In the 2 tournaments I've organised so far (casual ones, 6 players, 3 rounds, divide a battlepack with the winner getting first pick) i've run in a bit of a problem.

The first tournament, about a month after we got our core sets, was a Best of 3, 1hour and 15 minutes a round, which I thought was sufficient. (but since I tend to play fast and prefer more aggressive decks my view was a bit skewered)

Aggressive versus Aggressive an have best of 3 decided in half an hour, while Aggressive versus most Control decks should suffice within the timelimit but when a Control encounters another Control games can last over an hour. (when it did I ruled it counted for the complete round)

The second tournament I decided to let 1 game determine the round (I left it at 3 rounds because it leaves a clear winner) which led to some rounds being finished for certain players after a couple of minutes.

So i'm wondering which format/system/timetable/scoring system you use for casual tournaments?

Yeah, this game does have some issues with variability in playtime (though not the worst I've seen, which would be City of Heroes). In small, casual tournaments, I'd probably do 1-game/50-minute matches. People that finish early can just play extra games for fun. At large tournaments, I might even up it to an hour. I really don't think this game lends itself to best of three, since it just widens the gap between short matches and long matches. (2x 5 minutes = 10 minutes; 3x 40 minutes = 120 minutes!)

If you wanted to get more games into a tournament with a smaller number of players, you could have everyone bring a deck for each side.

I can see the points about how long the games can occasionally take but you could just call the games at 1 hour and the player with more damage tokens at the end of that time is the loser of the match.

I think it's imperative that Tournament games are best of 3. It's the only way to ensure a fair result - if you only play a single match, luck will be way too big of a factor. Just my opinion, of course.

If you play single-game 30-minute rounds instead of best-of-three 60-minute rounds, or 40 instead of 80, or whatever, then you get to play twice as many matches (or close to it) AND you have fewer matches that go to time. So, you lose your first game in a tournament. You can either start out at 0-1 with seven matches to play, or you can take a shot at winning two in a row against the deck that just beat you, and then have three matches to play. I know what I'd pick!

And, as I say, tripling the number of games but only doubling the time, you're banking on the players to shave time off the clock in three-game matches. Order-Order matchups are obviously the ones likely to go to time, so having timed wins punishes all Order players, since Destruction players will never be in an Order-Order matchup, where Order players will be in Order-Order matchups 50% of the time. This will result in a lot of grumbling Dwarf players, who feel cheated because their deck can never get full wins in three-game matches against Order (about 25% of their games).

All that said, I would be in favor of best-of-three in elimination situations (top 4/8/16). There, you can afford to have a lengthy round time like 90 or 120 minutes.

Actually I think I like this approach:

One game, 30 minutes. Order players SHOULD be able to do their thang in 30, and that doesn't give destro TOO much time to kill between matches...

Then just have multiple matches against players, even another pairing against the same person if needed, depending on time.

I mean what's the difference between 3 matches of 3 games, or 9 matches of 1 game? ... well I suppose in the latter it would take 4.5 hours at least, and in the former it would take 3 hours (assuming 1 hour matches) at least... Hmm... reconsidering my conclusions...

Some official guildelines would be nice at this point?

For the record, Order-Order matches were timing out at GenCon with an hour to play one game. I wasn't involved in any of them, so I don't know anything about the pace of play. And, admittedly, the game was new. Still, I think just a few extra minutes (over 30) would be a big help to Order players. And I just can't imagine a best-of-three format that gives Order-Order matches enough time (20 minutes per game is not it). I suppose you could just stipulate that Order-Order matces are one-game, and everything else is best-of-three, but that seems a bit odd.

I agree that some official word from FFG would be nice. They assured us at GC that they had "big plans" for the game and seemed to be including Organized Play. It's kind of sad that we don't even have a tourney format three battlepacks in.

I'm torn on this issue. The single game matches are fun in that you get to see more opponents. The best of 3 match system lets you learn the opponents deck so that you can change your course of action. I think that best of 3 requires more critical thinking skills, but could potentially deter a lot of people from tournament environments if their matches are finished in 10 minutes and then they have to wait for an hour.

Thanks for the responses, some interesting points where mentioned.

@ Darkdeal,

That's also one of my biggest problems with a 1 game round, I think it's important you get a change to know your opponents deck. I've had games I steamrolled an opposing player (or got steamrolled) while every subsequent game was a very close drawn out fight till the end(and memorable fun).

@cyberfunk,

It's also one of the options that crossed my mind (and most control deck matchups ended up being decided by one game due to time constraints) but like you said it would be very weird and imho uninjoyable rule. In addition it's not always order vs order who pose a problem, Dwarf rush (and empire) are viable and there are some DE/chaos sniping/control decks out there.

