There has been a lot of discussion going on concerning intentional draws. In my opinion, the intentional draws are not the problem, but the tournament structure itself is. Let me explain why:

The first Swiss system tournament was a chess tournament in Zurich in 1895, hence the name. The Swiss system was developed by some of the more brilliant minds on this planet. And it is a perfect system as it is:

The first round is drawn at random. All participants then proceed to the next round in which winners are pitted against winners and losers are pitted against losers. In subsequent rounds, each competitor faces an opponent with the same, or almost the same number of wins. (Important: The number of wins is the only criterion for the rankings.) No player is paired up with the same opponent twice.

The only exception is that one player is left over when there is an odd number of players. The player left over (last place) receives a bye: He/she does not play that round but is awarded one victory. The player is reintroduced in the next round and will not receive another bye (because he has one victory and there must be at least one other player without any victories).

Assuming no drawn games, determining a clear winner (exactly one player, that won all his games) would require the same number of rounds as a knockout (=single elimination) tournament, that is the binary logarithm of the number of players rounded up. (Thus one round can handle up to two players, two rounds can handle up to four players, three rounds can handle up to eight players, four rounds can handle up to sixteen players, and so on.) More or less games than that result in a situation, where you don't have one clear winner (at least my math book says so).

As a matter of fact, as long as you win all your games, a Swiss system tournament and a knockout / single elimination tournament are exactly the same for you.

Compared to a knockout / single elimination tournament, the Swiss system has the advantage of not eliminating anyone: So a player who enters the tournament knows that he can play in all the rounds, regardless of how well (or poorly) he does.

Another advantage compared to knockout / single elimination tournaments is that the final ranking gives some indication of the relative strengths of all contestants, not just the winner of the tournament. As an example, the losing finalist in a knockout / single elimination tournament may not be the second best contestant; that might have been any of the contestants defeated by the eventual tournament winner in earlier rounds.

Nonetheless, there is a clear winner after Swiss rounds. Because of the Swiss pairing system, the top players have already played against each other. There is a true final game in the last round between those two players, which have won all games before the last round. There already have been quarter finals the round before between all 4 players that have won all games 'til then. Etc.

To make a cut after you already have a clear winner makes no sense.

If you add subsequent single elimination rounds, both advantages of the Swiss system are even lost: Not all players play the tournament to the end, and you don't have a final ranking.

And then FFG makes the CUT. (By the way: The term CUT is even wrong here. A CUT in the Swiss system is stopping the tournament BEFORE you have a clear winner, and then moving to elimination rounds.)

But let's assume, you already have a clear winner, and still want to make a cut to elimination rounds. Then players, which already have played against each other, play against each other again, more often than not, with the same result. But for what reason should one do that? Therefore players, which already have a safe place in the cut, intentionally draw their Swiss games.

The problem is not, that the Intentional Draw is allowed. The problem is, that the Intentional Draw is too good. And it is not too good, because it get's abused by players in a way that couldn't have been predicted before. It is too good, because the tournament structure is flawed. (To be more precisely: Because we play too many rounds.)

OK, the Swiss system has been developed, because it has clear advantages over single elimination rounds. What if you still want to have knockout / single elimination rounds, because you just like it so much? Then make the cut early. If you absolutely want to have one final single elimination game, then you would make the cut one round before you have a clear winner. If you absolutely want to have a top 4 cut, then you would make the cut two rounds before you have a clear winner. Everything else just makes no sense. Again, both advantages of the Swiss system are even lost: Not all players play the tournament to the end, and you don't have a final ranking. But at least you have a clear winner after a mathematically correct number of rounds .

Furthermore, in Imperial Assault, you can earn a first-round bye for a higher level championship by winning a lower level championship. When championship byes are used, the Swiss-system just needs to be adjusted a little bit. Any player, that has won a first-round bye from a previews championship, counts as two players, when determining the number of rounds, that need to be played. That way, you can still determine a clear winner within the Swiss rounds.

