So just had a store champs go by on the weekend. Had one player who got 8,8 and 6 for a total of 22, technically undefeated.

Another guy had the BYE first round and went on for 8,10,4 for 22 also, in his last game he lost to the person previously mentioned as undefeated.

Both players tied for 22 so it went back on MoV countback where the bye gives 129 pts and with his 10-0 the MoV margin would have sky rocketed, so the BYE won the store champs which i dunno didnt seem unfair for the person who played 3 games and was undefeated and also won against the titled champ.

What are your thoughts on this?

It is the problem with points, then MOV. Won't be to common but will happen. Personally I think it should be points, head-to-head, then MOV.

It is the problem with points, then MOV. Won't be to common but will happen. Personally I think it should be points, head-to-head, then MOV.

This. If you beat the person that you tied on points for overall standings, the first tie-breaker should always be head-to-head matchup results. In a large tournament, that's unlikely to come up, but it should be there as the first tie-breaker IMO.

Hmm yeah if I was TOing that I'd be cringing at that and I think it would bring up discussion from players.

Frankly I think the whole concept of a BYE is broken. I know I know, odd number of players in a tournament produces these situations. Still.

1) You attend a tournament to play

2) To be fair with everyone and avoid situations like this, a player ought to have to play the same number of rounds as everyone else

Having run tournaments for other rule systems, with our local group, we'd typically nominate someone to be the "in the wings" player just in case the odd situation happened so on the day of the tournament, they're either playing to balance numbers or they're helping run it. That avoids the "upset"/odd player situation.

It all depends on the individual of course but I can unequivocally state that if I were the player with the bye in that situation I would have handed the plaque to the guy who'd just beaten me! Horses for courses and all that but I would not be happy winning under those circumstances.

I've said it multiple times. This tournament system is not very good.

That said the Bye is not what caused this result.

So, in order:

• The bye sucks, but it's mathematically unavoidable if you have an odd number of players. Your only other options are cloning someone (and Star Wars has shown us that is a bad idea, so bad even the First Order has abandoned it!) or drawing lots to remove someone from the tournament so you have an even number of players. In that way, the bye is the lesser of the evils.
• The tiebreaker system, however, needs some work. I would suggest the following is the correct method for determining first place:
  • Points
  • Head to Head Record
  • MoV if neither player has a bye
  • If points are equal and players did not play, and one received a bye, play a run-off game between the two players. If they tie 5-5 in the final game, then and only then do you go to MoV.

The problem is that this adds a round in some cases, but if players literally never played each other and someone had a bye, it's probably the only way to determine who is "best". In the situation the OP mentioned, this would not have occurred because the H2H result would have dictated the win.

Even if FFG ignores the run-off idea, I do think the tournament tiebreakers should be updated so that H2H record breaks ties before MoV.

So, someone who has to wait to play all because there is an uneven number of players should rank less than the people who got to play?

I played a MTG tournament with 40 odd players. I played 1st place in the final round and won. Then the TO decided to have another round, I played second place and won. However due to this MoV rubbish i came second. I don't rightly understand how it's worked out but I call shenanigans! On the last round, stick the top two together then have it out. The winner should win the whole tournament.

I don't see the problem in this - the runner up should have gone into the final game knowing he needed a 7-3 split to take the tournament outright, and known he didn't have the MOV / tournament points to just win a close game.

I don't see the problem in this - the runner up should have gone into the final game knowing he needed a 7-3 split to take the tournament outright, and known he didn't have the MOV / tournament points to just win a close game.

I knew in my store championship that I needed an 8-2 to win the tournament or at least beat out Mikael Hasselstein for a spot. I got a 9-1 due to the mission which was good because at an 8-2, Shmitty would have won his second SC.

I don't see the problem in this - the runner up should have gone into the final game knowing he needed a 7-3 split to take the tournament outright, and known he didn't have the MOV / tournament points to just win a close game.

Yup.

I knew in my store championship that I needed an 8-2 to win the tournament or at least beat out Mikael Hasselstein for a spot. I got a 9-1 due to the mission which was good because at an 8-2, Shmitty would have won his second SC.

As TO of our local level tournaments, I always make it very clear to each player what they need to clinch first place, whether it is "Win by X amount", "Don't lose by more than X amount" or "Win big and hope the guys at table 1 get a 5-5 split."

I don't see the problem in this - the runner up should have gone into the final game knowing he needed a 7-3 split to take the tournament outright, and known he didn't have the MOV / tournament points to just win a close game.

Yup.

I knew in my store championship that I needed an 8-2 to win the tournament or at least beat out Mikael Hasselstein for a spot. I got a 9-1 due to the mission which was good because at an 8-2, Shmitty would have won his second SC.

As TO of our local level tournaments, I always make it very clear to each player what they need to clinch first place, whether it is "Win by X amount", "Don't lose by more than X amount" or "Win big and hope the guys at table 1 get a 5-5 split."

I have to be careful with that in my area because people don't like" competition". . . Which wierds me out. . .

