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.

Our gaming group was having a discussion on whether people would rather play in 5 or 6 game GT caliber tournaments. Keep in mind these are 2 day events, so 3 games saturday, 3 games sunday. Then awards right after the 3rd game on sunday.

I'd like to hear the majorities of people feedback as to what they prefer. The games would be based off of playing at these point/time limits. 2000pts with 2 and half hour games 40k. 2500pts with 2 and half hour games for Fantasy. We plan on having 64 40K players, which requires 6 rounds to determine a true winner.If we have over 34 players, 5 rounds will result in a lot of players with the same records and no clear winner.

How would people feel about 4 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday?

Some points to look at,

-3 games on sunday as well as a award ceremony means later end time. Will make it hard for people that travel far.

-6 games will help decide on a overall winner, and you also get a extra game in.

-Your mind may be to exhausted to play 6 games?

-Anything else??? This was just a quick idea i had to see what most people thought.

All feedback is welcome. Feel free to add to the list. This was done pretty quickly

With a proper swiss pairin 5 games is enouh to determine an overall winner. Not to mention whatever soft scores (painting, sportsmanship) you decide to add in.
The problem with 3 games on sunday is time. For many folks they have to travel several hours...maybe even flying...to get home sunday night, having to then get up and go to work monday morning. Doing the event on a 3 day weekend (holiday Monday) can alleviate this, but their are alot of events that already hold these timeslots....although depending on location your event could fill in a regional niche.

dkellyj wrote:With a proper swiss pairin 5 games is enouh to determine an overall winner. Not to mention whatever soft scores (painting, sportsmanship) you decide to add in.
The problem with 3 games on sunday is time. For many folks they have to travel several hours...maybe even flying...to get home sunday night, having to then get up and go to work monday morning. Doing the event on a 3 day weekend (holiday Monday) can alleviate this, but their are alot of events that already hold these timeslots....although depending on location your event could fill in a regional niche.

We are having no soft scores. and painting is its own thing. This is a straight W/L/T with 3 bonus objectives to determine tie breakers and pairing.

Well, there is more information that needs to be covered.

We plan on having 64 40K players, which requires 6 rounds to determine a true winner.

If we have over 34 players, 5 rounds will result in a lot of players with the same records and no clear winner.

How would people feel about 4 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, suggestions are welcome here too.

We are worried that people won't have time for travel home on Sunday.

Reecius wrote:Well, there is more information that needs to be covered.

We plan on having 64 40K players, which requires 6 rounds to determine a true winner.

If we have over 34 players, 5 rounds will result in a lot of players with the same records and no clear winner.

How would people feel about 4 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, suggestions are welcome here too.

We are worried that people won't have time for travel home on Sunday.

Noted. Added it to my post.

I wouldnt mind playing 6 games I like the idea of 4 on Saturday and 2 Sunday.

I would have to agree with dkellyj with making travel plans. Having an extra game which could last for 2 hours, will change my travels plan. It forces me to either stay an extra night or fly out later in the day.

2k and 2.5hr rounds makes it a bit trickier, of course. At 1500 and 2hr rounds or 1750 and 2.25 hr rounds, it's pretty easy.

I think with 2.5 hr rounds, four on Sat, two on Sun is probably the more forgiving for the players who are traveling. That's what GW used to have in the US GTs back when they were six rounds. The one I did was Baltimore 2001, which was six rounds at 1750 (two of them with some extra reserves/recycling). It makes a long day Saturday, but allows you to let people sleep in a bit and still get finished early Sunday. Honestly I love six game GTs. Adepticon has also kept me in love with the FULL day of gaming. Five game GTs with 3 and 2 always feel a little short for my taste, and I usually want a pickup game or a poker side event or something Saturday night to fill.

Of course, you CAN get three full rounds in on Sunday and still get people out reasonably early if you start first thing in the morning. Adepticon's been doing it as long as I've been going. It's tough, but doable. 3 x 2.5hr rounds, 45min for lunch, 15 min between the last two rounds = 8.5hrs. If you have pairings at 8am and start the first game at 8:30am, you still finish at 5pm, and have everyone out by 6.

It really just comes down to whether you want to have Sat run late, and let people sleep later on Sun, or have Saturday end by 5-6ish, have a whole evening free for socializing and drinking, and then have people get up early.

