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.

Are there any tournaments where when you finish playing your opponent, the two of you switch armies and sides and replay the game before moving on to the next round?

It seems that it would be a great way to:
-remove the accusation that someone is using a beardy, leafblower, or unfairly powerfull army.
-go a long way to rewarding the best player/tactician rather than the best list.
-Give players a chance to play new armies and army lists they might not have thought of.
-Encourage new players to enter the tournament scene.

On the downside it could also:
-Lengthen the durration of most tournaments
-Allow other people to handle a players miniatures
-make some people feel that they are not being rewarded for the effort they put into list building.
-Have people playing armies that they aren't familiar with which might further slow gameplay.

What do you all think? Good idea, Bad idea, a bit of both...

Not being a tournament player, my opinion doesn't carry much weight, but I do find the idea appealing.

Though I find it interesting, you say:

"It could also: length the duration of most tournaments"

....you're playing twice as many games, I'd imagine it would double the length of the tournament pretty easily. This also makes breaks hard, as you need to play two games (usually lasting ~2 hours each) before break. My guess is you'd have trouble playing 2 different people in a day like this, because that'd be 4 games in one day, which pushes the limits of even the more aggressive GT schedules.

To add into the time issue, the only reason games get played so quickly (relatively speaking) is because players learn their armies so well, know what models have what, know strategies, etc. If you sat me in front of an ork army I'd def. take much longer than the ork player did, as would he ffrom not knowing my rules as well as I do.

I think part of an issue as well, as you mentioned, is not wanting the other guy handling your mini's.

All in all, interesting idea, but I think it in practice it's a pretty bad one. Also, part of the hobby is meeting new folks, I don't want to limit the number of fresh new opponents I play and commiserate with!

Maybe in a 500 point battle, but I think that defeats the purpose by being a not standard game size.

People crap unholy hell when people touch their dice, they will probably die of an stroke if you touch their models.

I build armies that I would have fun playing. By forcing me to play another army, that likely reduces my level of fun.

On the other hand, there have been real tournaments held where players switch army each round.

One variant is each player brings an army, then their OPPONENT uses it in each game they play. Another is the tournament organizer provides all their armies, pre-set and designed to be close and interesting matches in power level, and people use those. One way to do it is to have the two armies "set" at each table; then the players all move around during the day but leave the armies where they are.

These formats are pretty rare in part because of the factor where folks generally aren't 100% comfortable with other people handling their models all day, and/or because of the additional logistical hurdles involved in the organizers providing all the armies.

If the tournament required fully painted and based armies, I'd consider it. While my painting skills aren't award worthy, I do put lots of effort and time into finishing my armies and would only trust a stranger handling them who was of the same apparent mindset. I've let plenty of friends and acquaintances at the FLGS play along side me in bigger games if they don't have their figs but those folks are generally prescreened to not be incredibly cheetos-fingered and/or clumsy.

I think it can be a great learning experience, but as Warboss mentioned, I would not trust just anyone to handle my figures. It would need to be organized between a group of players I trust. I do also like the idea of playing in a tournament where all the armies are set and players move from table to table using the armies the TO provides. It requires one hell of a lot of time and investment to set up such a tournament, and I have never seen one here, but if someone ran such an event I would most definitely attend.

At an objective level, I like the idea of the format a lot. I know the Warmongers (IIRC) in NYC ran a tournament like this once where you brought in an army list (relatively smaller points for faster games) and played a game. Afterward, you'd switch armies and play again. Points were awarded based on a differential of how well you beat your opponent with your army and how well you faired against your own army with their army.

It ends up being an interesting system in which intimate knowledge of all armies is key and knowing how to build an effective, but tricky to use list is very advantageous.


The biggest issue, as others have mentioned, is giving control of your miniatures to someone else. I feel like this is a bigger issue in the 40k scene than it is the WFB scene, if only cause in Fantasy, you're generally moving trays of minis instead of individual minis for the most part.

While I can't see it ever being used as a "standard" format for every tournament to follow, individual one-off tournaments with this format would be really neat and a nice break from the norm, in my opinion. Having it as one-offs also means people who are disinclined to letting others handle their models don't have to participate.

