I am working with a local game store to run an Imperial Assault Skirmish Tournament. What I haven't seen - yet - is a FAQ covering tournaments such as what Skirmish mission/map to run (is it chosen at the start of the tournament and stays the same the entire tournament or does each pair choose a new mission/map for each round of play?) --I am sure each player needs to bring their map pieces to build the map that they play on. What is the time limit? Any help, suggestions, guides for running an Imperial Assault tournament would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Tournament rules aren't out yet. Should see them before league play starts which is in March.

Tourny rules will probably be out in 3 to 4 weeks

What you could do is state that each round a certain mission will be played, and you keep that list secret until the day of the tournament. This way, everyone plays the same mission exactly once, and doesn't get any duplication of missions. This would allow you to run a 6 round tournament with six unique missions each round.

If you wanted to take it a step further, you could plan the missions so that even rounds are using the same tile set as the odd rounds for ease of set up. So for example, you set up the Massassi Ruins and round 1 you play mission B, and round 2 you play mission A. Then pick another map and run B and A again for rounds 3 and 4. Then the final map for rounds 5 and 6.

You also have to determine if each round if a one-off, or a best of three. There are merits to both. One-offs allow players to battle many different opponents, but only once. There is also more movement between tables finding your new opponents While best of three means you'll be play less rounds overall, but more games against the same opponent.

Make sure you give each round enough time to account for setup of the board on the odd rounds, as well as movement time to new table assignments. I haven't timed my skirmish games, but they seem to move pretty quickly...maybe 30 minutes of game time per round? Or maybe time flies when you're having fun and the games last for 2 hours? That sounds like a new post on the forums to me. Get some feedback on how long the average skirmish lasts from the community an plan accordingly.

Make sure you avoid elimination-style tournaments. They are less work, but also, every round you lose players. While the eliminated players are sure to get one-off games that day, playing in the tournament itself, win or lose is more fun, especially if there are prizes. Personally, I am a fan of the Swiss-Style Tournament (Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament ). Very popular format in the gaming world.

Painting? Seems this game more than others in the FFG line has been lending itself to painted miniatures. if you decide to add this, you make it OPTIONAL.

Man, this makes me want to go back to running tournaments again!

Another thing to consider is scoring. Straight Win-Loss count is easy, but boring, and can lead to ties at the end of the tournament.

Pure VP's per round allow more accurate scoring, but are more work for the scorekeeper. This also makes it so that crushing losses are much harder to recover from.

Perhaps a hybrid of the two, where a win is worth 8 points, and a loss is worth the losers scored VP's / 10 (round up). Most losers will score 1-3 points, with some close matches the loser scores 4. (31-40 VPs). This gives a bit more points to the loser as you are rounding VP's up, but also requires a scoring conversion.

In this way, you would see scores like 8-4, 8-3, 8-2, 8-1 and rare 8-0's if the loser manages to score no VP's at all.

If you run 6 rounds, it would be difficult to get more than one undefeated person, unless the tournament were 128 players or more.

Another Pro-tip would be this:

Provide (or request each player bring) a 2' x 2' cardboard sheet to be placed on each table, as this will allow someone who is moving their board tiles to a new table the ability to move the whole set-up quickly and easily, without breaking it down!

For scoring it would be like older game where you get 2 points for a full win, 1 for a timed win, and you get a (+) or (-) by how much you lost. So, a full win would be 2 (+40) or a timed win could be 1 (+24). That breaks it down quite simply. Now, as for time to play (after setup) I was thinking either 45mins or an hour.

I do love the suggestion that you do 1 or 2 maps and do both missions on each map. That will make setup/breakdown easier. Depending on how many players show up I would go 4 or 5 rounds and then top 2 do a playoff on the mission not played.

You need more of a win differential in your points structure. In your system, a person who goes 2-2-0 has the same points as someone who goes 0-0-4.

I would do away with the timed win all together. Keep it binary, either they win, or they lose. The skirmish rules dictate how to break ties.

Also, give a point to the loser. That last place player who didn't win any games already feels bad enough, but to get a goose egg for a score? That's bad gravy on rotten potatoes. You want to encourage them to come back in future tournaments. Generally speaking, the points scored for a win should exceed the number of rounds in a tournament and should be an even number, and a loss should give less than half for a win, rounding down and should be an odd number. If you have 3 rounds, wins should be worth 4 points and a loss should be worth 1. If you have 6 rounds, give the winner 8 points and the loser 3.

Pure VP's per round allow more accurate scoring, but are more work for the scorekeeper.

Any system of modified VPs becomes even more work, and just takes the point spread and converts it to a different scale.

