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.

Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.

In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"

Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.

Too true.

Magilla Gurilla wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.

In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"

Personally, I wouldn't feel as good about winning (or even doing particularly well) at a tournament where a significant number of the players started with that kind of handicap.

Monster Rain wrote:

Magilla Gurilla wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Not to mention that by weeding out half of the GK players (normally the worse or unluckier half) it only ensures that the GK players people do play in later rounds are more likely to punch them in the face. Further creating a divide on how "OP" the GK codex is.

In addition, making Grey Knights play each other in the first round sounds a lot like "I can't beat them so make someone else play them"

Personally, I wouldn't feel as good about winning (or even doing particularly well) at a tournament where a significant number of the players started with that kind of handicap.

That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?

Hulk, in the winner's bracket, you should already expect every opponent to be progressively more likely to punch you in the face.

I'm serious, as I've thought about structuring a tournament in almost exactly this way. It will have the interesting effect of spreading out the various armies across the brackets, but is just as evaluative as a random pairing in a single-elimination structure can be.

Janthkin wrote:That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?

Who said the books are balanced? I certainly didn't.

Some books are better than others. Has it not always been this way?

What would be too funny is all the GK players colluded and drew the first round.

-666- wrote:What would be too funny is all the GK players colluded and drew the first round.

This is the most brilliant thing I've ever read on this forum.

I know.

+1 for moi .



Thanks btw.

Janthkin wrote:That's just it, though - what's the handicap? If every codex is balanced, then there is nothing imbalanced about pairing each codex against itself for the first round, right?

I see nothing wrong if every codex is paired against each other in first round.
However, it would have to be every codex.
Not just a few certain codexes to handicap them.
I am sure Necron players everywhere would rejoice if they got to skip Tyranids in the first round.

You can't play favorites.

and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?


Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.

Grey Templar wrote:You can't play favorites.

and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?


Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.

Quoted for accuracy

Please don't spam the forum. It's against our rules. Thanks. ~Manchu

Grey Templar wrote:You can't play favorites.

and what happens if there are an odd number of players for that army?


Random pairings are the most fair overall. and if there are more of a certain codex then the chance of that codex facing itself are already fairly high so there will already be a fair number of blue vs blue games first round anyway.

Exactly. If you are going to pair all the GK players together round 1 than the only fair thing would be to pair all other codices together round 1 as well. It isn't the fault of the GK book that it is well written with a host of options for different builds that do well. Most of the GK OP hate comes from the fact that other players want a book that is equally as capable of building numerous good lists with good options. Calling out a single dex and forcing all it's players to play each other in the first round with out that same restriction on the other books is just silly.

Also, as already stated, random pairings continue to be the best way to pair. If you want a 100% balanced event then make your tournaments Mirror Match events where everyone plays the same list, otherwise I think TOs and the community as a whole need to get over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-666- wrote:What would be too funny is all the GK players colluded and drew the first round.

Also That would be hilarious.

Grey Templar wrote:Random pairings are the most fair overall.

Can you define "fair" in this context? They're certainly the most random. But in a single-elimination Swiss-pairing structure like the BAO (and particularly one where the mission is always the same and/or the terrain doesn't fluctuate significantly between tables), the initial pairings could only be unfair if they changed the outcome of the event, right?

If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?

All I'm saying is that IG has won the tournament 2 times now. Nerf IG!

Dok wrote:All I'm saying is that IG has won the tournament 2 times now. Nerf IG!

That is not the current consensus on the internetz therefore you are wrong.

Dok wrote:All I'm saying is that IG has won the tournament 2 times now. Nerf IG!

Clearly this tournament was made up of noobs with terrible lists.

In addition, Christian who played IG this year, played Grey knights last year and did not win. James, who won with IG last year and played grey knights this year did not win.

Seems like more than a coincidence to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ridiculous, baseless assertions ftw!

The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?

As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.

My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.

I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.

tastytaste wrote:The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?

As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.

My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.

I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.

Why? People can't enjoy their hobby the way they want? If someone wants to go out and spend a bunch of money to play whatever the new hotness is who are we to say they shouldn't or to discourage it? They earned the money let them do with it as they please, not to mention many band wagoners are generally not the top notch players. I would never be behind a system that limits the personal freedoms of the participants to play the army they wish. We have the US Congress to limit our freedoms let's not extend that to our hobby as well .

I figured that one line would get a rise out of someone hehe.

Ask yourself this. Would you be less likely to play in an event if you played against your the same codex in the first round, if it meant that the most players had a better overall experience knowing they didn't have to face the same codex 2 or 3 times in one event?