I don't think the player should be punished for having a bye. It's the only way to include an even number of players in your tournament. The only other alternatives are to:

A) Have the TO play, but this can be awkward. For starters, it's not allowed in Store Championships. And they have to focus on their own game and can't float around for things like minor rules errors or slow play. Also, what if the TO wins? It can definitely cause some hurt feelings. I've seen it happen. My local X-Wing group felt that the TO was running tournaments just to win, because he was the best player in our area. I'm not going to argue about whether they're right or wrong, but perception is very powerful.

B) Have someone waiting in the wings. I personally feel like this is a terrible idea. Everyone who genuinely wants to play is going to play already. Now you have someone on standby who probably doesn't want to play and/or is bad at the game. And if they're bad at the game, you're essentially handing out 8-2 or better byes every round anyway.

C) Send someone home. Also a terrible idea. How do you pick someone? Whoever signed up last? Showed up last? Draw straws?

I do strongly agree, however, that head-to-head record should be the first tie breaker. And it has an impact far beyond when there is a bye involved. If I play two top-notch players and squeak out some 6-4 victories, and you trounce two people playing their first games of Armada ever 9-1, then I beat you 8-2 in the final round, we have a tied score. Not only did I beat you, meaning I played the better game and, that day, was the better player, I also had a much harder schedule than you did, and would have a lower MoV because of it. But I still beat you, and that should mean more than by how much I beat my other opponents.

I have to be careful with that in my area because people don't like" competition". . . Which wierds me out. . .

"I don't like competition. . .so I'm going to sign up for this competitive event."

I mean, I get where they're coming from. I don't go to 40k tournaments any more because it draws out WAAC neckbeards who spend hundreds of dollars before every tournament to buy the latest min/max list to trounce people as hard as they possibly can. I prefer a much more relaxed atmosphere where rules disputes are solved in a civil manner (and you can laugh at things like losing a game because your opponent rolled three max-damage in a row). But a tournament is a competition. . .

I have to be careful with that in my area because people don't like" competition". . . Which wierds me out. . .

"I don't like competition. . .so I'm going to sign up for this competitive event."

I mean, I get where they're coming from. I don't go to 40k tournaments any more because it draws out WAAC neckbeards who spend hundreds of dollars before every tournament to buy the latest min/max list to trounce people as hard as they possibly can. I prefer a much more relaxed atmosphere where rules disputes are solved in a civil manner (and you can laugh at things like losing a game because your opponent rolled three max-damage in a row). But a tournament is a competition. . .

This regards the tie breaking mentioned in this thread, not the issue of byes: Just lost a tourney on MoV although I won all three games and beat the eventual winner in our head to head game.

Not whining, its the rules, and its also not about the prices. But it didnt feel right. Would be ok in a 4 player tourney when everyone plays the exact same three opponents. If you play different players, using victory points AND MoV from different opponents, not ideal imho.

So, people don't like MoV when it is making people play a bit riskier. . . Hmmm I guess people should be adding in more Precision Strike and other points based objectives

So, just so I understand this better because I am dense.

MoV is an issue because the winner can be someone who did not win all of their games?

From my perspective, MoV limits people from forming up in a corner and scraping by with 5-5, and 6-4 victories.

If people TIE on tournament points then MoV is fine to me. That means that in one of the players games, they should of taken a bigger risk or that they should of made different decisions.

It all comes down to skill again

Once again back toy Store Championship, I picked Mikael Hasselstein's Precision Strike and was able to gain an extra 180 points from it. It was risky because I did not have bombers and he had 6 of them but I made it work in my favor while he only got 6 Victory Tokens to my 12.

I took a risk, knew the objective and how it worked for me and went in gunning.

I've been on the losing end of winning three games, yet not being higher in the standings vs people I've beaten.

And I'm ok with it.

I think the only real change I'd support is that head to head break ties before anything else.

Yeah. the BYE is fair, in my opinion. But I'm all for swapping "head to head" for MOV in the case of a tie. BUT that isn't the way it is, and as Lyr pointed out- you either play that game or don't. Gotta go for the MOV points, and be willing to risk a little or you might not secure that spot!

A) Have the TO play, but this can be awkward. For starters, it's not allowed in Store Championships. And they have to focus on their own game and can't float around for things like minor rules errors or slow play. Also, what if the TO wins? It can definitely cause some hurt feelings. I've seen it happen. My local X-Wing group felt that the TO was running tournaments just to win, because he was the best player in our area. I'm not going to argue about whether they're right or wrong, but perception is very powerful.

It actually is allowed in Store Championships and lower:

JUDGE PARTICIPATION The judge may participate in a casual- or competitive-level tournament for which he or she is responsible only if there is a second judge present.

Store Championships / Massing at Sullust type events are still competitive level.

That "second" judge part is very very key.

They both went in knowing what they needed to win and the results came up as they did as unfortunate as it seemed.

Not disagreeing that the BYE is fair, the issue did cause some discussion as the situation had 2nd being undefeated and even defeating 1st. Putting them in a tie breaker match as some suggested would be just a repeat of the last game.

The person receiving the BYE is already being punished. Punishing them further because random generation says that they only get to play 2 games seems pretty crappy. I think it would be a great way to get players who draw the round 1 BYE to just leave the tournament.