I was reading a regional event description for Armada that I was planning on going to, and it sounded like the organizers were going to run it Xwing style—that is, based solely on win-loss. Is that a thing? I read the Tournament structure guide, and it appeared that someone could interpret the guide to allow for that, but what are some thoughts on this?
Win-Loss Regional?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Regionals are stated as following the advanced structure, no?
The advanced structure only states the "strictness" of in-game rules/expectations and number of rounds/cuts according to the number of participants. And the guide does say that event organizers can run their tournaments how they see fit as long as they give advance notice (with the requirement that regionals are advanced—again only I ndictating higher expectations and number of rounds).
Additionally, it also states that "most Armada tournaments use a Swiss pairing system that awards tournament points to the winner of each game," implying that not all tournaments are based on tournament points. Granted, the document later states that the winner is decided based on tournament points, but they aren't necessarily restricted to awarding tournament points based on the standard armada scale. It could be 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss. And then a 3 round Regional with multiple undefeated players would be decided by MOV. That would still fall within the rules as written, based upon how I read that document just now. Not saying it's right (and I'm really hoping the Regional organizer changes it), but that interpretation is out there
To address the "Most Tournaments used Swiss Rounds" piece:
Armada Tournaments, especially of the "Formal" Level, have one of three Formats:
Swiss Rounds
Progression Cut
Single Elimination
If they are using Swiss Rounds, then Swiss Rounds are determined by tournament points, as per the Armada Tournament Regulations (Page 14 of the Text-Only Document version).
Sufficed to say, one of the the stated goals of Organised Play is to have consistent framework of Play Experience for people, no matter where they are playing.
If this is a Regional intended to be run at this point, and it is being run in the United States, I would be sending a message to Organised Play to confirm that it is indeed allowed, because Doing it, and finding out after the fact, because someone reported it, is a sure way to have Organised Play put a block on your store holding events ever again.
It has happened before.
However, if this just happens to be run concurrently, or second to the Regional event, then its completely legal... I would doubt anyone would have any objection to that.
The question being raised here that its a Regional, and thus, a Formal event. Formal enough that Judges cannot also be Players, which means its, at least in Organised Play's setup, to be a little bit serious.
The fact as well that they have issued only 26 US Regionals (and 4 Canadian Ones), this season, means that they are limiting the number. They do vet the information on it.
So certainly, pass the information on to Organised Play and ask....
From OP:
These Championships use the Formal Tournament Tier which denotes a stronger focus on competition. Leaders of a Regional Championship cannot also play in the event, as their attention must be committed to the oversight of the tournament.
Regional Championships use the Advanced Tournament Structure. For most attendance levels, this round structure will require a significant commitment of time and resources for players and organizers. Most of these events will be scheduled for a single Saturday or Sunday. However, as noted in the Regional Championship Event Outlines, organizers expecting a large turnout can choose to run the event’s Swiss rounds on Saturday and elimination rounds on Sunday if they advertise this structure well in advance of the event.
Additionally, the "Tournament Points" scored, are stated in each of the Documents.
The Armada Document states how Tournament Points are Scored...
The only way to utilise the X-Wing Scoring of tournament points (Win = 1, Loss = 0), for example, is to use the X-Wing Documentation.
Which would be odd for an Armada Tournament, nevermind the Regional level.
As far as "limiting the number" of Regionals, I recently heard a firm explanation of why northern California didn't get one. Short answer is that the request got lost in the mail. Given that the store held one of the largest X-wing events on the west coast last year and wre trying to do another, I'm inclined to believe them.
Additionally, the "Tournament Points" scored, are stated in each of the Documents.
The Armada Document states how Tournament Points are Scored...
The only way to utilise the X-Wing Scoring of tournament points (Win = 1, Loss = 0), for example, is to use the X-Wing Documentation.
Which would be odd for an Armada Tournament, nevermind the Regional level.
Those are my thoughts on it. And I've asked the TO if they were using the Xwing format instead of Armada for clarification before going to OPlay. And coming here to get a consensus. Because the event page definitely and explicitly states that pairings will be made by win-loss record (3-0s will be paired with 3-0s, and 0-3s with 0-3s).
I also asked to see what thoughts were on how such a tournament would play out, especially when taking byes into consideration. I just don't think it works at all for Armada, but I also don't want to be unnecessarily rude and tell the TO (whom I would assume is competent enough to have received the honor of hosting the event) that they're doing it all wrong.
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
People rarely appreciate it when TOs decide to put their own "spin" on the established format.
People rarely appreciate it when TOs decide to put their own "spin" on the established format.
There are limits...
At the store level, you are free to do as you please... And by all means, feel free to speculate, and experiement and throw everything out of the window....