But actually, a player that has earned a bye, has proven, that he doesnʼt need it. I have a store championship bye card and two regional championship bye cards (1x 2015 / 1 x 2016). I havenʼt used a single one of them, and will not use one in the future. I still won a regional championship without using the store championship bye, and Iʼve made it to the german national championships cut without using the regional championship bye. In my opinon, true champions don't use byes.

As an example, a Regional Championship with 12 Players: 4 Players use a Store Championship bye on round one. Therefore, we have 4 swiss rounds, Top 8 Cut. All 4 players win their second round match. Then they intentionally draw on round three and round four against each other. All four of them are in the cut, with playing only one game each. On a first glance, these players seem to behave unsportsmanlike. But actually, I would disagree. The tournament structure currently used explicitly allows this. And these players will play each other later in that tournament anyways, so who cares.

In the end, these players have played the correct number of games to determine a clear winner (1 swiss / 3 single elimination rounds). Why should they play more games than that?

So please FFG, if you read this:

Please remove the flaws from the tournament structure.

We donʼt need Championship byes, because we want to win our games ourselves. It is good enough, not having to qualify for the higher level championships, we don't need free victories.

We donʼt want to play more games than needed to determine a clear winner.

We want a correct and complete final ranking of each tournament.

Therefore, please:

Up to 2 players => 1 round, no cut

Up to 4 players => 2 rounds, no cut

Up to 8 players => 3 rounds, no cut

Up to 16 players => 4 rounds, no cut

Up to 32 players => 5 rounds, no cut

Up to 64 players => 6 rounds, no cut

Up to 128 players => 7 rounds, no cut

Etc.

PLEASE!

I understand your argument, but a single elimination round/s after rounds of the Swiss format just feels more satisfying to me. I think there should be fewer Swiss rounds maybe, or perhaps fewer who make the cut, but I like the dual-format of the tourney structure. It's like making the final table in poker (well, it would be if half the people in a tourney didn't make the top cut, as they did in Tulsa where I played). Again, I don't have an argument against your logic. I just prefer the feel of the dual-format.

-ryanjamal

So please FFG, if you read this:

Please remove the flaws from the tournament structure.

We donʼt need Championship byes, because we want to win our games ourselves. It is good enough, not having to qualify for the higher level championships, we don't need free victories.

We donʼt want to play more games than needed to determine a clear winner.

We want a correct and complete final ranking of each tournament.

Please don't speak in behalf for all of us. In the last regional I visited I had to drive about 4 and a half hour (one way) so I was very happy I could use my SC Bye and had the possibility to get some fresh air.

You explained quite nicely why the Swiss tournament is a good system but you forgot one crucial detail. The Swiss System is concipated for a symmetrical game which IA is fairly not. You have different armies and most of all you have the element of luck.

The Cut is there for people who proved to be a good player despite possible bad luck and to get another chance for playing in the top. It also makes those huge tournament playable which FFG wants to achieve. Just look at those XWING or Netrunner tournaments. Or heck, just look at last years Stahleck European Championship of AGoT LCG 1st Edition. The finalists played 16 games ! There is no more thing like good playing at that point, it is just "who can stay awake the longest".

With a cut you can split such tournaments up into two days and those who don't have a chance at winning any longer can leave after day 1 or do something else on day 2.

As the tournament structure is a compromise it has it's ups and downs, but only swiss rounds would be bad as well as you have the element of luck. In this way you can atleast get the chance to play against the good guys a second time if your first time was shadowed by bad luck.

My concern would be to use the Number of Swiss Rounds and Numbers of players for the Cut which are used in MtG for several years and have proven to be efficient!

Also the possibility to enter the Cut is already a goal for itself for new players which is a nice thing.

Also we don't need to discuss anything about Intentional Draws here as everything has been said and FFG announced long ago that they will remove it.