I think one of the real strengths of IA, from a tournament perspective, is the VP system. It's a simple, built-in, metric of measuring not only win-loss, but gives granularity to performance. You might have lost, but you still got 31 VPs, so you're not out of the running. Yeah, lopsided losses are hard to recover from, but that's going to be the case if it's a 40 point scale or an 8 point scale. Someone has to go 0-6 and lose by 200 VPs. (Spoiler: It's probably going to be me!)

To make a local connection Fizz will understand, in a lot of ways it's similar to what Stenz uses for the Northstar Warhammer GT. There are 20 points available, and the VP spread (based on objectives and units destroyed) tells you how you divide those 20 points--converting the 2,200 points in a Warhammer army into a much more manageable number. In IA, however, you don't have to convert the spread, since a 40-point system is very manageable for a TO. (Plus, there are a lot of really good programs aimed at the wargaming community that will build Swiss Style pairings based on battle points.)

Now, if a person WANTED to make things more complex, it would be interesting to track kills and objective points separately and weight them differently. If Objective VPs were worth 70% of the overall and Kill VPs were worth 30%, it would really change how people built lists and played the game. If nothing else, this would be an interesting variant tournament idea.

Curse you, danno, for knowing me in real life and making me agree with you. Everything you said about VP's is spot on, and elegant in its simplicity.

The Empire will remember this on Sunday.

I think the best way to do rankings is simply to rank by total VPs scored. Then the tie-breakers would involve how your opponents ranked (strength of schedule) and how many VPs were scored against you. There are programs that do the math. But if the focus of the game is scoring VPs, then it just makes sense that the tournament rankings would also depend primarily on the VPs that each player has scored.

And on a positive note for the guy who knows he's going to lose: he now has incentive to score as many points in his defeat as possible, because he knows that those VPs will still count. Losing 40-39 is a whole lot more palatable than gaining 0pts while your opponent gains 2 (or 3) pts for the same victory.

And on a positive note for the guy who knows he's going to lose: he now has incentive to score as many points in his defeat as possible, because he knows that those VPs will still count. Losing 40-39 is a whole lot more palatable than gaining 0pts while your opponent gains 2 (or 3) pts for the same victory.

That's a great point, and adds to the tactical depth of the game. If it's turn 4 and you're down by 20VPs, you can shift your thinking and go for as many easy VPs as possible, rather than going all-out for the win. Also, on the other side, you can play the VP denial game. (Anyone who's spent three turns chasing Fat Han around for the last 15 minutes of an X-Wing game can attest to the power of Denial!)

There is fundementally no reason to weigh VPS scored over round wins.

I can say with very little doubt that FFG will call for 1 Game per Round, Swiss Style, Wins/Losses as primary tiebreaker, MoV as secondary, and SoS as tertiary.

Round time limits will probably be 70 minutes or so depending if set up is on the clock or what.

There is fundementally no reason to weigh VPS scored over round wins.

I can say with very little doubt that FFG will call for 1 Game per Round, Swiss Style, Wins/Losses as primary tiebreaker, MoV as secondary, and SoS as tertiary.

Round time limits will probably be 70 minutes or so depending if set up is on the clock or what.

To the contrary, VPs fundamentally beat straight win/loss tracking in several respects.

While 40 VPs always equal a win, a win does not always equal 40 VPs. There are absolutely no ties in skirmish, there is *ALWAYS* a winner, someone can win with only 15 VPs while his opponent scored 14 VPs. In straight win/loss, the person who scored 15 VP's will have the same number of wins as the person with 40 VPs.

There will be games where it is clear who is going to win within the first few full rounds, and straight win/loss gives no advantage for the losing player to continue trying to score as many VP's as possible before the game is over. Plus, what about that guy that lost 39 to 40? Toss him in the loser bracket because of one VP? Sure it counts as a loss, but still match him up against someone who did the same, or more accurately, scored high enough to be a contender to win.

VPs break ties much more easily than WIN/LOSS. Two people go 3-0, then what? One of those undefeated players won because of elapsed time? You going to be looking at VPs anyway, you might as well look at them from the start.

VPs allow for more accurate player matching than WIN/LOSS. You want to get as many of those 40 VP scorers playing each other as possible to break ties, if you start tossing them in against a player who effective won by tie-breaker, you're goign to have more instance of scoring ties. Nip that in the bud and make sure your highest scorers are always battling each other.

Also remember, the formula below ensures you only have one undefeated player in your tournament, assuming winners always play winners, and never repeat opponents:

2 ^ Number of Rounds = Maximum Number of Players.