I'll concur that at this time it's mostly order vs order who runs out of time but when HE and DE enter the fray and the cardbase gets bigger all combinations/factions will get to go Aggressive or Control.

@vermillian,

The timetable is indeed an issue, and my preference goes out to best of 3, darkdeal worded it perfectly in that regard.

@wyfang,

more damage tokens can be a bit problematic.

For example, a burned zone with 2 developments

Does it count as 8 or 10 damage tokens? (it could be that the developments where played after the zone got burned in some cases you may even come across the situation that some of the developments where destroyed after it got burned)

I've been thinking about counting remaining hitpoints of zones, units in play and hammers and give the win to who got the most.

I think i'll try Best of 3, rounds of 1h15 min

If your first game isn't finished after one hour it becomes a deciding win (stalling might become a problem, but since it's among friends and rather casual this won't be a problem for now, I hope)

If it isn't finished in time 'points' are counted and decide the round.

If it is the second game that runs out of time 'points' get counted, if the player who won the first game wins he gets the win, if the other has the lead i'm not completly sure yet what i'll do call it a draw (1 point each, which can cause issues in determining rank in such a small tournament) or give 2 points to the guy who won the first game and 1 to the other.

The next tournament isn't until a month or so if anyone has any suggestions, comments.

Here is what I prefer - no single elimination matches, four rounds of swiss, single games, two best scores face off for a best of three. Each round except that final round has a 50 minute time limit, if it goes to time then it is a draw.

If games finish early have players bring a second deck to play while they wait.

Hi,

I tell you what we play in tournaments, since it's works fine at our gaming club.

- swiss system

- 1 hour rounds, goes for 2 match win

- round number determined by the number of players

- winner in a round gets 3 point, loser 0 point, in the case of a draw both player gets 1 point

If a match goes timeout it's a draw. No damage counting etc... since there are many cases that the player with less damage have a winning (or undecided) position. If one of the players have one win, while the other none when the time is up then he is the winner, every other case it is a draw.

By the way, maybe we are all have some routine, but even Empire vs. Dwarves won't go for one hour.

does anyone know if there is any official prize support for the game?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=889

beside that, not really I think.

Speak of the devil, they just posted the application if you want to run a Regional Championship event.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=1135

In the prize kit, alongside trophies and stuff, there's:

• A large “Regional Championship 2010”
banner to be displayed at the venue
• A special playmat for the winner of the
tournament
• An exclusive “Regional Champion” trophy
Capital board
• 4 Large 24”x36” uncut card sheets from a
recent expansion print run
• 4 Large glossy art prints
• 16 sets of Regional Championship-exclusive
Damage / Burning tokens for the first 16
registered players
• 4 cloisonne pins that will serve as invitations
to an exclusive invitational tournament at the
FFG Event Center in Roseville, MN. (Details
forthcoming)

Also, apparently there'll be a coupon in there for the winner that can be redeemed at GenCon Indy to get a refund on your badge in FFG product.

Not having played anything competitive in quite some time (other than HeroScape tournaments, which is a miniatures-based game and thus has its own unique needs), I'm super rusty and/or clueless on the various tournament formats. Can someone please CLEARLY and SIMPLY explain the variety of formats that can be used - assume I'm brand new to CCGs (which I'm not - but for the purposes of my question here please do so). Try to be thorough.

Swiss Format - How does this work? How many games would a player get even if he lost every game?

What are the other formats available to us?

Thanks for any answers...I get this stuff confused all the time since back when I played tourneys it was just best of 3 games, winner moves up the bracket, single or double elimination. Nothing fancy.

Swiss touraments are pretty much the standard for CCGs. They allow everyone to play the same number of games regardless of how well they perform. Parings in the first round are random; in every round after the first, you are paired against someone that 1) you haven't played who, and 2) has the same number of wins (or as close as possible). The winner of the tournament is the player with the most wins (or points if timed wins/draws are a factor). Alternatively, the Top 2, 4, 8, or 16 players will make the "cut" after the swiss rounds and play a number of elimination rounds.

In smaller events, Swiss often works as an elimination tournament for the purposes of establishing the winner. With 16 players, for example, there will be exactly one undefeated player after four rounds. However, a player may lose in the first round and still finish second in the tournament.

Best of Both Worlds - Order vs Destruction Tournament Format

An elegant solution to the speed deck vs build up deck problem is to have a tournament in which each player brings both an Order and a Destruction deck. Each round consists of two Order vs Destruction games, with players alternating sides.

The time limit should be around 1 hour or 1:15 per round.

Since this is a LCG, there is not a strong argument that players do not have the resources to construct two decks.

The key issue is scoring. Here is a first draft:

Winner gets 40 points

Loser gets 20 points for burning a zone plus one point for each damage on opposing capital.

