My FLGS is holding a small tournament for our regular and semi-regular x-wing players next month.

To make things interesting, I suggested it might be fun to try out a system where there are no mirror faction matches - so far the feedback from the group - at least over the general idea - has been positive.

I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has tried something similar - or has greater experience with tourneys - who might be able to point out better ways of approaching it, potential pitfalls etc.

On the day of the tourney, each player submits 2 lists to the TO, each for a different faction - the player must state which list is his preferred faction (his "A" list)

For the first match, the TO can either arrange the players so that everyone is playing their preferred faction in the opening match - which might not be possible given the Rebel bias we have - or the selection of the faction for the first match is decided in the same way initiative is decided.

The second option would be easier to organise, but I'd prefer a system where each player gets at least 1 match with their preferred faction.

In subsequent matches, the player with the greatest winning margin, (or smallest losing margin) MUST play their preferred faction - so no switching lists if you know your opponent has a list that you'll struggle against.

In the event of a tie on winning/losing margin, the player who wins initiative gets to choose his A list (and MUST choose his A list)

The main pitfall I see is that there are a few of us who mainly collect a single faction - however we're a pretty friendly bunch and most of us know each other, so those of us with multiple models from multiple factions (which is over half the group) don't have a problem with lending out a few cards and minis for the day.

Any thoughts?

lastly a quick shout-out for Plainsman - he came up with this idea originally, but out of respect for the dead I didn't necro his thread

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/125870-3-faction-no-mirror-match-tournament/

I am a great believer that you should have to turn up at tournaments etc with both Rebel and Imp lists.

Once the draw is made you toss a coin and the winner get to decide whether he uses his Imps or Rebs.

Not a bad idea Funkleton, though as you state above, people who only play one faction might face some difficulties. Because of that I speculate that it might be problematic to make this work on a larger scale, and should probably be kept in groups who are already familiar with each other.

I have always loved this idea and while the apprehension on the boards is based on whether or not everyone can support two factions, I say be bold and go with three! With S&V releasing Imperial and Rebe players essentially need just Most Wanted to field 100pt lists. I'm sure that if your community is like mine, no one minds loaning out cards/ships to ensure the fun happens!

And no more mirror matches!!!!

I don't like it to be honest. What happens if you don't have another faction? I wouldn't want to borrow someone else's stuff to use and god forbid something actually happens and now I have to buy someone a ship. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with mirror matches.

I don't like it to be honest. What happens if you don't have another faction? I wouldn't want to borrow someone else's stuff to use and god forbid something actually happens and now I have to buy someone a ship. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with mirror matches.

The current format for competitive play is unlikely to ever go away - in fact I suspect it will remain the premier tournament format for the forseeable.

But FFG have dropped a few hints that there might be changes - or at least additions - to the format of some competitive events

So there's no reason why other formats shouldn't get a look in - and if you don't like the format - find a tourney where you do - problem solved

In terms of our little event - We'd only go ahead if there's a consensus of all the players - the last thing I would want to do is make anyone withdraw because they couldn't field 2 lists or were forced to pick from the "leavings" of the other players once they had finished their lists. Any objections and we'll go back to the standard 100 point deathmatch format and have a bloody good time in the process.

This is about increasing the fun and increasing the challenge - getting players to step a little outside their comfort zones of tried and tested safe tournament lists and fly factions and lists that they might not normally use.

I've certainly found that I've got more out of the game in the last 2 weeks by flying ships and lists I usually ignore than I have in a while.

This could either be much easier or much more difficult with S&V coming out.

Bring Scum. Scum's the enemy of everyone, including themselves.

Though really, I don't see a need to prevent Mirror Matches. It would be fun once in a while, but to make it the mainstain would be too much. Rebels and Scum are my thing; I'm not interested in playing Imperials except occasionally.

EDIT: If I did go, and I would, it would be TIE and Z-95 swarms everywhere.

Let me see if I can summarize:

1. Everyone bring two squadrons, one for each faction.

2. Everyone picks a "prefered" squadron which they would first use.

3. Games start with one side using its prefered squadron and the other using the other side.

When it comes to later games I'd say things would be more interesting if the guy who's lower in the ranking (more losses, lower MoV) gets to use his prefered squadron and the other player has to make the adjustment. This is to avoid the winners just getting to win more because they really know how to use one squadron well. If would help for the good player to demonstrate that they are the best by making them adapt to the opponent instead of forcing the weaker player to make adjustments.