I can follow the (well-reasoned!) logic of your post. However, I have a minor point to make before getting on with the main purpose of my comments: There is a major difference between the pure-Swiss structure that you described in your post, and the Swiss-&-Cut structure that IA and most other events use: in Chess (where the Swiss structure was developed) everyone has the same squad (ie, 8 pawns, 1 queen, etc), but in IA and all of these other games, that is not the case. Therefore it makes sense that all of these different games have added a Top 4/8 cut after the Swiss rounds: it tends to leave no question as to who the actual champion of the event should be.

But now for meat of my post: the like the poster above, I really prefer the feel of a Top 4 or a Top 8. But there's more to it than that surface statement:

In a tournament with ONLY Swiss rounds, then you have absolutely ZERO chance of winning the event once you lose a single game. Whether the dice nerfed you, or you had your kryptonite matchup in the first or second round, or your opponent got away with slow play shenanigans, etc...it is very unsatisfying to know that you could definitely compete for the Championship title with anyone in the event, but now you can't because of one bad round. Yes, I know that some people would reply that "Well then you're not the best on this day, are you?" I understand that logic, but I disagree (see below). If we dropped the Top 4/8 then we'd need to recognize one consequence, which is that we'll get a lot more players who drop from the event after they lose just 1 match. I think that's a loss for everyone involved.

Here's an example that describes why I like the Top 4/8 cut after the full Swiss rounds and even think it's important for a truly undisputed tournament champion:

I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures competitively for a decade. I've been to our World Championship at GenCon 7 times. And of those 7 times, I've made the Top 8 cut five of those times...and never once did I have an undefeated record after the Swiss rounds. But it was so exciting, to know that even if I happened to lose a game just now, that I can still make the cut if I win the rest of my games! And with the exception of 2 years (one year I was 9th), I did! I definitely earned my place in the Top 8 and deserved to be there, each time. And I even went on to win the Championship once too (and played in the Finals another time).

Part of being considered the best player in the tournament (and therefore the Champion) is that you can beat your opponents more than once if necessary. In my Championship-winning year, I played a very close game against one opponent in Round 5, and then played him again in the first round of the playoffs...that second game was not nearly as close, and it proved that my win against him in the earlier round was not just luck. In fact, in SWM we've learned to see an undefeated Swiss record as bad luck , since the player who was undefeated after Swiss has never gone on to win the Championship.

Therefore, in the end, I think that a cut to a Top 4 or 8 is not only more enjoyable, but is actually important if you want to arrive a truly undisputed tournament champion. It gives people a fighting chance at the championship even after a loss or two (depending on the size of the event), and the end result provides a much more obvious winner.

And back to the topic of players using Intentional Draws to form the Top 8: In this system of Swiss-&-Playoffs, it is unsportsmanlike because, in denying a chance to those in the just-below-top tables, it in essence negates one of the main reasons for having playoff rounds at all.

Good discussion; thanks for starting it!

You explained quite nicely why the Swiss tournament is a good system but you forgot one crucial detail. The Swiss System is concipated for a symmetrical game which IA is fairly not.

I think, Imperial Assault is quite symmetrical. One player vs. one player. 40 points vs. 40 points. To say, this is not symmetrical, would mean, that 40 points is not equal to other 40 points. And actually, I think, that the current meta proves, that the balancing is quite good, and that 40 points is indeed equal to other 40 points.

You have the element of luck.

The Cut is there for people who proved to be a good player despite possible bad luck and to get another chance for playing in the top.

Did you know, that actually the impact of bad luck is even higher in a single elimination round than it is in a Swiss round? (Just math.)

The Cut also makes those huge tournament playable which FFG wants to achieve. Just look at those XWING or Netrunner tournaments. Or heck, just look at last years Stahleck European Championship of AGoT LCG 1st Edition. The finalists played 16 games ! There is no more thing like good playing at that point, it is just "who can stay awake the longest".

The CUT makes the tournament even longer, because the top players play even more games than needed. Therefore, I think the opposite is true: Less games needed = larger tournaments possible.

