44 replies to this topic

[Pipes]

Hello A Game of Thrones: The Card Game community-

 

Recently, we've received a number of concerned messages from members of the AGoT community regarding the new tournament rules. 

 

We want to make a clarification to the article posted on our website: the rules detailed in the Tournament Rules document are *only* applicable to tournaments at the Store Championship level and below. There will be a separate tournament rules document which governs higher-level tournaments (Regional Championships and above). Our purpose in making these changes to the Store Championships rules is to foster a more accessible environment that encourages new players to attend Store Championships and grows the AGoT competitive community.

 

We apologize for the miscommunication that caused this misunderstanding. We will be issuing a clarification article shortly that will contain more information on the matter. 

 

Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions!

 

Evan Johnson

Marketing Coordinator

Fantasy Flight Games

[istaril]

I'm extremely relieved to hear that our outcry was heard, and I look forward to hearing more about this.

 

I remain a bit puzzled though; aside from having a different structure from SCs to Worlds - which seems a bit peculiar given previous statements by O.P. trying to unify their structure...  Well, I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a break in form. 

 

However, surely if the goal is to make SCs more accessible, if anything they should be made 'more' forgiving (larger cuts) or include more games (since, with smaller attendance levels, they're less likely to run too long)? Is the perception that people will not travel for SCs (so shorter game times are preferred), but will for Regionals? I'm curious as to how this all links to (on average) decreasing the number of swiss rounds/cut size, and the stated goal of "increasing the emphasis on tiebreakers"

[Pipes]

I'm extremely relieved to hear that our outcry was heard, and I look forward to hearing more about this.

 

I remain a bit puzzled though; aside from having a different structure from SCs to Worlds - which seems a bit peculiar given previous statements by O.P. trying to unify their structure...  Well, I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a break in form. 

 

However, surely if the goal is to make SCs more accessible, if anything they should be made 'more' forgiving (larger cuts) or include more games (since, with smaller attendance levels, they're less likely to run too long)? Is the perception that people will not travel for SCs (so shorter game times are preferred), but will for Regionals? I'm curious as to how this all links to (on average) decreasing the number of swiss rounds/cut size, and the stated goal of "increasing the emphasis on tiebreakers"

 

These questions should be answered in the upcoming post on our website!

 

Thanks, 

Evan

[LaurenF]

The document says "The suggested number of Swiss rounds for a competitive-level A Game of Thrones: The Card Game tournament are outlined below." Am I allowed to use a different round/cut structure? Is there any penalty if I do?

[LaurenF]

Sorry, double-post.

[SeanBecker]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to reply and clarify this. Engaging the angry mob is never a fun and it says a lot that you would do it.

 

I still do not like these ruling even when it comes to smaller events like store championships. I dislike any system that turns a tournament into a one and done affair. The game is random enough that you can loose a game to a bad set up or a really bad draw. I would prefer a double elim, or a swiss with a more generous cut. If I am TOing, can I run a tourney without fear of me or my store having repercussions? 

[Pipes]

The document says "The suggested number of Swiss rounds for a competitive-level A Game of Thrones: The Card Game tournament are outlined below." Am I allowed to use a different round/cut structure? Is there any penalty if I do?

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to reply and clarify this. Engaging the angry mob is never a fun and it says a lot that you would do it.

 

I still do not like these ruling even when it comes to smaller events like store championships. I dislike any system that turns a tournament into a one and done affair. The game is random enough that you can loose a game to a bad set up or a really bad draw. I would prefer a double elim, or a swiss with a more generous cut. If I am TOing, can I run a tourney without fear of me or my store having repercussions? 

 

The info sheet included with Store Championship kits states that the tournament structure must follow the Tournament Rules for Store Championships. If you're running a non-Store Championship tournament, the Tournament Rules provide a recommended structure, but you can choose to run your tournament any way you please. 

 

Hopefully that answers your questions!

[JCWamma]

Thanks for the post Evan, I for one appreciate the clarification, and I'm relieved this doesn't apply to anything about store championship level.

 

That said, this explanatory post on the ffg site had better be pretty good! Otherwise I still have absolutely no idea why this system is being employed for SCs, for all the reasons previously outlined. I await the article eagerly...

[BullroarerTook]

Has there ever really been a store championship with more than 148 players?

[Scottie]

I'm very confused as to why the two games which offer a clear match result, shorter round time, and more predictable player rankings (AGOT and 40k) had thier event structure even more altered the the other two games (SW and Netrunner).

In SW the Cut now kicks in at 13 players which avoids the always annoying 9 or 10 (or 17-18) man event which forces another round of what ends up being meaningless swiss because the top cut is almost half the field. Because both the rounds and double elimination cut take longer those common sized events were just needlessly drawn out.

But AGOT and 40k are much quicker events to run, so why do they have the even more abritivated round structure?

[scantrell24]

I still do not like these ruling even when it comes to smaller events like store championships. I dislike any system that turns a tournament into a one and done affair. The game is random enough that you can loose a game to a bad set up or a really bad draw. I would prefer a double elim, or a swiss with a more generous cut. 

 

+1. So few round with no cut makes zero sense. Who wants to play in a single elimination tournament?

[MightyToenail]

There's only one solution to this guys...

Round Robin.

Everyone plays everyone.

Sure, it might last a couple of days...

Maybe weeks with SW...

But who wouldn't want to play 147 games with the same deck in a row!




























Alright fine, that's a bad idea.

[Masterdinadan]

I like shorter tournaments. Going 5 rounds at wasteland was exhausting when it became clear I wasn't going to make the cut anyway (and if I had made the cut, I might have been annoyed to have to play two more games anyway)

I feel like casual and store level tournaments should not be all-day affairs. "Casual" players do not usually play seven games back to back.

