Maybe we need the Bcs, win path + battle points + strength of schedule....

Sorta. If player 1 plays an easy opponent round 1, he/she is going to play a person who won their first game in round 2, and a person who won their first and second game in round 3. While it is possible that they play a noob who beat a noob in round 2, it is pretty unlikely they will play a newer/less competitive player in round 3 (and in the case of NOVA, almost guaranteed to play a good person in round 4, as only 28 people were unbeaten heading into that round this year).

If player 2 takes a close loss in round 1, they are playing 1 loss people for the next 2-3 rounds before bracketing. This usually (and I do want to specify, usually) means an easier schedule. As we have seen at NOVA and BFS, it appears to be an easier route to higher battle points in rounds 2-4 and 2-3 respectively.

Now, I don't mean to suggest this is always the way it happens. When good players hit each other, someone has to lose. There is no shame in losing, and as you mentioned, the top brackets are all really cutthroat and provide a great challenge and fun games. However, it is kinda lame to lose a close game after winning the first three only to fall to bracket 3-4, when people who lost game 1 or 2 are able to leapfrog based on picking up higher battlepoints. Furthermore, not all of the missions are created equally. Some are more conducive than others to picking up a 20 as opposed to a 13.

I don't mean this to come off as sour grapes. Again, events aren't all about winning. There is no shame in a loss, and the top brackets still provide a highly competitive challenge against a bunch of really great players. I just don't really like the fact that if a person is going to take a loss, it seems far more beneficial to take that loss early. Players should be rewarded for losing later, not earlier. I do realize that there is no perfect way to do bracketing, and I don't mean to come off as complaining. I merely wanted to point out something I noticed that may be worth considering for the future.

Anywhere to see what the lists were for the top bracket?

 JGrand wrote:

So just some food for thought on the "sneak" in argument. The 1 loss player who made the top bracket at BFS on a tie breaker in round 1. He the. Did obviously have two easier rounds for 2 and 3. To me it is really only the third game that matters here though, if I drew an easy game 1 opponent and won, and you drew a hard match and lost then had an easy opponent in theory we both had one hard and one easy game. Then the third game is all that really matters as far as difficulty of schedule.

It is also possible that I win game one in an easy game, and then draw an easy player who had an even easier round 1 game.

At some level you are essentially picking a low seed in the NCAA tournament. If you deserved to get in you would have won all your games, if you get in with one loss and go on to win getting in was not a problem, if you lose again not a problem.

Essentially a player arguing that he had a harder road, well your ability to get in was I your hands if you won, you lost.

Maybe we need the Bcs, win path + battle points + strength of schedule....

Sorta. If player 1 plays an easy opponent round 1, he/she is going to play a person who won their first game in round 2, and a person who won their first and second game in round 3. While it is possible that they play a noob who beat a noob in round 2, it is pretty unlikely they will play a newer/less competitive player in round 3 (and in the case of NOVA, almost guaranteed to play a good person in round 4, as only 28 people were unbeaten heading into that round this year).

If player 2 takes a close loss in round 1, they are playing 1 loss people for the next 2-3 rounds before bracketing. This usually (and I do want to specify, usually) means an easier schedule. As we have seen at NOVA and BFS, it appears to be an easier route to higher battle points in rounds 2-4 and 2-3 respectively.

Now, I don't mean to suggest this is always the way it happens. When good players hit each other, someone has to lose. There is no shame in losing, and as you mentioned, the top brackets are all really cutthroat and provide a great challenge and fun games. However, it is kinda lame to lose a close game after winning the first three only to fall to bracket 3-4, when people who lost game 1 or 2 are able to leapfrog based on picking up higher battlepoints. Furthermore, not all of the missions are created equally. Some are more conducive than others to picking up a 20 as opposed to a 13.

I don't mean this to come off as sour grapes. Again, events aren't all about winning. There is no shame in a loss, and the top brackets still provide a highly competitive challenge against a bunch of really great players. I just don't really like the fact that if a person is going to take a loss, it seems far more beneficial to take that loss early. Players should be rewarded for losing later, not earlier. I do realize that there is no perfect way to do bracketing, and I don't mean to come off as complaining. I merely wanted to point out something I noticed that may be worth considering for the future.