E.g.: The german national championship will most likely have something in between 32 and 64 players. With Swiss rounds only, these are 6 rounds and there is a clear winner. According to the FFG tournament structure, we will play 8 to 9 rounds of "who can stay awake the longest". And then drive home 500 km afterwards. This will be a **** hard day and night. I hope, none of us crashes his car on his way home.

With a cut you can split such tournaments up into two days

You actually can split Swiss system tournaments, too. The world's largest Warmachine/Hordes tournament is played over 2 days in swiss rounds with no cut.

There is a major difference between the pure-Swiss structure that you described in your post, and the Swiss-&-Cut structure that IA and most other events use: in Chess (where the Swiss structure was developed) everyone has the same squad (ie, 8 pawns, 1 queen, etc), but in IA and all of these other games, that is not the case. Therefore it makes sense that all of these different games have added a Top 4/8 cut after the Swiss rounds: it tends to leave no question as to who the actual champion of the event should be.

Actually, I just don't understand that argument. As I said before: I think, Imperial Assault is quite symmetrical. One player vs. one player. 40 points vs. 40 points. To say, this is not symmetrical, would mean, that 40 points is not equal to other 40 points. And actually, I think, that the current meta proves, that the balancing is quite good, and that 40 points is indeed equal to other 40 points.

In a tournament with ONLY Swiss rounds, then you have absolutely ZERO chance of winning the event once you lose a single game. Whether the dice nerfed you, or you had your kryptonite matchup in the first or second round, or your opponent got away with slow play shenanigans, etc...it is very unsatisfying to know that you could definitely compete for the Championship title with anyone in the event, but now you can't because of one bad round. Yes, I know that some people would reply that "Well then you're not the best on this day, are you?" I understand that logic, but I disagree (see below). If we dropped the Top 4/8 then we'd need to recognize one consequence, which is that we'll get a lot more players who drop from the event after they lose just 1 match. I think that's a loss for everyone involved.

I've played many games, where pure Swiss system without cut is the standard (including chess and Warmachine/Hordes). I've never seen people drop, just because they lost a match. Actually, the opposite has been true: After a pure Swiss system tournament without a cut, there is a complete ranking. If you drop, you are ranked last. Noone wants that.

Here's an example that describes why I like the Top 4/8 cut after the full Swiss rounds and even think it's important for a truly undisputed tournament champion:

I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures competitively for a decade. I've been to our World Championship at GenCon 7 times. And of those 7 times, I've made the Top 8 cut five of those times...and never once did I have an undefeated record after the Swiss rounds. But it was so exciting, to know that even if I happened to lose a game just now, that I can still make the cut if I win the rest of my games! And with the exception of 2 years (one year I was 9th), I did! I definitely earned my place in the Top 8 and deserved to be there, each time. And I even went on to win the Championship once too (and played in the Finals another time).

Imagine, if it was played pure Swiss, you were not just able to say "I've made the Top 8 cut", but (because you have a complete ranking) to say e.g. "I've made 5th place"!

FFG has already said intentional draws will be removed later this summer.

I really prefer the feel of single elimination rounds.

I sometimes feel like this is a thing typical for people living in America, is it? Or am I completely wrong here?

But:

What if you still want to have knockout / single elimination rounds, because you just like it so much? Then you make the cut early. If you absolutely want to have one final single elimination game, then you would make the cut one round before you have a clear winner. If you absolutely want to have a top 4 cut, then you would make the cut two rounds before you have a clear winner. Everything else just makes no sense. Again, both advantages of the Swiss system are even lost: Not all players play the tournament to the end, and you don't have a final ranking. But at least you have a clear winner after a mathematically correct number of rounds .

Let's say, you want a Top 2 Cut. You could even take out the Top 2 players before the last round, and let them have a break. And after the last round of Swiss is played, these two players play their finals.

IA is by far not symmetrical as you can choose different squads and different lists. And there will always be the counterlist against your list which could not happen in a symmetrical game.