But when you are part of an Organised system, then you need to respect the system.
The Awarding of the Bye to Nationals provides a link to the next piece of the System.
It would be the awarding of an Award to someone who has, potentially, not earned it as much as someone else has... I say, potentially, because the concept of Win/Loss vs. TournPoints on MOV is a hot topic at times, and in the end, all we can really boil down to is it is different.
Different enough to be a Shifted Set of Goal Posts, either way...
RESPECT the system is what I would say. Keep the Experimenting where it won't necessarily be messing with what is in the end, a strict, Organized Play format.
Id freak out. Which would consist of me emailing ffg op. Also would politely complain to the TO and try to see his reasoning for win-loss.
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
Using the current legit tourney rules, weighing a 7-4 win against another top-tier player less than a 10-1 win against a new player is equally ludicrous. The Armada tourney format is very flawed in this way, and there isn't much to be done about it. When top-tier players play against each other they most likely will knock each other out of the tourney due to neither getting a very high score. They need a way to fix this. Single-elimination does fix this but introduces other problems.
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
Using the current legit tourney rules, weighing a 7-4 win against another top-tier player less than a 10-1 win against a new player is equally ludicrous. The Armada tourney format is very flawed in this way, and there isn't much to be done about it. When top-tier players play against each other they most likely will knock each other out of the tourney due to neither getting a very high score. They need a way to fix this. Single-elimination does fix this but introduces other problems.
I don't see how single elimination fixes this. If a good player goes against a less skilled player and wins, and then two highly skilled players go head-to-head, one more skilled player still gets knocked out in round one while the just "good" player is still in it. This is also not fun at all for someone who doesn't do well and just has a bad day since they don't get to play the games they paid for, which is what this is all about, really.
The best solution is to have more rounds. At Nova I found 5 rounds with ~24 players to be maybe too many (I wasn't complaining, I was thrilled to play 5 games) but it did allow "skilled" players to come back from a bad matchup, and also players that went 10-1 due to a lucky matchup in a round to get evened out by other skilled players. That isn't easy, though, given the length of time a tournament round goes.
No matter what you do the luck of the matchup is still a huge factor.
Simple solution.
Contact FFG OP with the events information, highlight the differences between the proposed event and the actual event rules, and ask OP if a Organizer is able to disregard the event rules at a Regional.
The answer will be no of course, so FFG will contact the venue and explain to them that they were selected to run a Regional event and Regional events can not have custom formating. They will tell them to use the standard format or they won't recognize the event and won't ship the store any future kits.
At this point they might have not even have sent out the kit to begin with, so they may even threaten to withhold that.
There should be enough lead time to get this sorted out despite FFG's deficiencies in the OP accountability department.
Email sent. And here is the description of the modified format for the curious to reference. Everything else they posted about the tournament is so far correct
"The principle of a Swiss tournament is that each player will be pitted against another player who has done as well (or as poorly) as him or herself.
The first round is drawn at random. Win, lose, or draw, all players proceed to the next round where winners are pitted against winners, losers are pitted against losers, and so on. In subsequent rounds, players face opponents with the same (or almost the same) score. No player is paired up against the same opponent twice.
Here is a summary of the modified swiss pairing system:
* Round one : All players are paired randomly.
* Round two: the winners of round one will play each other, the losers of round one will play each other
* Round three: the players with 0-2 records play each other, likewise with the 1-1s, and the 2-0s.
* Round four: the 0-3s play each other, as do the 2-1s, the 1-2s, and the 3-0s.
Sometimes, however, it is not possible to pair players with exactly the same records (due to drops or draws), so you may be "paired up" or down a record.
After an amount of rounds set at the beginning of the tournament (based on the number of players), the player with the best record wins.
In some events, after Swiss rounds there will be a cut to a single-elimination playoff between the top players."
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
Using the current legit tourney rules, weighing a 7-4 win against another top-tier player less than a 10-1 win against a new player is equally ludicrous. The Armada tourney format is very flawed in this way, and there isn't much to be done about it. When top-tier players play against each other they most likely will knock each other out of the tourney due to neither getting a very high score. They need a way to fix this. Single-elimination does fix this but introduces other problems.
I don't see how single elimination fixes this. If a good player goes against a less skilled player and wins, and then two highly skilled players go head-to-head, one more skilled player still gets knocked out in round one while the just "good" player is still in it. This is also not fun at all for someone who doesn't do well and just has a bad day since they don't get to play the games they paid for, which is what this is all about, really.
The best solution is to have more rounds. At Nova I found 5 rounds with ~24 players to be maybe too many (I wasn't complaining, I was thrilled to play 5 games) but it did allow "skilled" players to come back from a bad matchup, and also players that went 10-1 due to a lucky matchup in a round to get evened out by other skilled players. That isn't easy, though, given the length of time a tournament round goes.