Let me see if I can summarize:

1. Everyone bring two squadrons, one for each faction.

2. Everyone picks a "prefered" squadron which they would first use.

3. Games start with one side using its prefered squadron and the other using the other side.

When it comes to later games I'd say things would be more interesting if the guy who's lower in the ranking (more losses, lower MoV) gets to use his prefered squadron and the other player has to make the adjustment. This is to avoid the winners just getting to win more because they really know how to use one squadron well. If would help for the good player to demonstrate that they are the best by making them adapt to the opponent instead of forcing the weaker player to make adjustments.

I definitely think this would sort out the men from the boys - I'd relish that kind of challenge.

But then again you are kind of penalizing someone for winning so I can see how some people wouldn't be happy with that.

I ran a vassal tournament like this. Made it a team vs team so you chose or were assigned a side and flew for that side the entire time.

Each faction would get ranked and matched against a corresponding opponent swiss style. The final round was worth double points in case one side got really far ahead in earlier rounds.

It came down to one deciding game.

Very fun if you get even numbers.

So there's no reason why other formats shouldn't get a look in - and if you don't like the format - find a tourney where you do - problem solved

For local tournaments this would be fine, but there needs to be a standard format for the major tournaments, otherwise you dilute the player pool by making people choose which format to play, then you have "Champion (Mirror)" and "Champion (Faction)" - then, do those people play each other to determine a true champion or are there just shared crowns and that's that?

(all that said, I generally dislike mirror matches so I empathize with the crux of the suggestion )

I did this for an event to benefit Toys 4 Tots. My solution was to make it a Team Tournament. Each team consisted of a Rebel player and an Imperial player. Each round they would pair against another team and Rebel would fight Imperial and the Imperial would fight Rebel. So the team aspect didn't apply to the actual games, just to pairings and scoring (I used team scores). Each match was still a one on one, 100 point match.

Jim

You're basically sending a message to the players in your area... "If you only like playing one faction or haven't bought enough ships to field a strong list for both factions, we don't want you to come".

It's okay if you want to run a tournament that might exclude players, just realize that you are being exclusionary. You are potentially adding an extra burden on players that might want to join your tournament. Granted, it's possible that every player that would join your tournament already has enough ships to field a list for each faction and doesn't mind not getting to choose which faction they play. But it's more likely that there is at least one player that will be put off by not getting to choose what faction he or she gets to play.

A potentially better system that our local TO has been doing is to just pair the first round based on faction to prevent as many mirror matches as possible. If the stakes aren't very high, you could even do a partial Round Robin instead of Swiss and have every round be paired based on faction, regardless of people's scores.

So there's no reason why other formats shouldn't get a look in - and if you don't like the format - find a tourney where you do - problem solved

For local tournaments this would be fine, but there needs to be a standard format for the major tournaments, otherwise you dilute the player pool by making people choose which format to play, then you have "Champion (Mirror)" and "Champion (Faction)" - then, do those people play each other to determine a true champion or are there just shared crowns and that's that?

(all that said, I generally dislike mirror matches so I empathize with the crux of the suggestion )

But if - as FFG originally envisaged - tournaments were objective-based, then we'd be having the same conversation if someone suggested that straight 100 point deathmatches might be a viable format

Having more than one format and more than one champion makes things more interesting - not less

Personally I don't care at all if I get a mirror match but then again, I have almost two decades of Warhammer Fantasy and 40k experience. Those games doesn't care if both players play the same faction, in fact they even encourage it.

You're basically sending a message to the players in your area... "If you only like playing one faction or haven't bought enough ships to field a strong list for both factions, we don't want you to come".

No I'm not

make a note to yourself

Read the thread

But if - as FFG originally envisaged - tournaments were objective-based, then we'd be having the same conversation if someone suggested that straight 100 point deathmatches might be a viable format

Having more than one format and more than one champion makes things more interesting - not less

We'll have to agree to disagree on the more than one champion idea. What is 'interesting' is a subjective construct that is unprovable (other than, perhaps, by general survey but that still only would account for what people presume about the suggestion as well as only querying existing parties)

I would look to Major League Baseball as an example of two leagues with a minor but distinct rule variance that affects strategy that then has a single champion.

But if - as FFG originally envisaged - tournaments were objective-based, then we'd be having the same conversation if someone suggested that straight 100 point deathmatches might be a viable format

Having more than one format and more than one champion makes things more interesting - not less

We'll have to agree to disagree on the more than one champion idea. What is 'interesting' is a subjective construct that is unprovable (other than, perhaps, by general survey but that still only would account for what people presume about the suggestion as well as only querying existing parties)

I would look to Major League Baseball as an example of two leagues with a minor but distinct rule variance that affects strategy that then has a single champion.