Yes the rules are symmetric but this does not make the game symmetrical.

I know a lot of people who would drop after round 2 the latest if they lost and there would be other events at the same place. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Why exactly is the impact of bad luck in a single elimination tournament bigger then in a full swiss lost. If you are playing to win a loss in either system means you are out. With a Cut after swiss there is at least the chance to win after having bad luck in the swiss rounds.

Sure you could split a swiss tournament in two days but I for sure would stay the second day if I already know I can't make the win any longer.

Regarding german nationals : If you know you cant take the drive after a possible win: why not look up for a hotel for the night? You should never bet upon staying awake while driving after such a day. Or get a second driver.

Ok. Let's assume, the game is not symmetrical. Then I still don't understand, how this is a point against a pure Swiss system?

To respond to your responses to my response (lol!)...

1. Actually, I think you're confusing the point. I agree that the meta is very balanced. But it is incorrect to equate a balanced meta with every squad in the meta having an equal chance against every other squad in the meta. For example, a Bantha squad might do fairly well against a Trooper-only squad, but not so well against a General Weiss squad (because Weiss can block the Bantha and cut through its health very quickly)...and yet General Weiss might have an easier time vs a Bantha squad but a harder time vs a Bossk and eWing Guard squad, etc. The point is not to debate the odds in each matchup, but simply to say that any squad has harder and easier matches. And this is to be expected--and frankly is logically necessary --in a balanced meta where people bring different squads.

2. It's good to hear that you haven't seen any drops in a Swiss-only tournament format. Maybe I overstated the case. Regardless, I can point to my own experience where just a few months ago where I lost my first round match due to slow-play shenanigans (the TO was non-existent). After seeing the rest of the squads in the tournament, I was convinced that I could've beaten any of them, even the one I lost to. It was just bad luck and bad organization. After that match I learned that we were not doing a Top 4 cut. I didn't drop, but I sure did have a lot less fun in my next matches! I won them all, and would've easily qualified for the cut and could have definitely won the whole thing, if there had been a cut. I left that event with a sour taste in my mouth, and not just because of the slow play issue. I ended up in 4th place and still won a prize, but it was disappointing, knowing that I could've won the whole thing if there had been a cut.

3. Yes, I actually could point to my specific finishing place each time. We simply calculated the Top 8 rankings by combining playoff results with Swiss rankings. The 4 players who lost in the Quarterfinals were ranked 5th-8th based on their overall Swiss ranking. Therefore, for example, if the players who lost in the Quarterfinals were 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 8th after Swiss, then the final placement for those players would be 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, respectively. Then the losers of the Semifinals were ranked in the same way. The loser of the Finals finished 2nd overall. It's not complicated at all.

Please, listen to https://soundcloud.com/vadersfinest Episode 18 has something to say about the topic ...

No matter, if you prefer playing Swiss or single elimination you need

Up to 2 players => 1 round

Up to 4 players => 2 rounds

Up to 8 players => 3 rounds

Up to 16 players => 4 rounds

Up to 32 players => 5 rounds

Up to 64 players => 6 rounds

Up to 128 players => 7 rounds

...

to have a clear winner. Even if you prefer to be able to lose one game, it would be enough to add one additional round. Still, at 64 Players FFG's advanced tournament rules demand 9 rounds, this is just overkill by two or three rounds. At that point it still comes down to "who can stay awake the longest".

What if you still want to have knockout / single elimination rounds, because you just like it so much? Then make the cut early. If you absolutely want to have one final single elimination game, then you would make the cut one round before you have a clear winner. If you absolutely want to have a top 4 cut, then you would make the cut two rounds before you have a clear winner.

