I'm eager to organize a local tournament, still no official rules from FFG. So i asked to stores that already hosted one and came up with some ideas about the format. Now i'd like to have some from you, guys!

Paired Swiss format.
8 or less players: 3 rounds, no cut
9-12 players: 4 rounds, top 2 cut
13-16 players: 4 rounds, top 4 cut
17+ players: 5 rounds, top 4 cut

TIME:
Swiss Round: 35/45 minutes (one match)?

So it will end up with first match played and second one gone to time...

Single Elimination Rounds (except Final): 45 minutes each (one match)
Final Single Elimination Round: unlimited time (3 matches)

Going to time.
When game time ends, players plays until upkeep phase (no need to resolve it, both must just pass).
Who is the winner when time goes up?
1) Most characters' kills.
2) Most damage on characters.
3) Most cards in deck+hand.
4) Battlefield control.

Points system
Win = 5 points
Modified Win (timed) = 3/4 points?
Loss = 0 points

Tiebreakers for pairings (like AGOT or ANR)
1) Points
2) SoS (Strenght of Schedule)
3) ExtSoS (Extended Strenght of Schedule)
4) Random

wow 9-12 player cut top 2????

13-16 cut to top 4??????

Maybe I am MTG driven but man 9-12 should be min cut top 4 or even 6.

13-16 honestly should be mandated cut to top 8.

Nothing against you but I wouldnt play in a tourney that had that low of a cut to top.

Here are a couple of thoughts on this section...

" Going to time .
When game time ends , players plays until upkeep phase ( no need to resolve it , both must just pass ).
Who is the winner when time goes up ?
1 ) Most characters ' kills.
2) Most damage on characters.
3) Most cards in deck+hand.
4) Battlefield control."

The game has two victory conditions, with decks usually being built to pursue one or the other. Let's say I have an mill deck. Let's say my opponent has killed one of my three characters, but only has one card left in his hand and no cards in his deck when the buzzer sounds. I'm almost certainly going to win if we go another round. As such, suggestions 1 and 2 above give a false winner. On the flip side, most cards in deck + hand is a bad indicator because you could have a situation where player A has 2 out of 3 characters remaining and player B has 1 character with 1 health, but wins because he/she has a few extra cards in his hand or deck. Again, you get a false winner. Battlefield control is wonky. If I know we're coming up on time, I'll just stall while I "think about what I'm going to do" and then claim the battlefield and "think about what I'm going to do" again while the clock runs out. It would be really easy to guarantee a win by stalling for time and then claiming at the end.

Here's my thought...

Add up the number of remaining cards in your hand + in your deck. This number will be somewhere from 1 to 30. Also, add up the remaining points value of your remaining characters. This number will be somewhere from 7 to 30. Add both numbers together and compare the values. Higher number wins. Assuming a tie, flip a coin.

I think my idea allows both mill and aggro decks a chance to win in an out of time situation.

Here are a couple of thoughts on this section...

"Going to time.

When game time ends, players plays until upkeep phase (no need to resolve it, both must just pass).

Who is the winner when time goes up?

1) Most characters' kills.

2) Most damage on characters.

3) Most cards in deck+hand.

4) Battlefield control."

The game has two victory conditions, with decks usually being built to pursue one or the other. Let's say I have an mill deck. Let's say my opponent has killed one of my three characters, but only has one card left in his hand and no cards in his deck when the buzzer sounds. I'm almost certainly going to win if we go another round. As such, suggestions 1 and 2 above give a false winner. On the flip side, most cards in deck + hand is a bad indicator because you could have a situation where player A has 2 out of 3 characters remaining and player B has 1 character with 1 health, but wins because he/she has a few extra cards in his hand or deck. Again, you get a false winner. Battlefield control is wonky. If I know we're coming up on time, I'll just stall while I "think about what I'm going to do" and then claim the battlefield and "think about what I'm going to do" again while the clock runs out. It would be really easy to guarantee a win by stalling for time and then claiming at the end.

Here's my thought...

Add up the number of remaining cards in your hand + in your deck. This number will be somewhere from 1 to 30. Also, add up the remaining points value of your remaining characters. This number will be somewhere from 7 to 30. Add both numbers together and compare the values. Higher number wins. Assuming a tie, flip a coin.

I think my idea allows both mill and aggro decks a chance to win in an out of time situation.

Or just let the match be a draw?

Or just let the match be a draw?

wow 9-12 player cut top 2????

13-16 cut to top 4??????

Maybe I am MTG driven but man 9-12 should be min cut top 4 or even 6.

13-16 honestly should be mandated cut to top 8.

Nothing against you but I wouldnt play in a tourney that had that low of a cut to top.