We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

Reecius wrote:We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

1750pts for 40k, 2000pts for fantasy

You guys said it.

The biggest, and most enjoyable tournaments all have a lot of rounds as you need them to fit all the games in.

Unless you want to use Battle Points (which really changes the game and which most of the major tournaments are moving away from) then you have to go W/L/D which is what we want to do.

In order to have a clear winner, you have to have enough rounds for everyone to play out their games.

We would need 6.

I think 4 on Saturday starting early, and then 2 on Sunday starting at 10 and ending at 3, getting people home by 4 is the best bet.

It makes for a long Saturday but I have done it at Adepeticon and other tournaments and it isn't so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

1750pts for 40k, 2000pts for fantasy

Or we could even go 1500 for 40K and 1750 for Fantasy.

I think the important thing is that we have enough rounds to have a clear winner without resorting to Battle Points.

The drama of a top table with a championship game that decides who wins and who gets second, is the coolest part of it, to me. Battle Points is kind of anti-climactic.

Reecius wrote:You guys said it.

The biggest, and most enjoyable tournaments all have a lot of rounds as you need them to fit all the games in.

Unless you want to use Battle Points (which really changes the game and which most of the major tournaments are moving away from) then you have to go W/L/D which is what we want to do.

In order to have a clear winner, you have to have enough rounds for everyone to play out their games.

We would need 6.

I think 4 on Saturday starting early, and then 2 on Sunday starting at 10 and ending at 3, getting people home by 4 is the best bet.

It makes for a long Saturday but I have done it at Adepeticon and other tournaments and it isn't so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

1750pts for 40k, 2000pts for fantasy

Or we could even go 1500 for 40K and 1750 for Fantasy.

I think the important thing is that we have enough rounds to have a clear winner without resorting to Battle Points.

The drama of a top table with a championship game that decides who wins and who gets second, is the coolest part of it, to me. Battle Points is kind of anti-climactic.

Which I agree. I rather see the loser at the top table get 2nd, then getting jacked by the winner of another table. That being said If we are going to stick with 6 games we have to do 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. Also if we have 40k at 1500pts we should have fantasy at 2000pts.

You can certainly do 1750 or 2k for six rounds. You could fit seven rounds of 1500! Heck, I've been playing seven rounds Say & Sun at Adepticon for going on five years.

Yeah, exactly.

It seems like a lot (the other guys on the team have not been to a tournament that long and it sounded a little crazy to them) but it is certainly doable.

The point of our tournament was to make a competitive, simple tournament that used missions from the book or as close as possible to them.

The only way to do that is to use a W/L/D system which requires enough rounds to have a clear winner. Otherwise you have to use battle points which means custom missions, complex rules, no clear winner and an entirely different type of event.

Reece you seem to have already figured this out but yeah.

If you are running a swiss tournament...

If you have 17-32 players you need 5 rounds.

If you have 33-64 players you need 6 rounds.

If you have 65-128 players you need 7 rounds.

If you do 6 rounds from a logistics perspective I'd run 4 rounds on day 1 and 2 on day 2. That way people have enough time to get away on Day 2 after awards. Otherwise day 2 will run late.

If you run 4 rounds on day 1 you need to cram them all in, therefore don't run a large point tourney. I'd go 1500-1750.

That's the conclusion we came to with our tourney next year anyway.


Edit: Also I'm not gonna answer the poll because for me it's not how many rounds you prefer but rather, how many people does the tournament have? Answer that question and the number of rounds question answers itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:You guys said it.

The biggest, and most enjoyable tournaments all have a lot of rounds as you need them to fit all the games in.

Unless you want to use Battle Points (which really changes the game and which most of the major tournaments are moving away from) then you have to go W/L/D which is what we want to do.

In order to have a clear winner, you have to have enough rounds for everyone to play out their games.

We would need 6.

I think 4 on Saturday starting early, and then 2 on Sunday starting at 10 and ending at 3, getting people home by 4 is the best bet.

It makes for a long Saturday but I have done it at Adepeticon and other tournaments and it isn't so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

1750pts for 40k, 2000pts for fantasy

Or we could even go 1500 for 40K and 1750 for Fantasy.

I think the important thing is that we have enough rounds to have a clear winner without resorting to Battle Points.