What I meant:

Up to 2 players => 1 round

Up to 4 players => 2 Swiss rounds

Up to 8 players => 3 rounds = 2 Swiss rounds + 1 single elimination round

Up to 16 players => 4 rounds = 3 Swiss rounds + 1 single elimination round

Up to 32 players => 5 rounds = 3 Swiss rounds + 2 single elimination rounds

Up to 64 players => 6 rounds = 4 Swiss rounds + 2 single elimination rounds

Up to 128 players => 7 rounds = 5 Swiss rounds + 2 single elimination rounds

Then you can still lose a game during swiss and still win the tournament.

FFG has already stated it will be doing away with draws (and thus intentional draws) for all games except SWLCG, and Netrunner. Expect this change to occur before Gen Con.

I really prefer the feel of single elimination rounds.

I sometimes feel like this is a thing typical for people living in America, is it? Or am I completely wrong here?

It kind of is an American thing. Our 4 major sports all have a single elimination tourney tacked on to the end of the season. I don't watch a huge amount European sports (EPL, La Liga, and Bundesliga notwithstanding) but I rarely if ever see playoff structure attached to them.

I tend to dislike pure Swiss as it really does just boil down to a single elimination tournament with extra guaranteed games for all the losers. I'm not a huge fan of the cut system that FFG has either. Coming from a billiards background I do quite like double elimination tournaments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament

Double Elim Tourneys would:

• Remove cut rounds
• Create a clear winner
• Guarantee 2 games
• Solve the dropping issue, anyone still in the tourney can still win the whole thing
• Not kill a players chances after a single loss
• Occasionally rematches will occur in later rounds forcing you to beat the same opponent twice
• Can be split over any number of days

I like double elimination but I don't know how practical it would be for larger tournaments.

I tend to dislike pure Swiss as it really does just boil down to a single elimination tournament with extra guaranteed games for all the losers. I'm not a huge fan of the cut system that FFG has either. Coming from a billiards background I do quite like double elimination tournaments.

You can als do double elimination swiss. Therefore you just add one round to the numbers posted above.

Either double elimination knockout or double elimination swiss play the same number of rounds. With 64 players this would be 7 rounds.

At 64 players FFG's advanced tournament rules demand 9 rounds. This is still overkill by two rounds.

Actually, single elimination knockout, double elimination knockout, single elimination swiss, double elimination swiss, pure swiss or swiss with a cut ... this question depends purely on subjective feeling.

I like pure swiss, because the Swiss system has the advantages of not eliminating anyone and a definite final ranking. I know that this is purely subjective, too.

But actually, the number of rounds is my main concern. The FFG tournament structure has too many rounds ...

Please, listen to https://soundcloud.com/vadersfinest Episode 18 has something to say about the topic ...

i tried, awful episode. Turned it off because of the rant at the start.

I'm listening to the discussion now. At approximately 40 minutes in. The tournament winner is describing the ID situation that came up in this Regional event. The top 4 tables used the ID option, and some of the other players who didn't make the cut were upset about that.

The tournament winner (who was also the top seed going into that final round) said that "If was 2-1, I would've felt bad, potentially, drawing....The fact that Jeff and I were the top seeds, I didn't feel bad at all, because no one's getting hurt from that because Jeff and I were making the cut anyway." Then the other guy says that the problem is actually not with the ID, but with the tournament structure itself in that event: there were 15 players, but 4 rounds of Swiss (should be 3) and a Top 8, so that more than half of the players made the cut...it should've only been 3 rounds, with a Top 4.

I agree with both of these statements. However, I think it's very telling that the tournament winner said that he would've felt bad about using the ID if he was not one of the top 2 seeds at that point, because he knew that he'd be potentially preventing someone else from making the cut, who otherwise would've stood a legitimate chance. Regardless of the tournament structure (more on a that below), there is clearly an issue with IDs being used by people who would not otherwise be guaranteed a spot in the top cut . Yes, I think it is a fairness issue. And I do think that the other players had good reason to be upset...not at the top 2 players, but at the 4th-8th place players (or whoever it was that was not guaranteed a spot without using the ID).

Moving on....