Add up the number of remaining cards in your hand + in your deck. This number will be somewhere from 1 to 30. Also, add up the remaining points value of your remaining characters. This number will be somewhere from 7 to 30. Add both numbers together and compare the values. Higher number wins. Assuming a tie, flip a coin.

I think my idea allows both mill and aggro decks a chance to win in an out of time situation.

wow 9-12 player cut top 2????

13-16 cut to top 4??????

Maybe I am MTG driven but man 9-12 should be min cut top 4 or even 6.

13-16 honestly should be mandated cut to top 8.

Nothing against you but I wouldnt play in a tourney that had that low of a cut to top.

Totally disagree.

13-16 = 8 Cut? are you mad? So 50%+ makes the cut? why? that's not even logical. If you aren't in at least the upper 65%, you have no business in a cut unless the numbers are just weird.

I do think the OP's numbers need to be adjusted a bit, but they aren't far off imo.

if you engineer your cuts to float around the 25-33% of the field range, I think it's fine.

So something like:

2-8, 2 person Cut (or no cut)

9-16 4 person cut

17-32, 8 Cut

etc.

You could just follow the SWLCG/AGoT2.0 cut brackets from their tourney rules and probably be okay as well, they are similar. Not perfect, but I'd expect that's where FFG will start (if nothing else)

Going to time is definitely an issue in Destiny. Not a lot of clean ways to do it in my opinion. May have to just let it be a draw unless players can agree to an outcome and make a draw worth less points.

If you try to muck with some sort of point system, it is likely that you will have to go through several iterations to get it just right so you can't game the system a bit, especially because mill is a thing but you also don't want to over-penalize for just simply drawing more cards. It's a fine line.

Or just let the match be a draw?

It will be unfair in those matches where a player is almost winning but time went up. And it will encourage stalls.

Almost winning isn't the same as winning.

Having any type of tie-breaker discourages certain strategies or encourages only certain strategies. If it's based on points left, you're encouraged to play exactly 30 points. If it's based on health, you're encouraged to the most health possible. Etc. Etc.

Stalling is bad sportsmanship and shouldn't be tolerated and should have rules in place to discourage it.

Why is everyone even talking about cuts? There is no point for them, in such a small tournament, unless there is some crazy prize. They only make the tournament longer, potentially having people re-vs each other, and exclude people. I don't see any up side to that in a small tournament.

Other FF miniature games don't end in draws because they take so long to play, they need to limit rounds to a time to even make tournaments possible. Draws are acceptable in destiny,as you are potentially playing more rounds. If so many games are ending in ties, increase the time limit by 5 minutes.

wow 9-12 player cut top 2????

13-16 cut to top 4??????

Maybe I am MTG driven but man 9-12 should be min cut top 4 or even 6.

13-16 honestly should be mandated cut to top 8.

Nothing against you but I wouldnt play in a tourney that had that low of a cut to top.

Totally disagree.

13-16 = 8 Cut? are you mad? So 50%+ makes the cut? why? that's not even logical. If you aren't in at least the upper 65%, you have no business in a cut unless the numbers are just weird.

I do think the OP's numbers need to be adjusted a bit, but they aren't far off imo.

if you engineer your cuts to float around the 25-33% of the field range, I think it's fine.

So something like:

2-8, 2 person Cut (or no cut)

9-16 4 person cut

17-32, 8 Cut

etc.

You could just follow the SWLCG/AGoT2.0 cut brackets from their tourney rules and probably be okay as well, they are similar. Not perfect, but I'd expect that's where FFG will start (if nothing else)

Going to time is definitely an issue in Destiny. Not a lot of clean ways to do it in my opinion. May have to just let it be a draw unless players can agree to an outcome and make a draw worth less points.

If you try to muck with some sort of point system, it is likely that you will have to go through several iterations to get it just right so you can't game the system a bit, especially because mill is a thing but you also don't want to over-penalize for just simply drawing more cards. It's a fine line.

Like I stated maybe I am used to MTG rules. Even the old Decipher days of SWG CCG it was this way. Decipher made sure that us tournament judges did a min 8 players top cut 4. Anything Higher than 12 it was an auto cut to top 8. The only time it was higher than a cut of 8 is if the tournament have 64+ players. It was the same rules when we ran the Young Jedi tournaments. 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 it depended on player base.

The top cut players have a 50-60% chance to play somebody they either beat or lost to from the previous rounds.

Cut to top 2 only ensure the only 2 undefeated players play it out. Lose 1 you might as well drop and go home. If you are all worried about time then it's a 50 minute period. Tie is a tie draw is a draw. Just have to factor in tie breakers.