3 Rounds ( Max Players = 8 )

4 Rounds ( Max Players = 16 )

5 Rounds ( Max Players = 32 )

6 Rounds ( Max Players = 64 )

There is fundementally no reason to weigh VPS scored over round wins.

I can say with very little doubt that FFG will call for 1 Game per Round, Swiss Style, Wins/Losses as primary tiebreaker, MoV as secondary, and SoS as tertiary.

Round time limits will probably be 70 minutes or so depending if set up is on the clock or what.

To the contrary, VPs fundamentally beat straight win/loss tracking in several respects.

While 40 VPs always equal a win, a win does not always equal 40 VPs. There are absolutely no ties in skirmish, there is *ALWAYS* a winner, someone can win with only 15 VPs while his opponent scored 14 VPs. In straight win/loss, the person who scored 15 VP's will have the same number of wins as the person with 40 VPs.

There will be games where it is clear who is going to win within the first few full rounds, and straight win/loss gives no advantage for the losing player to continue trying to score as many VP's as possible before the game is over. Plus, what about that guy that lost 39 to 40? Toss him in the loser bracket because of one VP? Sure it counts as a loss, but still match him up against someone who did the same, or more accurately, scored high enough to be a contender to win.

VPs break ties much more easily than WIN/LOSS. Two people go 3-0, then what? One of those undefeated players won because of elapsed time? You going to be looking at VPs anyway, you might as well look at them from the start.

VPs allow for more accurate player matching than WIN/LOSS. You want to get as many of those 40 VP scorers playing each other as possible to break ties, if you start tossing them in against a player who effective won by tie-breaker, you're goign to have more instance of scoring ties. Nip that in the bud and make sure your highest scorers are always battling each other.

I don’t think you are very familiar with how a Swiss style event is run. There is no* possibility for an event to end with two undefeated players. If you are down to the last two undefeated players then you have another round to run. A Swiss style event functions by ensuring that players are paired against those with like records until finally there is only one undefeated player remaining as the winner. VPs scored won't ensure a winner after the prescribed number of rounds if any games have managed to go to time.

Again just because wins are the first criteria of seeding and thus by extension pairing, it does not mean they are the only one utilized. X-wing, which does not used points destroyed (VPs) as it's first seeding criteria still makes use of it when seeding those with a like record.

Your suggestion introduces the possibility that a player can win an event (without a Top Cut) despite them not being the undefeated player, even having lost to the undefeated player. For instance Player A has won all of thier rounds but went to time in Rd2 only scoring 25 points. Player B won three of thier rounds, losing to Player A 28-40. Under your system Player B will have won that event. Despite having been beat by Player A. You could even have an instance where a player has a not won a game yet wins the event, though admittedly that be quite rare. Still the point being is a scoring system in which a player that has won all of thier games can somehow be placed behind a player that they've beaten is a very untenable system.

Still the point being is a scoring system in which a player that has won all of thier games can somehow be placed behind a player that they've beaten is a very untenable system.

I've seen this happen more than once in Warhammer and 40k tournaments, yet the Indy GT scene is thriving more than ever.

Frankly, I find the pure win-loss system that X-Wing uses has created a tournament experience that I, personally, don't enjoy playing in. It feels much more like Magic than a miniature war game. It rewards min-max list building, does nothing to discourage bad behavior from players, and more often than not, many players go home after losing two or three games since they know they have no chance. I'm not expecting FFG to add "soft scores" (paint or sports), but I think it would create some interesting incentives and choices for people if they knew every VP counted in the end.

That said, I don't think there's a 'right' way for them to run Organized Play in IA. I'm approaching OP as someone who's played in a certain style of mini-gaming tournament for almost a decade. Naturally I have my biases. I'm sure whatever system FFG develops will have its good parts as well as its bad, but in the end I'm just hoping for an enjoyable play experience.

I am working with a local game store to run an Imperial Assault Skirmish Tournament. What I haven't seen - yet - is a FAQ covering tournaments such as what Skirmish mission/map to run (is it chosen at the start of the tournament and stays the same the entire tournament or does each pair choose a new mission/map for each round of play?) --I am sure each player needs to bring their map pieces to build the map that they play on. What is the time limit? Any help, suggestions, guides for running an Imperial Assault tournament would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

The most important thing to remember is that people are there to have fun. Any rules disputes should come down to your final say on a yes or no.

If a rules question comes up - make a note of it and the answer you gave in that situation and stick to it for the rest of the tournament unless you find a correction for it in writing from a FFG source. This way you keep the rules the same through the tournament without changing how a rule applies every round.