My point simply is that it is also a shame if say I draw say Mike Brandt game 1 and lose in a tie breaker, then I am also out. Let's just say that happens and you beat a player in round 1 and I then play and beat him round 2, you beat another player that round, who I also beat round 3 while you get tabled by mike....how are you then more deserving of bracket 1?. My point I guess is that in an ideal world the whole of bracket 1 is undefeated, but if you need a bubble 1 loss player, then it really does not matter who it is all that much, either that player goes on to win or he does not. There is no perfect system and a loss is a loss. In reality if I want to win a prize and I have high battle points I am better off in a lower bracket because then if I steam roll that bracket, I win battle master for most battle points.

Either way as long as the system is known it is fair, and it would actually be harder in some cases to play back from game 1 to get there because you are starting behind.

 JGrand wrote:

So just some food for thought on the "sneak" in argument. The 1 loss player who made the top bracket at BFS on a tie breaker in round 1. He the. Did obviously have two easier rounds for 2 and 3. To me it is really only the third game that matters here though, if I drew an easy game 1 opponent and won, and you drew a hard match and lost then had an easy opponent in theory we both had one hard and one easy game. Then the third game is all that really matters as far as difficulty of schedule.

It is also possible that I win game one in an easy game, and then draw an easy player who had an even easier round 1 game.

At some level you are essentially picking a low seed in the NCAA tournament. If you deserved to get in you would have won all your games, if you get in with one loss and go on to win getting in was not a problem, if you lose again not a problem.

Essentially a player arguing that he had a harder road, well your ability to get in was I your hands if you won, you lost.

Maybe we need the Bcs, win path + battle points + strength of schedule....

Sorta. If player 1 plays an easy opponent round 1, he/she is going to play a person who won their first game in round 2, and a person who won their first and second game in round 3. While it is possible that they play a noob who beat a noob in round 2, it is pretty unlikely they will play a newer/less competitive player in round 3 (and in the case of NOVA, almost guaranteed to play a good person in round 4, as only 28 people were unbeaten heading into that round this year).

If player 2 takes a close loss in round 1, they are playing 1 loss people for the next 2-3 rounds before bracketing. This usually (and I do want to specify, usually) means an easier schedule. As we have seen at NOVA and BFS, it appears to be an easier route to higher battle points in rounds 2-4 and 2-3 respectively.

Now, I don't mean to suggest this is always the way it happens. When good players hit each other, someone has to lose. There is no shame in losing, and as you mentioned, the top brackets are all really cutthroat and provide a great challenge and fun games. However, it is kinda lame to lose a close game after winning the first three only to fall to bracket 3-4, when people who lost game 1 or 2 are able to leapfrog based on picking up higher battlepoints. Furthermore, not all of the missions are created equally. Some are more conducive than others to picking up a 20 as opposed to a 13.

I don't mean this to come off as sour grapes. Again, events aren't all about winning. There is no shame in a loss, and the top brackets still provide a highly competitive challenge against a bunch of really great players. I just don't really like the fact that if a person is going to take a loss, it seems far more beneficial to take that loss early. Players should be rewarded for losing later, not earlier. I do realize that there is no perfect way to do bracketing, and I don't mean to come off as complaining. I merely wanted to point out something I noticed that may be worth considering for the future.

I hear what you're saying, but I promise you that no competitive player wants to loose round 1 for an "easier path to the top" because as you and Mike have said, there is no grantee you even get in, and you pretty much have to max out the rest of your games. It also means you have to loose on tie breakers. For example Ben Moile and myself both lost round 1, he lost on tie breakers and I got tabled. Now ben won out and ended up in gold bracket, while I won out and ended up in the Broonze bracket. As far as I know we both maxed points for the rest of our games, but I had no chance of sneaking into top bracket while Ben ended up playing Cook in the finals.

While he might have played an easier grp of player Ben had to make sure he MAXED out in every game while players on the win path just had to keep winning. Imo that balances it out. Also 40k being a dice game, any player can loose to any player on any given day.

My point simply is that it is also a shame if say I draw say Mike Brandt game 1 and lose in a tie breaker, then I am also out. Let's just say that happens and you beat a player in round 1 and I then play and beat him round 2, you beat another player that round, who I also beat round 3 while you get tabled by mike....how are you then more deserving of bracket 1?. My point I guess is that in an ideal world the whole of bracket 1 is undefeated, but if you need a bubble 1 loss player, then it really does not matter who it is all that much, either that player goes on to win or he does not. There is no perfect system and a loss is a loss. In reality if I want to win a prize and I have high battle points I am better off in a lower bracket because then if I steam roll that bracket, I win battle master for most battle points.

Either way as long as the system is known it is fair, and it would actually be harder in some cases to play back from game 1 to get there because you are starting behind.