KISS....

I would go with W/L/D with MOV, being the health left on the teams at the end of the game.

So if I win with 4 wounds left on Jabba, I score a win and a MOV of 4 for tie breaks. My opponent scores a loss with 0 MOV as he had no health left.

Swiss pairings. Anything under 32 players doesn't need a cut at all, just pay out based on record. Seriously, all this talk about cut to top 4, top 8 etc. for a small event with moderate but fair prize support is a ridiculous waste of time.

The the only results that should exist are win/lose/draw - none of this modified win / health/cards left nonsense. If you can't win the game in the scheduled match time, you didn't win. If people are stalling, call a judge. If the majority of players can't finish their matches in a reasonable time, then they need to learn to play faster and/or round times need to be adjusted.

When time is called, finish the round. The game ends at the end of the round, after the upkeep phase.

If a match is a single game, the round time should probably be 30-40 minutes. If playing best of 3 games, the number needs to go up (probably to 60-75 minutes). Round time is likely going to be wrong a few times before it is right - it'll take a little time to iron out what the right duration is for a round. Assume that all rounds will have roughly 15 minutes of added time to account for games going to time, inputting final results and printing pairings, and getting people to their next match, meaning roughly 45m-1 hour per round for single-game matches and about 1.5 hours for best of 3.

KISS....

I would go with W/L/D with MOV, being the health left on the teams at the end of the game.

So if I win with 4 wounds left on Jabba, I score a win and a MOV of 4 for tie breaks. My opponent scores a loss with 0 MOV as he had no health left.

Health left on the teams at the end of the game isn't a good indicator because it only covers one of the two win conditions. I could see health left on the teams PLUS cards left in hand/deck. Your solution means that mill decks lose every tie, even if they would might win given another few actions.

The the only results that should exist are win/lose/draw - none of this modified win / health/cards left nonsense. If you can't win the game in the scheduled match time, you didn't win. If people are stalling, call a judge. If the majority of players can't finish their matches in a reasonable time, then they need to learn to play faster and/or round times need to be adjusted.

Yep, that's the best way to do it IMO and how I hope FFG does it when they release tournament guidelines.

Maybe try a chess clock? Whoever runs out of time, loses. The "I go, you go" structure of the game should make it relatively easy to implement.

KISS....

I would go with W/L/D with MOV, being the health left on the teams at the end of the game.

So if I win with 4 wounds left on Jabba, I score a win and a MOV of 4 for tie breaks. My opponent scores a loss with 0 MOV as he had no health left.

Health left on the teams at the end of the game isn't a good indicator because it only covers one of the two win conditions. I could see health left on the teams PLUS cards left in hand/deck. Your solution means that mill decks lose every tie, even if they would might win given another few actions.

Or you better win if you play Mill.

KISS....

I would go with W/L/D with MOV, being the health left on the teams at the end of the game.

So if I win with 4 wounds left on Jabba, I score a win and a MOV of 4 for tie breaks. My opponent scores a loss with 0 MOV as he had no health left.

Health left on the teams at the end of the game isn't a good indicator because it only covers one of the two win conditions. I could see health left on the teams PLUS cards left in hand/deck. Your solution means that mill decks lose every tie, even if they would might win given another few actions.

Or you better win if you play Mill.

Or just allow draws then everyone would need to be playing for the win...

Maybe try a chess clock? Whoever runs out of time, loses. The "I go, you go" structure of the game should make it relatively easy to implement.

A card like All In that allows you to resolve multiple dice would make the clock think that you were stalling. Chess clocks work well because moving a piece is moving a piece. In destiny, it takes more time to mechanically complete different actions.

Maybe try a chess clock? Whoever runs out of time, loses. The "I go, you go" structure of the game should make it relatively easy to implement.

A card like All In that allows you to resolve multiple dice would make the clock think that you were stalling. Chess clocks work well because moving a piece is moving a piece. In destiny, it takes more time to mechanically complete different actions.

I meant the simplest time control, i.e. each player is given xx minutes on the clock for the entire game. Stalling is simply impossible.

If I understand correctly, you were thinking of some kind of "each player gets xx minutes for yy turns", which obviously wouldn't work for Destiny - not only for the reasons you mention, but also because some effects/abilities force you to make decisions on opponent's turn.

Until we know the number of rounds, the number of games per round and the time allocation, how would you assume that we need chess clocks?

For that matter why would I assume their are draws.

Until we know the number of rounds, the number of games per round and the time allocation, how would you assume that we need chess clocks?

For that matter why would I assume their are draws.

I honestly have no idea what your point is - I'm simply replying with a suggestion to OP's post.