The drama of a top table with a championship game that decides who wins and who gets second, is the coolest part of it, to me. Battle Points is kind of anti-climactic.

Which I agree. I rather see the loser at the top table get 2nd, then getting jacked by the winner of another table. That being said If we are going to stick with 6 games we have to do 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. Also if we have 40k at 1500pts we should have fantasy at 2000pts.

Only way to ensure what you're asking is to have a playoff. You would have to run the swiss and then after the full swiss rounds (5, 6 or 7 depending on the number of players) you could take the top 2 and have a championship game. Otherwise you're basically hurting the guy who finishes 3rd because he had the second hardest SOS and tiebreakers but is still denied second place.

Kevin Nash wrote:Reece you seem to have already figured this out but yeah.

If you are running a swiss tournament...

If you have 17-32 players you need 5 rounds.

If you have 33-64 players you need 6 rounds.

If you have 65-128 players you need 7 rounds.

If you do 6 rounds from a logistics perspective I'd run 4 rounds on day 1 and 2 on day 2. That way people have enough time to get away on Day 2 after awards. Otherwise day 2 will run late.

If you run 4 rounds on day 1 you need to cram them all in, therefore don't run a large point tourney. I'd go 1500-1750.

That's the conclusion we came to with our tourney next year anyway.


Edit: Also I'm not gonna answer the poll because for me it's not how many rounds you prefer but rather, how many people does the tournament have? Answer that question and the number of rounds question answers itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:You guys said it.

The biggest, and most enjoyable tournaments all have a lot of rounds as you need them to fit all the games in.

Unless you want to use Battle Points (which really changes the game and which most of the major tournaments are moving away from) then you have to go W/L/D which is what we want to do.

In order to have a clear winner, you have to have enough rounds for everyone to play out their games.

We would need 6.

I think 4 on Saturday starting early, and then 2 on Sunday starting at 10 and ending at 3, getting people home by 4 is the best bet.

It makes for a long Saturday but I have done it at Adepeticon and other tournaments and it isn't so bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

italiaplaya wrote:

Reecius wrote:We could lower the points to 1750 as well, which would save a pretty good chunk of time.

1750pts for 40k, 2000pts for fantasy

Or we could even go 1500 for 40K and 1750 for Fantasy.

I think the important thing is that we have enough rounds to have a clear winner without resorting to Battle Points.

The drama of a top table with a championship game that decides who wins and who gets second, is the coolest part of it, to me. Battle Points is kind of anti-climactic.

Which I agree. I rather see the loser at the top table get 2nd, then getting jacked by the winner of another table. That being said If we are going to stick with 6 games we have to do 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. Also if we have 40k at 1500pts we should have fantasy at 2000pts.

Only way to ensure what you're asking is to have a playoff. You would have to run the swiss and then after the full swiss rounds (5, 6 or 7 depending on the number of players) you could take the top 2 and have a championship game. Otherwise you're basically hurting the guy who finishes 3rd because he had the second hardest SOS and tiebreakers but is still denied second place.

We're hoping for 64 players, but you never know. I think we've decided on 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. The main problem wasnt the 6 games. It was more of having 3 on Saturday and 3 on sunday. I feel like we would have lost a lot of players due to the late ending on a sunday. especially for players that would have been traveling to make the event.

italiaplaya wrote:

We're hoping for 64 players, but you never know. I think we've decided on 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. The main problem wasnt the 6 games. It was more of having 3 on Saturday and 3 on sunday. I feel like we would have lost a lot of players due to the late ending on a sunday. especially for players that would have been traveling to make the event.

No I think you're absolutely right and we came to the same conclusion for ours. I think 3 games and an awards ceremony is problematic for Sunday, not to mention the cleanup that is expected by you guys afterward. You don't want to be dealing with that at 8:00 PM on Sunday night. What I'd recommend is just advertising 5-6 rounds and then figure it out based on player turnout. Then either do a 4/2 or 3/2 config.

Kevin Nash wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:

We're hoping for 64 players, but you never know. I think we've decided on 4 on Saturday, and 2 on sunday. The main problem wasnt the 6 games. It was more of having 3 on Saturday and 3 on sunday. I feel like we would have lost a lot of players due to the late ending on a sunday. especially for players that would have been traveling to make the event.

