But what you are gaining in time FAR outweighs any game distortion.

I disagree, and that Team Covenant article is an excellent read for explaining why. Basically, with the revised 'modified win' rules (12 pt variance enough for a 'full win'), the reduction to 60 minute rounds swings the game balance heavily in favor of 'fat ships' and against more 'swarmy' lists.

That is a pretty fundamental break in what makes X-Wing "X-Wing", IMHO. Whether players can still have fun with 60 minute rounds or not, I dunno, but when you see the constant stream of 'Fat Han lists are unbeatable', the complaints when you chase them down are almost always from 60-minute-round players.

The game just does not work well in that format.

As to the general disagreement on the value of elimination rounds - I guess that's just something we'll have to disagree on. IMHO, another round of Swiss provides enough of a slight margin-of-possibility for a 'top 8' player to claim the crown to make it worth them continuing to play for even the grand prize (without the oversized possibility a 'cut to top 8' provides), and for everyone outside the top 8, the participation prizes and other prizes are enough to keep them going another round to my thinking. (And if not - well, they were going to leave anyway as a result of being cut, outright, weren't they? So, comparatively, there is no loss.)

That's a heck of a ground rule to say that "you can't go down to 60 minute rounds". FFG allows TOs to go down to 60 minute rounds for the purpose of huge tournaments. Is it ideal? Of course not. But what you are gaining in time FAR outweighs any game distortion. There is simply no other way for a tourney involving 40 players to resolve in a reasonable amount of time.

In the example you gave doing so would lop an excellent 2 entire hours off the length of the tourney and make even a tourney that starts at 10:30 more manageable. If we build in 8 70 minute rounds plus an additional 60 minutes of break throughout the day, you are going to finish around 8:50. And most of the participants would have been able to leave before dinner.

If the game length is truly non-negotiable, I think that imposing a player cap is a far more appropriate solution than removing the elimination rounds, for the reasons I stated in my post above.

60 minute rounds favors certain builds that take a long time to legitimately resolve their rounds and give up very little points per object destroyed. 75 minutes is more fair but yeah whatever... This is a ridiculous argument anyway. If you cant be bothered playing 8 games of xwing then dont cry if you dont make top 8 or if you have to leave early.

My standard statement as i leave for a major tournament to my loved ones is "i am off to become king of the nerds, wont be back till after midnight". And it is usually fine

But what you are gaining in time FAR outweighs any game distortion.

I disagree, and that Team Covenant article is an excellent read for explaining why.

It really isn't. Your summary is actually far better than Theorist's article, mostly because it says everything he does in 36 words rather than 1,300:

Basically, with the revised 'modified win' rules (12 pt variance enough for a 'full win'), the reduction to 60 minute rounds swings the game balance heavily in favor of 'fat ships' and against more 'swarmy' lists.

Right. Running at 60 minutes disproportionately affects players whose lists reasonably expect to lose any number of ships, and accordingly it prioritizes very defensive builds. It also incentivizes slow play, since it's much easier to seize a lead and hold it, which is relevant but probably a different topic.

First off, if your tourneys are going til 2AM then you need to talk to your TO about starting earlier. A 32+ person X-Wing Tournament is not something that should be started any later than 10AM. You should be getting done well before then. This is not like a Magic tournament that can be started at 6PM and will wrap well before the store closes at 10PM

I wanted to hit this point as a standalone post, as it's a comment I've seen a few make, and I really don't understand.

As noted early in the thread, you really can't reduce the game to 60-minute-rounds, as that SERIOUSLY screws with the balance of the game.

For something that "really can't" happen, it sure happens an awful lot. I think maybe you meant "shouldn't," at best, there, right?

A 40 person event taking 12 hours start to finish is not particularly excessive.

A 40 person event taking 12 hours start to finish is not particularly excessive.

Maybe... but it doesn't sound like fun either....

To you. I'd have zero issue running or playing in it.

Xanderf, I can certainly sympathize. 60 minute rounds DO compress things and limit your opportunities for kills. That said, I haven't seen anything more than anecdotal evidence either in Theorist's article or in this thread to support the idea that 60 minute rounds truly reward certain builds.

Your argument follows logically and we certainly have seen a surge in fat builds victorious, but the effect of round time limit might be less than you imagine when it comes to rewarding fat builds. It's also logical to assume that fat builds simply allow for more consistency because of the greater availability of consistency-increasing crew upgrades (like Gunner, C3PO or Isard) which rewards players in tournament play by removing some of the random elements out of the game. They also have a major advantage of having less moving parts, allowing for simpler play - a major advantage by about the 4 hour mark in any tourney!

Again though, even if I am to accept that 60 minute rounds break the game in an unacceptable way, I would STILL favor player caps instead of ditching the elimination round. If this is the case, then we must accept that tourneys of more than 24 players are better left to venues that have multi-day availability (like a convention) in order to allow for the elimination rounds to occur on a different day. And since we have reached the point of arguing over opinions, I will bow out at this point

If 60 minutes rounds are a problem, then why not 75 minute rounds?