Dr.Cornelius said:

I think this would be great for occasional events, but I don't think it would be good to make it the default tournament format. The obvious problem is that it produces a lot of ties, or forces you to rely on arbitrary tiebreakers that will shift the emphasis of the game. Under your example, if I win 40-0 in the first game (not unlikely for a rush deck), then I just have to get a couple of points on my opponent's capital in the second match and I can't lose. It would also be theoretically possible to get more than 40 points in a loss if a lot of developments were in play.

The other problem is that you can just ignore two of the four factions when building your deck. Maybe when the cardpool is larger this won't be as much of an issue, but right now it would tend to make decks much more similar.

Points are well taken. At this point I think the key challenge for designing a tournament format is the huge difference in the amount of time it takes to resolve a rush-rush matchup vs build-build matchup. Two rush armies can easily play 3 games in less than the time it takes for two build up armies (and we have not even seen many High Elves yet).

Order-Destruction matchup evens out the amount of time required, evens out any structural advantage held by fast or slow decks, and requires a player to demonstrate skill with two factions. Yes, there are disadvantages but I think the advantages make it more interesting than a typical "open" CCG tournament format.

Regarding scoring, and how to evaluate ties - for example, when each player wins as Destruction, I am open to ideas.

I've stated my preference, but in an attempt to further improve your version here are my thoughts.

Swiss with rankings for Order and Destruction so the best Order player and best Destruction player face off in a best 2out of 3 match for the finals.

or

Each player brings one deck for each side (Alliances welcome) and plays one game with each deck against every opponent with the best players for each squaring off against each other for 1st place overall. If the same player has the best ranking in both alignments then he wins without further play.

The biggest problem I see is that I can build a rushing Empire deck and a controlling Chaos deck and we still end up with a control deck against a control deck and a rush deck against a rush deck.

I feel strongly that best 2 out of 3 is just going to make some decks completely unfeasible if you require two game wins for someone to get the VP, and totally unfair if they don't. I can easily make a control deck that will get me one win within the time limit, and easily prevent my opponent from being able to win a second game by running out the clock, which means I can make it into the final round only ever having won half as many games as my matched opponent.

I get were people feel that 2/3 gets around lucky draws etc... but this game does a pretty good job of doing that, and swiss really goes a long way to ensuring even a lucky loss is not harshly judged against my standing, since strength of schedule will choose my future opponents.

You have exactly the same problem in Magic. There are plenty of ways to build control decks that are grindingly slow and often win 1-0.

The risk with playing a deck like that is losing game 1, when you are often screwed since you won't normally be able to win 2 in the rest of the round. You usually see the control decks having a bunch of fat monsters in their sideboard just for this eventuality. Personally, I have missed out on top 8 several times from playing control and having a draw instead of a win when playing against other control decks.

The primary way that the Magic tournament system deals with this issue is via points in the Swiss - 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. Compare with Chess, where it's straight up 1, 1/2, 0. This gives people an incentive to avoid playing very slow decks but not so much so that you just can't do it.

With competitive decks, I don't feel like the playtime of WH:I is all that different from Magic, honestly. Arbitrary Order/Destruction separation makes a bit of sense thematically (I guess) but I don't see a reason to do it for any tournament balance reasons. I've built slow Chaos decks and fast Empire decks, sooo....

I'm not a hug fan of the split myself (which is why I didn't suggest it in how I think Tournaments should go).

I just really dislike the 2/3 format and hate sideboarding. Build a balanced deck, and play it well. The mulligan can mitigate a lot fo the luck factor, and the game design really takes the piss out of just about every other luck issue. I can't think of a single time where I lost a set of games 2 to 1 where my opponent and his deck were not my equal, and it didn't boil down to a bad decision on my part. When I am better than my opponent, or my deck is, I just beat them far more often than not, 4 out of 5 games on average.

My honest opinion? Pulling no punches? Best 2/3 is more a psychological crutch, partially eliminating peoples ability to ***** about bad draws, and sideboards are the same encouraging players to build narrowly focused decks rather than requiring well rounded deck building. It is a card game. It happens. If you don't like it play chess.

Of course a lot of this has been me growing as a player. I cam from Magic (and a bunch of other games which more or less copied Magic's Tourney formats) to A Game of Thrones. Thrones there is no sideboard, you play one game a round. It became quickly evident that the increased control the game gives players, the additional strategic and tactical depth, and the do or die mentality to deck building and tournament play has created scores of well rounded decks with built in redundancies, based on card synergy more heavily than overpowered combos, and players who can pilot them beautifully. Sideboarding and multiple games per round just weren't necessary.

I see W:I as being at least as capable in this, if not significantly more so.