I am not saying no one can play the bandwagon army of the month and this is not even a comp ding against them, it is just an idea for the other players attending an event don't have to face the same thing over and over.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

tastytaste wrote:The main point I was making about GK round 1 face off is to think about the average players experience and having a deterrent too many people taking the same codex. Variety is the spice of life right?

As a player I am particular not scared of Grey Knights myself, but many people have a rational and or irrational hatred against them and forcing them to right away have a bad experience at an event I think should be avoided.

My solution is a very simple one and you can change it to something like no player can play against the same codex three times unless they are on the top 10 tables or something like that.

I also said that this can be applied to whatever flavor of the month codex is out. I am sure when CSM comes out good or not we will see the numbers shift. Regardless good players will rise to the top no matter what army they are playing. I am just thinking about ways to stop codex band wagoners.

Why? People can't enjoy their hobby the way they want? If someone wants to go out and spend a bunch of money to play whatever the new hotness is who are we to say they shouldn't or to discourage it? They earned the money let them do with it as they please, not to mention many band wagoners are generally not the top notch players. I would never be behind a system that limits the personal freedoms of the participants to play the army they wish. We have the US Congress to limit our freedoms let's not extend that to our hobby as well .

Tasty you've lost me now. Tournaments should not be rigged as you are advocating now.

I am not in favor or forced pairings as suggested above. Nor am I in favor of trying to seed pairing based on perceived player skill or even past performance. We have been down that route in the past with the AdeptiCon Warhammer 40K Invitational/Circuit Championships in 2008/2009. Too much opinion and not enough reliable data.

We did try something different this year for the Warhammer 40K Friendly at AdeptiCon.

We simply limited the number of tickets available to each codex in the tournament. The event has 40 players and we only took 5 of any one codex. After that the option was no longer available. While I wouldn't necessary advocate this for every style of event, I do think this works well for casual/smaller events. Even further, we also designed it so the filed was split down the middle resulting in 20 Imperial players and 20 of everything else which plays into some of the factional awards and team-based achievements.

tastytaste wrote:I figured that one line would get a rise out of someone hehe.

Ask yourself this. Would you be less likely to play in an event if you played against your the same codex in the first round, if it meant that the most players had a better overall experience knowing they didn't have to face the same codex 2 or 3 times in one event?

Of course I would be less likely to attend. That means that I would be going up against Grey Knights in the first round and I would not want to face the most over powered codex that that GW has put out in 10 years!

Monster Rain wrote:If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?

It could change the experiences of the individual players in the event (how many times they had to play against the same codex) without necessarily impacting the overall result. If that means no one winds up playing against the same codex three times, that'd be a worthwhile outcome.

I could see doing this with whatever the current flavor of the month army is, if said army passed a certain threshold where it really was making up a huge proportion of the tournament. Maybe say if a given book makes up 25%, or 30% of the total armies present, you do the "round one you all play each other" thing?

The idea has some merit, but we as TOs would never influence pairings or even have the appearance of influencing pairings as it opens a can of worms that creates more problems than it solves.

The only exceptions to not messing with pairings is in not having friends/club mates play each other round 1, and we occasionally will match up grudge matches (if both players desire it) if they have the same record and their won't impact the top tables. For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.

Mannahnin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If pairing GK on GK for the first round doesn't change the outcome of the event what's the point of doing it?

It could change the experiences of the individual players in the event (how many times they had to play against the same codex) without necessarily impacting the overall result. If that means no one winds up playing against the same codex three times, that'd be a worthwhile outcome.

Oh, no argument here. If the main drive for this was to keep me from playing GKs three times at an event (I only lost one. Damn you, Dok! ) I'd be all over it. Sell it from that perspective and I'd get behind it.

What I don't agree with is doing it because the army is too strong. I'd rather do my best against what may be a stronger codex than have the pairings manipulated to make it easier for other armies to win.

Mannahnin wrote:I could see doing this with whatever the current flavor of the month army is, if said army passed a certain threshold where it really was making up a huge proportion of the tournament. Maybe say if a given book makes up 25%, or 30% of the total armies present, you do the "round one you all play each other" thing?

No! As boring as it can be sometimes, I count on the inexperience of bandwagon-hoppers with their FOTM armies for most of my tournament wins!

Seriously though, from a perspective of pure enjoyment of a tournament I could actually support this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reecius wrote: For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.

That is, if you will forgive the expression, extremely "orky".

I love it.

Reecius wrote: For example, this year, in the last game, two Ork players requested that they play each other to see who would win best Ork player as they have the same record. That was awesome and we had no problem with that.

So thats how I got that mirror match in the final round against Russ I had no idea it was a request, that makes that match even more awsome!

And then you and Russ tied and handed Doug "Best Orc."
Either way that was an epic matchup.

It was very Orky.

The 2 biggest warbosses fight each other over the best shoota and while they're fighting another warboss nicks it.