If you finish the tournament fast and want more thrones, play more thrones. But don't hold the entire list of participants to a larger time commitment than necessary.

[Khudzlin]

I'm pretty sure most of the newbie players at the game night in my FLGS do play at least 3 games back to back, and perhaps 5 or more, depending on the time they arrive. In game night tournaments (which newbie players also attend), we play 4 rounds (due to time constraints) and no one has ever complained about playing too many games (in fact, players are likely to play extra games if theirs ended fast). Also, 5 rounds take about 5 hours, so it's not a full day by far, unless you're adding the cut.

[darkbladecb]

I like shorter tournaments. Going 5 rounds at wasteland was exhausting when it became clear I wasn't going to make the cut anyway (and if I had made the cut, I might have been annoyed to have to play two more games anyway)

I feel like casual and store level tournaments should not be all-day affairs. "Casual" players do not usually play seven games back to back.

If you finish the tournament fast and want more thrones, play more thrones. But don't hold the entire list of participants to a larger time commitment than necessary.

 

I disagree, because tournaments are events, and I want them to feel like it. If you're just playing three games and going home, it's not very different from the casual game night. Most of the people I play with aren't there for the boxes or whatever swag is there. They're going to hang out with the friends they've made at years of Thrones (or to meet new people that share their love for the great game) and to challenge themselves in a special game day with more rigor and excitement than the usual fair. Obviously, if there are 8 or fewer people there's not much you can do, but if sixteen or so people show up we want to do more than just play four rounds. If a cut is only to top four, people will often stay to support their friends and to watch and get better at Thrones. People are more likely to do that (stay and watch and engage in the community) when the event feels like, well, an EVENT.

 

That's my biggest disappointment with the rule changes. Smaller tournaments are made to feel like fairly inconsequential gatherings that might as well be had on a weekly game night, as they're nothing special.

[Venryk]

I like shorter tournaments. Going 5 rounds at wasteland was exhausting when it became clear I wasn't going to make the cut anyway (and if I had made the cut, I might have been annoyed to have to play two more games anyway)

I feel like casual and store level tournaments should not be all-day affairs. "Casual" players do not usually play seven games back to back.

If you finish the tournament fast and want more thrones, play more thrones. But don't hold the entire list of participants to a larger time commitment than necessary.

 

Five rounds was not necessary. Four would have worked but a top cut was necessary. 

[bluebird503]

@Pipes @LaurenF 

 

The document says "The suggested number of Swiss rounds for a competitive-level A Game of Thrones: The Card Game tournament are outlined below." Am I allowed to use a different round/cut structure? Is there any penalty if I do?

 

Ive seen the netrunner SC handout and it says "please follow the tournament rules" it doesn't say you must. At least, that is how I understand the language.

 

Here is what it says: http://k60i.imgup.net/rules248f.png

 

 

I am extremely disappointed that these are being suggested for store champs. Maybe that is selfish of me to want big events, but we have had a long time off since regional season, I'm ready to start playing your game! I planned to travel 2+ hours on my way 5+ store champs in Seattle, just like I did last year. Had so much fun last store champ season, but I don't want to travel for less swiss rounds, chance of being eliminated with 1 loss.  The new Netrunner rules are also meh. . 

[Stormborn]

I think the suggested format for Store Championships and local tournaments is fine. Am I the only person who feels like this?

Here's some disclaimers: I live in A big city and I have access to casual games nearly 3 times a week, there are winter championships and Store championships somewhere every weekend within 90mins of where I live for the next 3 months. I'm new to AGOT but I have played other games competitively (travelling abroad) but I don't think I've played in tournaments with over 35 players ever.

I went to a Winter tournament last month and there were 14 participants. We had 5 rounds of Swiss and no cut. After 4 rounds there was one undefeated player and he was guaranteed to win the tournament even if he lost his last game because then 3 people would be 4-1 and he would have the best SoS.

It seems in this case that it would have been better to have 4 rounds and one undefeated winner.

I lost the first round but no big deal as there were prizes that I could still win if I could come in the top 6, also I enjoy playing the game and meeting new people so I wasn't too bothered that I couldn't win the tournament. Also I played a casual game after the tournament, if people want to play more, there is always this option.

[PulseGlazer]

I think the suggested format for Store Championships and local tournaments is fine. Am I the only person who feels like this?

Here's some disclaimers: I live in A big city and I have access to casual games nearly 3 times a week, there are winter championships and Store championships somewhere every weekend within 90mins of where I live for the next 3 months. I'm new to AGOT but I have played other games competitively (travelling abroad) but I don't think I've played in tournaments with over 35 players ever.

I went to a Winter tournament last month and there were 14 participants. We had 5 rounds of Swiss and no cut. After 4 rounds there was one undefeated player and he was guaranteed to win the tournament even if he lost his last game because then 3 people would be 4-1 and he would have the best SoS.

It seems in this case that it would have been better to have 4 rounds and one undefeated winner.

I lost the first round but no big deal as there were prizes that I could still win if I could come in the top 6, also I enjoy playing the game and meeting new people so I wasn't too bothered that I couldn't win the tournament. Also I played a casual game after the tournament, if people want to play more, there is always this option.

Great, so imagine getting to play only on octgn and having to drive 3 hours for a tournament. Might that change your opinion? I.e. don't be selfish.

[steinerp]

I'm disappointed that it appears these are going from suggestions to requirements for store champs.  Hopefully that doesn't happen.  If it does, I'll just create some side event