No I think you're absolutely right and we came to the same conclusion for ours. I think 3 games and an awards ceremony is problematic for Sunday, not to mention the cleanup that is expected by you guys afterward. You don't want to be dealing with that at 8:00 PM on Sunday night. What I'd recommend is just advertising 5-6 rounds and then figure it out based on player turnout. Then either do a 4/2 or 3/2 config.

Yes, thats exactly what we are going to do haha. We'll just see how many players sign up at pre-reg. and go from there.

I don't think the length of Sunday will have as much negative impact as you fear, if the product itself is sound. Reference NOVA on its way to selling out with 8 rounds, and AdeptiCon having the same (at least for the finalists). I would do either based upon whether you want more time on Sat PM or not for alternate and social activities.

$.02

In a 2-day event, you can go much later and do 4 games in one day. If you are going 2-days, I see no reason not to go 6 games with a 4/2 format.

It is nice being done at like 4pm on Sunday and able to go home

Just as a note in W/L/D tournament you aren't guaranteed a clear winner after any number of rounds. You only get that if you are doing straight W/L, draws make it effectively impossible to predict the number of rounds needed. You could have it after 1 round (62 players draw, 1 wins, 1 loses) or not after a 1000 rounds (every player draws every round).

What Steinerp said ... Draws don't have a place in short-run tournaments, if you've gone beyond using Battle Points and are trying to identify a single undefeated.

If you could play dozens of games in the 2 days, it'd be a different story. You have to address player interest, of course, which is why you generally will see the addition of / inclusion of multiple w/l bracket awards, and/or a softer-score-component best overall, etc.

Of course you can also schedule your event for a 3 day weekend. Not everyone can, or wants to, attend Adepticon, BolsCon, GamesDay, or any of the other major events that typically fall on the major holidays (many of which have limited space to begin with). Your event could provide an alternative for those players.
With a holiday monday in the mix travel becomes much less an issue, so having a 3x3 schedule is much more doable.
I also find it nice to have a day to decompress before hitting the real world grind.

steinerp wrote:Just as a note in W/L/D tournament you aren't guaranteed a clear winner after any number of rounds. You only get that if you are doing straight W/L, draws make it effectively impossible to predict the number of rounds needed. You could have it after 1 round (62 players draw, 1 wins, 1 loses) or not after a 1000 rounds (every player draws every round).

This is actually completely untrue if you use Swiss pairings and Swiss tiebreakers. You will have a clear winner due to tiebreakers. A W/L system still will rely on tiebreakers, they are just recorded at the game level and not the tournament level.

MVBrandt wrote:What Steinerp said ... Draws don't have a place in short-run tournaments, if you've gone beyond using Battle Points and are trying to identify a single undefeated.

This is opinion and not fact. As long as you have the correct number of rounds as stated above there will always be a clear winner.

Reecius wrote:We plan on having 64 40K players, which requires 6 rounds to determine a true winner.

If we have over 34 players, 5 rounds will result in a lot of players with the same records and no clear winner.

And by "a lot," you mean "2," right? (At least, that's how many 5-0 players you should have after 5 rounds. And speaking from painful recent experience, I'd recommend missions that do not have any possibility for ties.)

How would people feel about 4 games on Saturday and 2 on Sunday?

For this particular event, as I'm local, I have no opinion. In general, though, I'd rather have 2 games on Sunday, if I'm planning on returning home that day. (For Adepticon, I've long-since given up, and simply come home Monday, which takes a TON of stress off of Sunday. Playing 7.5 hours of 40k, waiting for awards, and still getting to the airport in time for a flight makes the day VERY unpleasant.)

If you only have time for 5 games, Reece, then give BOTH 5-0 players tickets to the SW Master's Cup, and schedule them to play off in round 1. In fact, that'd be a fun way to pair people - give 2 tickets to the top 2 of every major tournament you're including, and let them fight for your amusement in the first round. (Although that's more "invitational" than "Master's," I guess.)

Janthkin wrote:

Reecius wrote:We plan on having 64 40K players, which requires 6 rounds to determine a true winner.

If we have over 34 players, 5 rounds will result in a lot of players with the same records and no clear winner.

And by "a lot," you mean "2," right? (At least, that's how many 5-0 players you should have after 5 rounds. And speaking from painful recent experience, I'd recommend missions that do not have any possibility for ties.)