No matter what you do the luck of the matchup is still a huge factor.
For your first comment, single-elimination "fixes" it by allowing one of two top-tier players to continue in the tourney where the current system eliminates both of them when the event isn't using 4+ rounds of swiss. That's all I was saying. It's better to let one of the 2 top-tier player move on than neither.
More rounds, I agree. But that's impossible to all but the largest events that can start at 9am and go to midnight, or span multiple days.
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
Using the current legit tourney rules, weighing a 7-4 win against another top-tier player less than a 10-1 win against a new player is equally ludicrous. The Armada tourney format is very flawed in this way, and there isn't much to be done about it. When top-tier players play against each other they most likely will knock each other out of the tourney due to neither getting a very high score. They need a way to fix this. Single-elimination does fix this but introduces other problems.
The assumptions underlying these complaints are bizarre to me. If "top tier" players are top tier, why do they need to be coddled and catered to? Shouldn't they be expected to place well regardless of who they play? Aren't "new" (read: bad) players extremely likely to need to play against "top tier" players and do well against them to win tournaments? Why should a good player having a bad to mediocre tournament be made up for in the rules?
It sounds like you lost a tournament to someone you think is worse than you and you're salty about it.
I admit.
Every time I read "top tier player", all I read is "a player better than you", and it disheartens me further from playing in competitions.
Its not a Goal to Reach.
Its a Cliff to Scale.
And people are already up there, seemingly laughing at those below.
Frankly I think they are doing it all wrong. When you're likely only playing 3 games, weighting a 10 point squeaker the same as a 400-0 stomp is ludicrous... I'd follow Dras's advice and email FFG's own Organized Play department and check that they can even do it that way.
Using the current legit tourney rules, weighing a 7-4 win against another top-tier player less than a 10-1 win against a new player is equally ludicrous. The Armada tourney format is very flawed in this way, and there isn't much to be done about it. When top-tier players play against each other they most likely will knock each other out of the tourney due to neither getting a very high score. They need a way to fix this. Single-elimination does fix this but introduces other problems.
The assumptions underlying these complaints are bizarre to me. If "top tier" players are top tier, why do they need to be coddled and catered to? Shouldn't they be expected to place well regardless of who they play? Aren't "new" (read: bad) players extremely likely to need to play against "top tier" players and do well against them to win tournaments? Why should a good player having a bad to mediocre tournament be made up for in the rules?
It sounds like you lost a tournament to someone you think is worse than you and you're salty about it.
Yes, I'm salty. Thanks for baseless accusation. 
Shouldn't they be expected to place well regardless of who they play?
Yes, and that's my point. For anything other than large tourneys with more than 3 swiss rounds and a cut, the tourney structure can eliminate the top players by pitting all or most of them against each other. This is no different than other games, such as MtG, but most of these other games have the luxury of allowing for many more swiss rounds than Armada, or in MtG's case, all that matters is that you win, not by how much. For example, in big MtG events, there are usually 6+ swiss rounds, allowing for the top players to recover when playing each other, making the cut with a 7-1 record or something similar.
Lets say a store Armada event with 3 swiss rounds has 4 very good players and lots of average players that aren't nearly as competitive (I'm not pointing fingers here people, relax!). Let us assume these average players have never beaten the very good players and won't in this tourney. Round 1 the very good players play each other. More often than not, the winning player isn't going to get a very high score. Lets say both games result in a 7-4. The 7-4 (very good) players are matched up against each other in the second round and now they have little chance of winning the event unless one of them gets a 9-2 or 10-1, which is unlikely when two very good players play each other and both aren't willing to risk going for it to score a hard-to-get 10-1 vs a good player. Lets say one of them wins 8-3, again probably going to more likely be a 7-4 or 6-5. The other two very good players that scored 4 points in the first round have no chance at winning the event, all due to pairings.
Among the average players, at least one them is likely to get three good scores and not have to play the very good player with the most points. The end result, the average player wins the event and the very good players knocked each other out of the winners circle. The very good players are probably in the top 1/4 of the standings, but had no chance to win due to the random pairings and the low number of swiss rounds to allow them to recover from playing each other.
There's some more weirdness that can happen, like how a game plays out when the leading very good player meets the top average player and the average player only needs win or tie to be the highest scorer (This has happened in a few tourneys I've been to and it's a odd situation). Obviously all of the above doesn't always happens, but it can, and does. As I mentioned before, single-elimination corrects these issues, but introduces many other issues. That's all I'm saying, and with no salt added! 
Thraug. If buts maybes
Unlikely