If 60 minutes rounds favours some builds, you can turn the argument around: Longer rounds disadvantage these builds. Usually, you know how long a round will be, so you can build your list accordingly. And hey, if there are different metas for different time constraints, is this a problem?

If 60 minutes rounds can't be done, the same holds for any other timed format. As long as some games end with ships on both sides, you can't know which side would have won, if you played it out. Sure, if you only have a single TIE Fighter against a full health falcon, it is reasonably to assume that the Falcon will win, but maybe the player is in a position that the next move will fly him off the board?

If 60 minutes rounds are a problem, then why not 75 minute rounds?

If 60 minutes rounds favours some builds, you can turn the argument around: Longer rounds disadvantage these builds. Usually, you know how long a round will be, so you can build your list accordingly. And hey, if there are different metas for different time constraints, is this a problem?

If 60 minutes rounds can't be done, the same holds for any other timed format. As long as some games end with ships on both sides, you can't know which side would have won, if you played it out. Sure, if you only have a single TIE Fighter against a full health falcon, it is reasonably to assume that the Falcon will win, but maybe the player is in a position that the next move will fly him off the board?

There's now essentially two threads on this...

It really depends on what you think a the goal of the game should be. If it's to play a game to completion (all of one opponent's ships destroyed) which is also the way the finals are set up, then a slightly longer time limit is more appropriate than a shorter time limit that actually further constricts the meta. I think the fact that sixty minutes is the "adjusted" time and not the standard should speak for itself.

It's not realistic to have no time limit for all rounds, of course, and people should plan accordingly, but, IMO, a tournament format should do it's best to limit its impact on the meta, and I think it does that better at 75 than at 60 minutes.

It's not realistic to have no time limit for all rounds, of course, and people should plan accordingly, but, IMO, a tournament format should do it's best to limit its impact on the meta, and I think it does that better at 75 than at 60 minutes.

I can agree on that. But back to the original question:

If you're having a tournament with many players and you need to finish on one day, you either cut the number of rounds, by not having a cut to the top 8, or only a cut to the top 4, or you're limiting the time of the rounds. Maybe there should be more escalation tournament, because they are finished after four rounds, right? You can easily play four games of X-Wing on a day. If you use 75 minutes rounds there, you have 5 hours of play time. Throw in 3 breaks of half an hour, and you can start a tournament at 11 and you'll be finished by six o clock easily.

It's not realistic to have no time limit for all rounds, of course, and people should plan accordingly, but, IMO, a tournament format should do it's best to limit its impact on the meta, and I think it does that better at 75 than at 60 minutes.

I can agree on that. But back to the original question:

If you're having a tournament with many players and you need to finish on one day, you either cut the number of rounds, by not having a cut to the top 8, or only a cut to the top 4, or you're limiting the time of the rounds. Maybe there should be more escalation tournament, because they are finished after four rounds, right? You can easily play four games of X-Wing on a day. If you use 75 minutes rounds there, you have 5 hours of play time. Throw in 3 breaks of half an hour, and you can start a tournament at 11 and you'll be finished by six o clock easily.

I guess I don't think there's a problem expecting a longer day than that for store championships and I don't think breaks of 30 minutes between every game is at all necessary, especially if you are playing 75 minute rounds. Unless you have a lot of players, 4 rounds should be adequate to get a Top 8 (and I think in their packet FFG originally required too many).

75 minute rounds gives enough mini-breaks as players usually/or at least for a couple of games have enough time to finish the round and then have some time while waiting for pairings. A recent tournament I was at ran 75 minute rounds with 26 players and we started shortly after noon and we were done by about 5:45 with four rounds.

I'm a little surprised the topic of ranking hasn't been brought up.

One of the major issues with Swiss for X-Wing is the randomness of 1st round match-ups.

A(n) (inter)national ranking scheme would help.

The idea of subdividing the SC into multiple Swisses was mentioned, and largely dismissed.

But simply applying the existing framework into a player cohort divided into two halves (let's call them conferences) and having the winners play off could work.

I like the idea of double-elimination, but I think I'd like to see in action before I decide.

Another possibility is repechage (the system used in rowing) for the elimination stage.

There is also the plate competition system, where losers move to a second tier.

And finally, the NOVA concept, where the first half of the tournament seeds players into the 2nd half's brackets.

good discussion!

my 2c on this is that 75min long swiss without championship cut for store champs is a fine way to crown a store champ. I'd gladly trade away championship rounds to get 75 minute matches, as I feel the longer matches give me a better chance to burn down those point blubbery YTs and VTs.

for regionals, nationals, and WCs, I like the cut to championship rounds, as there is less of a tightrope walking act needed to make the cut -- you can basically lose one game and still qualify. (I've yet to have a tournament where I've gone undefeated into the cut, and have had plenty where I've lost and still made it in.)

Although I'm sure it would send some up in arms I wonder how well a tournament would run if you started the day allowing one game length before switching over to a different game length as things played out. Say you start with a couple 75 minute rounds to get things straightened out a bit but then speed things up to 60 minute rounds.

On the topic of modified wins I do wonder if a 12 point margin is too close although when MoV is turned into the tiebreaker I believe it is less of an issue.