Do not bend to people who argue. Make it clear in a polite but firm way at the start of the tournament that as there is no FaQ you as the TO have final say on any rules questions that can not be resolved amicably between two players.

Use the X-Wing system for points and use MoV as it is what FFG seems to like to use for the miniature games.

If you have any more questions message me

Still the point being is a scoring system in which a player that has won all of thier games can somehow be placed behind a player that they've beaten is a very untenable system.

I've seen this happen more than once in Warhammer and 40k tournaments, yet the Indy GT scene is thriving more than ever.

Frankly, I find the pure win-loss system that X-Wing uses has created a tournament experience that I, personally, don't enjoy playing in. It feels much more like Magic than a miniature war game. It rewards min-max list building, does nothing to discourage bad behavior from players, and more often than not, many players go home after losing two or three games since they know they have no chance. I'm not expecting FFG to add "soft scores" (paint or sports), but I think it would create some interesting incentives and choices for people if they knew every VP counted in the end.

That said, I don't think there's a 'right' way for them to run Organized Play in IA. I'm approaching OP as someone who's played in a certain style of mini-gaming tournament for almost a decade. Naturally I have my biases. I'm sure whatever system FFG develops will have its good parts as well as its bad, but in the end I'm just hoping for an enjoyable play experience.

I have to say that I am really sorry to hear about people dropping out in your local scene. I personally hate the painting and sports points from other wargame tournaments as it takes away from the war. As far as I can remember people either all got max points for sports or 4 out of 5 so it really played no role for us. As for painting - I love looking at nice models and by all means have a reward for the best painted army. But keep that separate from the actual tournament points. Who wins the tournament should come down to who played their army the best and had luck on their side

Having said that - our x-wing players nationally are a very polite group of players. I have only had to ask a single person to leave a tournament and that was because he was causing a disturbance during top 4 and was no longer playing at that point.

I have never even given out a warning for bad sports during a tournament and it really saddens me to hear you have problems

All my best wishes for you and your local TO's that they can find a reasonable way to bring out the best in people when they play without having to add another points scoring system

@Danno.

While I'm sure 40k events still draw, 40k has likely the worst reputation as a competitive miniatures game. It's one of the reasons they've been bleeding market share to other companies From the fact that GW has explicitly stated that they are a miniatures maker not a game company to the odd event rules the complete lack of balance has created. I can honestly say that I'm fairly sure FFG would cringe if there were non-contrasting comparisons between whatever event system they decide on and 40k events.

In regards to your concerns.

1. Weighting VPS over Wins would do nothing to lesson players propensity for min-maxing. Why would it? You've not removed the criteria to min-max towards you've simply change the criteria.

2. Soft scoring has done nothing to eliminate bad behavior in 40k events. If anything it is a more direct way to inflict damage on a player for arbitrary reasons. The fact that you can dock a players overall score because you didn't like thier list or because you felt for whatever reason they weren't a good sport is a bit nutty. It really just meansyou want to be a jerk you have more of a direct means to do so. Most of the poor behavior horror stories I've heard in my ten years plays miniatures games are from 40k and many stem from soft scoring.

Good TOs making behavioral expectations clear and enforcing those expectations is what prevents bad behavior. Though often people have some odd perceptions of proper event behavior such as believing thier opponent is bound to let them bend or break game rules during play.

3. VP scoring will not result in better player retention throughout an event. While one loss many not knock you out, any low scoring game will. Even a low scoring win. With VPs scored you will see the same number of players pack up early because they are out of the running. A way to combat that is by offering prizing that you only get if you play the whole event.

By your post I don't think you are at all interested in Tournament Play. I think you'd much rather prefer League Play. In which most points are earned via participation, not actually winning (5 points for playing 2 additional for a win as an example), and satisfying a number of pre-set achievements. Achievements could include odd list builds, off the wall in game feats, things of that nature. This would encourage list variety.

I wish as apart of thier Organized Play that FFG would offer casual variety such as League Play. That they only focus on the competitive side of things in thier games is I think missing an opportunity.

That being said FFG not offering casual level OP programs is no reason to burden the competitive side of OP with a non-competitive ruleset. Tournament play is about competition, and a ruleset that leads to the possible situation of the guy that has won all his games not also winning the event has little competitive integrity. Which is exactly the issue 40k faces.

I think adding VPs into the overall mix for the tourney results will help against slow players as well. Winners will be encouraged to score as much as possible and not be content with a low scoring win after dragging out the game play. There is only so much piling on the points as it ends at 40 regardless.

And if someone gets stuck with a newer player that plays slow as a result of thier inexperience?