If I brought an all plastic army I generally don't care if people touch my models, throw them in the air, let them fall over because plastic doesnt chip like crazy nor breaks easy

Now, if I had metal models in my army I really don't want other people fooling around with them due to how irritating metal models are to keep chip free.

As stated tho, some people throw hissy fits over you touching their dice which don't matter at all (sorry dice are dice, there are no lucky dice unless you're cheating).. I can't imagine the hysteria over someone laying a finger on that kind of person's models

Its a really cool idea in theory and honestly I wish I could run that kind of event. However, after many many years of tournaments I've come to realize that a very small subsection of the players actually want to really delve into the tactics of really learning to win.. thus this idea usually just ends up being frustrating for a vast majority

Kirasu wrote:However, after many many years of tournaments I've come to realize that a very small subsection of the players actually want to really delve into the tactics of really learning to win.. thus this idea usually just ends up being frustrating for a vast majority

I'm all for delving into tactics and learning to win. I'm not for letting some greasy fingered neck-beard with a pit-stained Green Lantern shirt paw all over my miniatures. There are better ways to learn the game than by occasionally playing somebody else's army.

I think it's a good idea. However, I'm one of those selfish people that wouldn't want 90% of the people I game with to touch my minis, and that's with people I know. If it's a tourney with people I don't know, change that to 99.9%.

Would work well as individual games against friends that I know that respect the time and effort to make a nice looking force. I'm sure that you would both learn from each other as you might use tactics for the army the other hasn't thought about.

I remember hearing about an event, it may have been on
Podhammer, where there's just one round where you are
required to switch armies. The idea is you will not want to face
the worst lists out there, but also you won't want to gimp
yourself for the remainder of the tournament.

I would love to do host like this for Warmachine, but the truth
of the matter is that models are personal and people have
difficulty allowing others to handle them.

In a friendly tournament, like one in a fairly close knit gaming group I would be okay with this. Probably not in a tournament full of strangers though.

...this is a terrible idea. No, never, not unless you provide all the armies and I don't have to use any of my own models.

And I assume you aren't a millionaire, so yeah, good luck with that.

Hahahaha no way in hell.


You worry about cheesy armies. All this suggestion does is turn it into "how can I make the WORST army".
That is MUCH WORSE than worrying about "cheesy" or "beardy" or "written by someone with a basic grasp of tactics" lists.

Wow, I defintiely got my answer. Looks like most people are pretty against this, and even those that aren't would only be interested in the occasional one-off tourney or event.

Makes alot of sense though, especially for folks who are very attached -and rightfully so- to their minis. I didn't give that aspect enough thought proably because my mins are all coated in a nice thick layer of protective (yet matte) polyurethane!

I do disagree though that it would necessarily cause people to bring bad lists. I think it might cause people to bring balanced lists since both they and thier opponents would be using the force. Also as pointed out, it might cause people to make really tricky armies where only the creator knows how to use the exact tricks and synergies of the army, though those tricks might be revealed if the each player played with thier own army first.

Also I had to give a small chuckle about Malfred's comments regarding warmachine minis and people being sensitive about them. It probably isn't the same everywhere, but at my FLGS the ratio of painted to unpainted for warmachine players seems to be 20/80 or worse. Maybe it would work great there?

Eilif wrote:

Also I had to give a small chuckle about Malfred's comments regarding warmachine minis and people being sensitive about them. It probably isn't the same everywhere, but at my FLGS the ratio of painted to unpainted for warmachine players seems to be 20/80 or worse. Maybe it would work great there?

Nope, because I'm the 20% so I'd lose by default for not sharing

Here's a link a member PM'd me about an event at Origins where the tourney organizers supply 12 small 40k armies and preset senarios, and each player plays 8 consecutive 45 minute games to see who has "mastered" the entire 40k game.

http://www.40korigins.com/40KOrigins/post/2011/06/24/Origins-2011-Coverage-Friday.aspx

There's a Tournament I could get excited about!