This is a great point and completely valid.

I hear what you're saying, but I promise you that no competitive player wants to loose round 1 for an "easier path to the top" because as you and Mike have said, there is no grantee you even get in, and you pretty much have to max out the rest of your games. It also means you have to loose on tie breakers. For example Ben Moile and myself both lost round 1, he lost on tie breakers and I got tabled. Now ben won out and ended up in gold bracket, while I won out and ended up in the Broonze bracket. As far as I know we both maxed points for the rest of our games, but I had no chance of sneaking into top bracket while Ben ended up playing Cook in the finals.

While he might have played an easier grp of player Ben had to make sure he MAXED out in every game while players on the win path just had to keep winning. Imo that balances it out. Also 40k being a dice game, any player can loose to any player on any given day.

Agreed as well. You are right--no competitive player wants to lose any rounds. The only guarantee of the top bracket is to keep winning, and as such, it will always be the "best" way to make it in.

I concede that there is no perfect way to go about this aforementioned scenario. I just wanted to point out something I noticed from both NOVA and BFS. At NOVA, I was 3-0 heading into game 4. I lost game 4, and ended up getting bumped down. I know this was the case with a few others in my situation. Lots of other 3-1 players who lost game 1-3 ended up jumping above some of the game 4 losers.

Now, I am not saying that I am upset with what happened--I'm not. I had a great time, and don't have any gripes about it. I'm not saying that I was more deserving than others of being ranked higher. I'm not saying I'm a better player than the people who got into brackets 1-3. I merely bring up this situation as food for thought. For example, I decided to look at NOVA Open results from this past year for brackets 2-4.

Through the first 4 games, players in bracket 2 broke down as follows:
Loss Game 1--12%
Loss Game 2--31%
Loss Game 3--37.5%
Loss Game 4--19%

Bracket 3:
Loss Game 1--44%
Loss Game 2--6%
Loss Game 3--19%
Loss Game 4--31%

Bracket 4:
Loss Game 1--6%
Loss Game 2--44%
Loss Game 3--25%
Loss Game 4--25%

Overall, the distributions in each bracket varied a good amount. However, if a person was going to lose a game, it seems as though losing game three gave players the best chance to "rebound" into a higher bracket. In fact, players who lost game 2 or 3 were better off than losing game 4. It does seem difficult to lose game 1 and rebound back into bracket 2, but really, the chance of losing game 1 and losing game 4 didn't really significantly impact a player's chance to reach bracket 2. In the case of reaching bracket 3, players who lost game 1 were more likely to end up there than those who lost game 4.

Now, I'm not the greatest stats person, and correlation certainly doesn't equal causation. Of course, this is also only a one event sample size AND there are other factors at play (missions, player skill, dice, ect.) However, what I noticed does seem to follow--at least on the surface. If a player was going to lose at this past NOVA, losing round 1 was at least slightly better than losing round 4. Losing round 3 seems to be the best of the one losses.

Does this matter? Maybe. Possibly. I'm not quite sure. Others have brought up convincing arguments to the contrary. I just find it an interesting aspect of tournament design. It may be worth a look back at past data, in order to decide the "best" way to bracket. Food for thought.

SO looking at a similar Breakdown for BFS

There were 21 players who went 2-1

For those who lost game 3 (7 players) 6 made Bracket 2, 1 was in Bracket 3 and 1 in Bracket 4.

Those in Bracket 2 Went 9-6 (obviously eliminating each other) and 2 of them made the Bracket Semifinals (both of whom made the final).

The players in Brackets 3 and 4 both went 1-2. (both made the Bracket semi final)

For players Losing Game 2

2 Made Bracket two (going 3-3) and Both made it to the Bracket Semifinal

4 Made Bracket 3 going 8-4, one of whom won the bracket

1 Bade Bracket 4 and went 1-2

Players losing Game 1

1 in Bracket 1 went 1-2

1 In Bracket 2 Went 0-3

3 In Bracket 3 went 3-6

1 In Bracket 4 went 2-1

So it does appear that those losing round 1 in general did not perform as well in bracket play as other 2-1 players. That said also a majority of the players who lost later placed into higher brackets than those who lost earlier.


Looking At the NOVA Players with 1 loss all performed about the same in Bracket Play

Those who lost game 1 winning 54%
Game 2 56%
Game 3 52%
Game 4 58%

Futhermore those who lost early performed Better in the higher brackets in general than those who lost late.