The tournament structure itself is certainly part of the problem here, and one of the guys on the show makes a good point. And to that degree I think DerBaer is right here: a sub-optimal tournament structure in itself already creates the problem. If the TO had chosen to do a Top 4 (with 15 players it's a no-brainer!!), it would've been foolish for the 3rd-4th players and onward to use the ID...perhaps even for the top 2 players. FFG encourages a full Top 8 for these events (and the tournament kits do give prizes for a full Top 8), but it is entirely up to the TO to decide on the final playoff format.

The other problem with the tournament structure seems to be the First Round Bye card that something like 7 different players brought with them to this Regional. With that many players not playing in the first round, it forced a 4th round of Swiss, in a tournament with only enough players for 3 rounds (the range for 3 rounds is 9-16 players)...and because of that awkward situation, the Top 8 was already decided at the end of the 3rd round of Swiss, since players 1-8 at that point can all use the ID to guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs, and so players in 9th place and lower were denied a place in the Top 8, which a 4th round truly should've given them a chance to earn. So while I don't agree that the Knockout or Single Elimination tournament structure (proposed by DerBaer) is the way to go, he does make a good point, that IDs become significant when you have more rounds than necessary in a tournament. Personally, I think the answer is to remove first round byes altogether. And I'm saying this as a Regional Champion, who has a Bye card that I could take with me to GenCon this summer.

Now, the IDs have been effectively removed from the GenCon Championship anyway, but still, I think that in the end this Bye system is something that deserves a careful second look by FFG's Organized Play team.

FFG encourages a full Top 8 for these events (and the tournament kits do give prizes for a full Top 8), but it is entirely up to the TO to decide on the final playoff format.

As far as I know, for premier events the advanced tournament structure is mandatory, isn't it?

FFG encourages a full Top 8 for these events (and the tournament kits do give prizes for a full Top 8), but it is entirely up to the TO to decide on the final playoff format.

As far as I know, for premier events the advanced tournament structure is mandatory, isn't it?

I dunno. Maybe you're right and I was confusing what I had heard with the league kit events. That might be the case.

Now, the IDs have been effectively removed from the GenCon Championship anyway, but still, I think that in the end this Bye system is something that deserves a careful second look by FFG's Organized Play team.

They have already said they are and new rules will take effect August 1st.

"After discussion with game developers and organizers, we have identified viable methods for the removal of draws from the tournament experience for our games which feature single-game Swiss rounds. In our games which feature two-game Swiss rounds (Android: Netrunner™ and Star Wars™: The Card Game), we are not planning any change to the intentional split policy due to the frequency of matches which result in equal tournament points awarded to both players.

This decision was not made lightly. We will be allowing the time necessary for these methods to be examined and fully tested before determining which will be used for resolving matches currently handled as draws. Each game's next Tournament Regulations update in July will include its new method, and it will become effective for tournaments starting August 1st, 2016. Until then, the current Tournament Regulations will remain in effect."

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/4/15/intentional-draws/

Now, the IDs have been effectively removed from the GenCon Championship anyway, but still, I think that in the end this Bye system is something that deserves a careful second look by FFG's Organized Play team.

They have already said they are and new rules will take effect August 1st.

"After discussion with game developers and organizers, we have identified viable methods for the removal of draws from the tournament experience for our games which feature single-game Swiss rounds. In our games which feature two-game Swiss rounds (Android: Netrunner™ and Star Wars™: The Card Game), we are not planning any change to the intentional split policy due to the frequency of matches which result in equal tournament points awarded to both players.

This decision was not made lightly. We will be allowing the time necessary for these methods to be examined and fully tested before determining which will be used for resolving matches currently handled as draws. Each game's next Tournament Regulations update in July will include its new method, and it will become effective for tournaments starting August 1st, 2016. Until then, the current Tournament Regulations will remain in effect."

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/4/15/intentional-draws/

Yes, I know. I've seen and read that article (hence my reference to this year's GenCon championship).

What I was saying is that I think FFGOP should carefully examine the Bye system , which is not mentioned in the link you gave.