Maybe MLB is just a bad example

Think about it more like Cricket ...... yeah I thought that would fox you

Cricket has 3 main formats

20-20 - a fast and furious slogfest - great fun, on a good day you might watch 2 matches

50 Overs - a one day event generally featuring more attacking play from both ends.

Test Cricket - a 5 day battle against your opponent, the weather, the condition of the ground, and your nerve - where you have to consistently outclass your opponent in every aspect of the game in order to earn a win instead of a draw.

Every player wants to be a Test cricketer - but not all can be - but then again some of the best Test players can't take the pace of 20-20 where supposedly "lesser" players excel

and besides - there's world champion, and there's undisputed world champion

I am a great believer that you should have to turn up at tournaments etc with both Rebel and Imp lists.

Once the draw is made you toss a coin and the winner get to decide whether he uses his Imps or Rebs.

same here, its what puts me off most current organised play

rebels vs rebels or imps verus imps just doesnt feel like 'star wars' to me.

You can only go 'training exercise' so many times before it gets lame.

You're basically sending a message to the players in your area... "If you only like playing one faction or haven't bought enough ships to field a strong list for both factions, we don't want you to come".

No I'm not

make a note to yourself

Read the thread

I hope my criticism did not offend you, it was not my intention to offend, I tend to be blunt on the forums. I went back and reread your rules, but still even with the preferred list system, there is still a chance that someone would have to play the faction that they don't prefer if they get paired against someone with the same preference and lose a coin flip right?

I'm not saying you're being deliberately unwelcoming to players, I'm saying you might be unintentionally discouraging people from coming to your tournament. You have to think about other people's perception, not your own intentions (which I guess I didn't do in my post since I seem to have unintentionally offended you). If I don't have enough ships to field 2 different factions, I can't play in your tournament right? I might have to borrow ships from someone (burden 1), ships that I don't have experience playing with (burden 2).

But like I said, if you know for an absolute fact that every X-Wing player in your area that would play in a tournament is unanimously okay with having to bring 2 lists for different factions and not getting to choose round to round which list they get to play (they either have to play list A or they have to play list B depending on who they're randomly paired against right?) then you should do that if that's what everyone wants.

I did what you asked and provided a less disruptive method that I've seen other TOs use to minimize mirror matches without burdening the players, but obviously you have already decided your method is better. If I was a TO, I would want to do whatever I could to allow as many people as possible to play in my tournament. If you think your system will do that for you, then more power to you and best of luck.

Personally I don't care at all if I get a mirror match but then again, I have almost two decades of Warhammer Fantasy and 40k experience. Those games doesn't care if both players play the same faction, in fact they even encourage it.

Actually when i ran UK organised play for GW (about 2001 -2005) we actively tried to move away from same faction matches. we ran an entire series of 'campaign' tournaments where you turned up as part of a task force of the same type (imperium, eldar, orks, chaos etc).

Later ones were really restrictive. Like Imperium versus a tau and eldar alliance.

Far from telling players 'we dont want you' it actually was incredibly popular and usually sold out within about a week and people actually *wanted* the narrative between battles, the interactive map displayed on a projector showing which task force contolled which sectors etc.

bear in mind these events were about £100 for two days of gaming (five games in total and an evening quiz on the saturday) they were not cheap like a £5 uk store tourny.

They still sold out quickly

The downside is they require a lot more work on the part of the organisers, Swiss system tournys are mind numbingly easy to run when you've done a few and we could knock a GT out in a week from fixing the date to writing the rules pack to booking the hall and catering.

A campaign event usually took about a month as we'd have to come up with a story, make up a digital map that could be shaded to show armies progress, liases with the studio to fit the narrative of the campaign into the warhammer or 40k universe etc. Heck of a lot more work.

And to be fair having to have two factions is hardly cripplingly restrictve given:

1, in a sample group of 25 or so players i play againt i know only one or two who only have one faction, most people collect both

2. You can field a strong list for either faction with as little as three small ships, so its not like warhammer where you'd need to chuck $400 into another army, we're talking what, $25-$30.

People spend that on an evening in the pub!

And to be fair having to have two factions is hardly cripplingly restrictve given:

1, in a sample group of 25 or so players i play againt i know only one or two who only have one faction, most people collect both

2. You can field a strong list for either faction with as little as three small ships, so its not like warhammer where you'd need to chuck $400 into another army, we're talking what, $25-$30.

People spend that on an evening in the pub!

I believe that the most onerous restriction would be the imminent danger of cranial damage - resulting from pieces of falling skystuff - should anyone even dare to suggest that it is possible to have more than one tournament format