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.

Nurglitch I like you so don't take this wrong but pls don't use my thread to promote your tourney idea. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

G

That's like how titans have nothing whatsoever to do with competitive 40k.

Yeah, yeah, you know why I wrote it.

This is interesting. I fence competitively, though not as much as I used to.

Now there are thousands of fencers in the US and at the largest tournament in the country, the Nationals, you'll only see about 100 or so. Does that mean that the tournament isn't competitive because some of the best fencers in the country choose not to attend?

Also, in a given day I'll maybe fence 6-10 people depending on how well I do (once you get past pools it's direct elimination). So I'm only fencing a relatively small number of people at the whole tournament. Does that mean the tournament isn't competitive?

Additionally, just like every 40k army has it's counter, sometimes my style of fencing counters another person's and vice versa and it's often luck of the draw that we do or do not meet each other in the DE round. Does that make this tournament not competitive?

I could keep going but I think you get my point. These events determine who is on the National team and it's pretty much agreed that these are the top fencers in the country. I'm having trouble seeing why it's different for a major wargaming GT.

I don't think direct elimination would work for Warhammer 40k tournaments.

Ozymandias wrote:This is interesting. I fence competitively, though not as much as I used to.

Now there are thousands of fencers in the US and at the largest tournament in the country, the Nationals, you'll only see about 100 or so. Does that mean that the tournament isn't competitive because some of the best fencers in the country choose not to attend?

Also, in a given day I'll maybe fence 6-10 people depending on how well I do (once you get past pools it's direct elimination). So I'm only fencing a relatively small number of people at the whole tournament. Does that mean the tournament isn't competitive?

Additionally, just like every 40k army has it's counter, sometimes my style of fencing counters another person's and vice versa and it's often luck of the draw that we do or do not meet each other in the DE round. Does that make this tournament not competitive?

I could keep going but I think you get my point. These events determine who is on the National team and it's pretty much agreed that these are the top fencers in the country. I'm having trouble seeing why it's different for a major wargaming GT.

What if these fencing events included a fashion show portion where fencers were awarded points for how good they look in their custom tailored uniforms? Let's say this fashion show contributes a certain degree to who wins the competition.

Perhaps the fencing part of the event remains competitive, but it's hard to argue that the event as a whole hasn't moved away from competitiveness with regards to the actual sport. Furthermore, such a combination would surely drive away competitive fencers who have no interest in taking part in a fashion show. If none of the best fencers show up to the competitive can you really say it was competitive, or that anyone who wins is representative of the best fencers?

Is that analogy purely random? I am not aware of fashion being a part of winning at any fencing events. Not that I've ever been to a fencing event though I have watched a few Olympic matches on TV. as a note of interest there once was a Russian fencer that was DQd for rigging his foil such that he could electronically score without actually hitting his oppopents' target (heart symbol on chest).

G

Ozymandias wrote:This is interesting. I fence competitively, though not as much as I used to.

Now there are thousands of fencers in the US and at the largest tournament in the country, the Nationals, you'll only see about 100 or so. Does that mean that the tournament isn't competitive because some of the best fencers in the country choose not to attend?

Also, in a given day I'll maybe fence 6-10 people depending on how well I do (once you get past pools it's direct elimination). So I'm only fencing a relatively small number of people at the whole tournament. Does that mean the tournament isn't competitive?

Additionally, just like every 40k army has it's counter, sometimes my style of fencing counters another person's and vice versa and it's often luck of the draw that we do or do not meet each other in the DE round. Does that make this tournament not competitive?

I could keep going but I think you get my point. These events determine who is on the National team and it's pretty much agreed that these are the top fencers in the country. I'm having trouble seeing why it's different for a major wargaming GT.

Can literally ANYONE who wants to pay an entry fee and enter the fencing nationals, or is there a requirement to have met a pre-determined qualification system?

Does pool play lead to seeding and then a single/double elimination bracket?

The big difference between how a GT works and how a real competition like a fencing tournament works has to do with one thing you mentioned: pool play and seeding.

In a large GT, you can end up with 4-5 players who won all of their matches. One of those guys is called the winner simply because he beat his opponents worse than the other 3-4 players beat their opponents.

This doesn't answer the question of which of those 4-5 undefeated players would beat all of the others, or even any one of the others.

In a single elimination bracket, there ends up being only one undefeated player, and he's the winner.

That is why comparing how GTs work to how a fencing (or pretty much any other sporting competition) works is faulty.

If it's a huge tourney this would require more rounds. Not necessarily the best solution.

G

In some events there is a qualifier but not at all. Please note, I'm not saying that fencing tournaments and 40k tournaments are the same, just pointing out that many of the issues raised in this thread are also prevalent in a fencing event yet the same concerns don't exist.

It's also worth noting that a tournament is different things to different people and in the US at least, a tournament is a whole hobby experience. As long as there is a Best General award I really don't see an issue with soft scores applying towards Overall. Just FYI, I'm not a fan of comp (though I like the idea of using it for first round pairings) but I don't dislike it so much that I troll any thread discussing tournaments into a soft scores argument (hint hint).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
one more thing, I can't count how many times I've drawn an easy pool round or vice versa. The system isn't perfect, even in one of the oldest Olympic sports!

My local area has run double elimination 1000 pt tournaments before. They were fun but I don't think they determined the overall winner better than a standard tournament method.