Game 1 Losers were 20-15 in the Top 3 Brackets
Game 2 Losers were 18-6
Game 3 Losers were 16-19
Game 4 Losers were 11-14

So there is no real evidence that players who lose later will perform better after that loss.

Looking At the NOVA Players with 1 loss all performed about the same in Bracket Play

Those who lost game 1 winning 54%
Game 2 56%
Game 3 52%
Game 4 58%

Futhermore those who lost early performed Better in the higher brackets in general than those who lost late.

Game 1 Losers were 20-15 in the Top 3 Brackets
Game 2 Losers were 18-6
Game 3 Losers were 16-19
Game 4 Losers were 11-14

So there is no real evidence that players who lose later will perform better after that loss.

I appreciate the analysis here. At the same time, I'm not as much concerned about how these players did within brackets. I am looking at the losses for purposes of determining who goes to what bracket. I am particularly interested in how able players are to rebound from a loss to get into the top brackets.

My point is though that if the results of those player are fairly even, (if fact those that lost earlier did better) then why does when the loss happend really matter. If there was some evidence that a loss round 1 in general meant the player was not on a level with the rest of the bracket, and as such should not get in...I'd understand. People beat up on seals in the kiddy pool, then get dumped into the shark tank and get eaten alive is bad. But that is not the fact. This does not happen, what happens is pretty equal showings. At which point all that changing it ammounts to is that you value losing later higher than margin of victory in games.

Unless we are really worried that people will "Tank" early on to try to steal back up to those top brackets, it shouldn't matter. In fact one could argue that battle points allowing the "wild card" in is every bit as fair as randomly pulling easier matches through the first few rounds then losing to a top player.

Now it sucks for someone like you if you feel like you should get seeded higher, but no more than if would for some one that plays a top bracket player round 1 (randomly) and loses and then is religated to a lower end bracket, where as someone else pulls a noob round 1 (and round 2) and ends up much higher.

As we have both stated there is no perfect system (short of having a full compliment of players, but even then how do you decide on the 2-1 brackets, I simply don't feel that losing game 1 or 2 is far inferior to losing game 3 or 4.)

At BFS I lost game 2 (out of 3) on a dice roll to end on 5, if it goes on I win...I get a minor loss, go on to 20-0 round 3. Get into the second Bracket and 20-0 round 1 against someone that lost round 3. What I am essentially saying is that a loss at any point is equivalent. You can make arguments about easier path because of easier second and later rounds, but that does not take into account that losing earlier meant I may have had tougher round 1 and/or 2 match ups that are equivalent to your round 3 or 4.

Like I said before it is like bubble teams in the NCAA tournament. Some team that gets left out will always feel like they were more deserving, or some other method is better.

I actually think due to the fact that at some level pairings are random, that battle points moving on is quite a bit more fair because it allows for better seeding beyond bracket 1. But win path also works, it just means that at NOVA if there are 256 players you end up with Ben Mohlie winning Bracket 4 because he lost round 1.

All that said, if you give out a Battle Master Prize (for most battle points) you need players with the most points in the top brackets. Otherwise I lose round 1, end up in bracket 4 and roll all the way to that prize because I can get easier match-ups than I might otherwise. If you don't give out said prize then it doesn't matter as much.

I'll need to do some looking at the round 1 losers in the upper brackets and their path to victory and see if there is a case for what you suggest is important. However, what I feel I will find is - Top players losing to other top players(both early and late), battling back and doing well in brackets. At which point I would not like to see what bracket you get into based on luck of the draw.

 RobPro wrote:
Anywhere to see what the lists were for the top bracket?

My list, which finished 2nd on a single dice nailbiter to DeFranza and pulled in Battlemaster as well, is as follows:

Farseer w/ Singing Spear - 105
Rune Priest w/ Meltabombs - 105

Lone Wolf w/ Chainfist, Storm Shield, Terminator - 85

8 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun - 125
5 Dire Avengers w/ Wave Serpent (Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Ghostwalk Matrix) - 205
5 Dire Avengers w/ Wave Serpent (Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Ghostwalk Matrix) - 205
5 Dire Avengers w/ Wave Serpent (Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Ghostwalk Matrix) - 205
5 Dire Avengers w/ Wave Serpent (Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Ghostwalk Matrix) - 205
6 Dire Avengers w/ Wave Serpent (Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon, Ghostwalk Matrix) - 218

6 Swooping Hawks - 96
6 Swooping Hawks - 96
6 Swooping Hawks - 96

Land Raider Redeemer w/ Multi-Melta - 250