ktom said:

I knew about the NFL but had to look up MLB.

MLB does in the sense they will swap home field advantage if the wild card makes it to the A/NLCS and has a better record than their opponent.

NHL does too?

ktom said:

Ya, I think the NFL does it that way. But I don't think MLB does since I think they "cut" directly to a "Top 4" in each league (I could be mistaken on MLB though, I havent paid attention to baseball in years).

For the record, I think you handled the situation fine Joey. My intent was just to shed light on some of the things that happened so that in the future, we are more prepared to deal with them. Had I been in the same situation, I would have done the same thing you did: Call in a group of veterans to figure out how to deal with it.

Not sure how anyone could have predicted a 3 way tie. Regardless, I think knowing how to handle it step by step in the future might save us some trouble. Lots of sports and competitions do have the tiebreakers broken down 9-10 steps in advance. Would it hurt us to do the same?

As for the reseeding: It happened. It didn't ruin the tourney. For that matter, neither did the groups that were choosing titles before resolving plots. I was just hoping for some consistency from here on out.

ktom said:

Yeah, the NFL and NHL reseed in their playoff tournaments. I mainly follow the NFL, so I figured most pro sports did this as well, but I was wrong. I feel like the tourney rules should be more clear about who plays who in the later rounds and if you should reseed or not, because it only mentions the preliminary rounds right now.

Look, I don't mean to be a pain here, but I think this calling for FFG to spoon-feed the organization of tournaments down to every improbably detail is a little ridiculous. Given how few tournament players really know the details of the tournament rules anyway, what is the real value? (For example, how many people are aware that strength of schedule is the second tie-breaker in AGoT tournaments, head-to-head being the first? Even people who are aware of the two tie breakers tend to apply them in reverse order.) They are far more complete than people give them credit for. (For example, they tell how to set up a bracket - which, by virtue of the meaning of the word "bracket" tells you not to re-seed.)

So I'm not sure that adding another 5 pages to the tournament rules to cover unlikely, improbable, and other rare possibilities is the way to go. FFG gives the TOs a great deal of discretion to deal with these kinds of issues as they arise - which is ultimately a much better solution (given the true stakes of an FFG tournament situation) than trying to anticipate every possible problem, writing down a solution that will be applicable under all circumstances, and leaving your TOs without the flexibility to do much of anything. All of this "it would be nice if we knew" is kind of baffling since no one would have played any differently if they had known beforehand how a 3-way tie for 7th and 8th place would be determined, or that the brackets would be re-seeded.

FFG's policy here is clear: they leave the TOs with enough flexibility to deal with these situations. THAT'S the clarity in the tourney rules. So if you really want to know, either ask the TO before the event how they're going to handle these situations, or become a TO and do the (volunteer) work and announce it.

ktom said:

Have to disagree here. FFG could be a LOT more explicit about some of their tournament procedures than they currently are and that would be FAR better for the game.

Since the move to LCG format, FFG has been seriously lagging behind the times on what they should be doing to promote their game and ensuring top quality tournament play. Some of that has to do with prize support (or seriously lack of) and some of that has to do with how much (or how little) effort they put into getting out the correct information and ensuring an organized tournament that doesn't leave anyone with weird feelings.

You seem to think that simply using the word "bracket" is enough for TOs to understand that means 'never re-seed'. Its really not. FFG could and should be far more explicit in their rules. It is hardly common knowledge that "bracket" in competitive tournament jargon ONLY means never re-seed. While I personally think that was obvious because the sports I follow (futbol/soccer, tennis, NCAA basketball) all do it that way, if someone like Crevic follows mostly NFL and NHL it is hardly a self-evident meaning. In such a competitive setting, irrespective of whether an individual like yourself thinks its obvious, FFG needs to explicitly operationally define what their words mean to avoid any misunderstanding. There are also a number of other things that FFG needs to be far more explicit about.

Its not about "spoon feeding". Its about ensuring that, as a company running a competitive game, that they do everything possible to ensure clear and transparent rules that everyone understands. They have not done so on several areas so far and this inefficient policy needs to be corrected.

Thank you for the support here ktom. I'm tired so i'll keep this short and simple. My decisions to re-seed were based on three things. One, FFG's rules don't explicitly say not to do so. Two, the sports I watch re-seed for playoffs. Three, Magic tournaments re-seed, and I used to be a Magic judge. As I've said, I've now found out I was in error and shouldn't have re-seeded. I won't re-seed in the future. But no, I dont think we need pages upon pages of rules how to do nine levels of tiebreakers. This isn't Magic. There's no pro tour. The biggest thing on the line in AGOT is a trophy and the right to design a card. Therefore, I think leaving it up to TO's discretion is more than enough of an explanation how to handle it at that point.

phoenixember said:

While I agree with you in intent, I don't like blanket statements on 'there is nothing at stake'. Obviously there is something, or people wouldn't do it, and we wouldn't have any formal rules on how to run them. The devil is in the details, at WHERE that line is drawn. Obviously people disagree at where that line is, but it is important to some people so let's not belittle their opinion by saying nothign is on the line…~that logic leads to CHAOS!!! (and not the kind that I can't find at Cons because he is with his girlfriend…oh, girlfriend burn!).

And LOL at Multiplayer rules…I can say nothing is on the line there with a straight face Secrecy of titles important! Giving games to your hometown 'opponent' not!

Another big issue we ran into in the Melee was players who dropped out after the first round. Players got less points for placing 2nd in a three-player game, and those point differences did affect the final table. I wish there were some kind of rule in place to prevent other players from being penalized for no fault of their own, all because of the unsportsmanlike conduct of a players refusing to continue because a game didn't go their way. I should state, however, that I do greatly sympathize with the guy who left because of the way the titles were distributed in some games.

The weird thing about secret title selection was that I and many others just went a long with it. Someone at our first table said that was how you do it, and I just assumed they were correct because I come from a fairly isolated meta, and figured folks at a regional event would just know better.

What really sucks is how much this affected my decision making process. When I had the new Greatjon and Arya out, they had cool abilities that keyed off of titles, and since my deck won initiative a lot, I was choosing to go second more often than not, since when the titles came to me I would be able to know exactly what the first player had picked and be able to work with that specific knowledge-- knowledge everyone would have had doing titles the normal way.

None of these issues seriously marred the enjoyability of the melee tourney, which was a lot of fun, a chance to meet great people, and an awesome opportunity to learn more about the game outside of the extremely small San Francisco meta I played with prior to my move.

jrichardf said:

Honestly, placing 2nd in a 3 person table as opposed to a 4 person table is only a difference of one point. 4 player table is 10/6/3/0 and 3 player table is 10/5/0.

I don't think that makes a huge difference in most cases. That being said, 3 player tables aren't usually fun to play at.

jrichardf said:

ktom said:

To be clear, KTom, phoenixember was not the TO for the melee. Additionally, due to the small number of entries, the TO was actually playing in the tournament. The TO had sat at tables with some of the people who were making people choose titles in stealth and I am under the impression that he did not stop this from happening.

This is all conjecture, but I am led to believe the TO was aware this was happening and did not rule against it. However, I haven't had a chance to ask him about it, so I am not completely sure.

My misunderstanding.

Still, the point is a good one. If in doubt, ask.

ktom said:

There is no like button on these forums, but if there was, I would have liked that post of yours.