Ties are not the problem if you have the correct number of rounds based on player turnout (please see my post above).

Tiebreakers determined after the fact screw with the fundamental notion of perceivable consequences. When you know whether your individual game with a player is won or lost based upon what you accomplish on the table VS that player, your consequences of accomplishment (or not) are perceivable. Once you remove tiebreakers to the end point, it perceptionally removes control from the player, and also starts to edge toward qualifying how much a person won by as material or meaningful (which it isn't in 40k ... this isn't chess, where every situation and army is the same).

And, it's all opinion. We're opining.

MVBrandt wrote:Tiebreakers determined after the fact screw with the fundamental notion of perceivable consequences. When you know whether your individual game with a player is won or lost based upon what you accomplish on the table VS that player, your consequences of accomplishment (or not) are perceivable. Once you remove tiebreakers to the end point, it perceptionally removes control from the player.

Even in a system with ties, with the correct number of rounds all players are in charge of their own destiny. You are guaranteed a tournament victory if you win all your games.

Also notable: In a swiss system without ties or playoffs, if you lose game one of the tournament you cannot finish in first place. In a system with ties there is still a chance for that.

and also starts to edge toward qualifying how much a person won by as material or meaningful (which it isn't in 40k ... this isn't chess, where every situation and army is the same).

If you're implying that ties somehow endorse margin of victory as a tiebreaker that's inaccurate. In fact in a system with ties and tournament tiebreakers margin of victory is of the least possible consequence. Conversely, a system without ties using game tiebreakers such as victory points promotes margin of victory. A tie is then resolved by determining who obliterated who more.

This is a valid way to play (it is after all in the book) but ultimately based on my experience unnecessary. In a tie system I've found it to be fairest in terms of everyone plays everyone with like records and if you continue to win you will inevitably become tournament champion. Should you stumble or tie along the way you still have a chance assuming other players do the same, even those you match up with directly. Your record is a product of your schedule however, just like everyone else. In a game tiebreaker system that still remains true, but you may indeed be playing tau, run into an army like orks, and then have some reconciling to do when you can't quite get that last objective and watch your game fall through the floor when you go to victory points.

No system is perfect. I just don't see pure W/L as any more perfect than W/L/D. It also creates new unintended consequences and ultimately I found game tiebreakers to be no more fair or balanced than tournament tiebreakers.

And, it's all opinion. We're opining.

Of course. I just wanted to clarify the statement based on the tone. Ties are a valid way to operate with the absolutely important caveat that you have enough rounds to support the number of players, but that is also true in any swiss system, even one that does not use ties.

After a lot of deliberation we decided to go with book missions (including tie games) but with a system of tie breaker points.

The tie breaker points are the same for every game and are the following:

1.) Destroy your opponent's most expensive HQ. If there are more than one which cost the same, choose one at the beginning of the game.

2.) Have a scoring unit at least partially within 6" of the center of the board.

3.) Have half or more of your scoring units alive at the end of the game.

The tie breaker points are used ONLY for pairings and for breaking ties in final pairings. They have no impact on the game itself. For example, if you get 3 tie breaker points and your opponent gets none, but you tie on the mission objectives, you still tie. During pairings for the next round, the player(s) with the most tie breaker points will play up if there is an odd number of players with a certain record.

At the end of the tournament, the players with the same record will be stratified according to who got the most tie breaker points. So if two players are 4-0-1 at the end of the tournament, the one who got the most tie breaker points wins. This carries down through the rankings to stratify the field and so that everyone knows how they did. We prefer this to strength of schedule.

How do you guys feel about this system? Any holes you see in it?

We wanted to preserve ties as it is a part of the game and allows you to avoid defeat in a bad match0up by playing for the tie.

Thoughts?

Reecius wrote:1.) Destroy your opponent's most expensive HQ. If there are more than one which cost the same, choose one at the beginning of the game.

I don't like this one. Different armies use their HQs in different ways, and HQs are of wildly divergent survivability and utility.

Additionally, you'll need tighter wording on that one: how do vehicles & retinues rate? What about things like Tyrant Guard, who don't necessarily have to be part of the HQ?

For tie-breakers, I like the general philosophy of preserving strategic assets you've got going, but I'd probably replace HQ w/terrain control. You can fight on without the Captain, provided you've got a good ruin to hunker down in.