First off I want to say hello to everyone again, as I have been away for some time.
As I come back I think of last GenCon and how great it was playing with everyone.
But, if I had one complaint it would be with the 'championship' tournament.
150 pts. random draw to see how things fall.
So I'd like to see if we as a community could come up with a good format for this.

So ideas for round types, point build, pairing, qualifiers, I think it will help out the community.

IMO, I would like to see a mix of the main 100, 150, and 200 point builds.
And yes to do a best out of three for every round would be time consuming but I believe it shows the best of a player. I would like to see this worked down into a top 16. And then move to neutral locations.

A qualifier would be a nice addition, but I don't see it as crucial because it could deter new players to the community.

This is just a quick rundown of thoughts through my head that hopeful I will and everyone else can make more defined.

Dear god, one round only. We are lucky that as many games as they do get done under an hour. I don't see how you could do a best of three. It is impossible. Different "championships" with different point totals is one thing, but to mix it up for one championship is another. Match up and pairings are a factor in any tournament. I don't see how this year's championship was unfair at all.

That would create lost of chaos. After losing two games I think most regular opponents would want to drop.

I used to think that state/regional qualifiers would be a good idea. We only had 90ish players. With that number of players, we sure don't want to turn anyone away.

I'm not saying last years champ. was unfair, just saying it might have not been a true test of skill.

Yeah and the more I think about it three hours with one opponent would drain on a person and be less than fun.

So if there were 3 different championships.
What would be a good form for an overall champ.[/quote]

It sounds a lot like you are wanting something similiar to my Ironman tournament i ran last year locally. It was four rounds of 100, 150 and 200 with an overall victor being crowned.

I think it would be really cool to run Ironman at Gencon, but it would be another all day thing outside of the championship, which i dont think makes it feasible.

I don't see how a "best of three" matach is any more skill testing than a single match. With card games (Say magic or other games) there is a huge luck element, but with SWM you never don't "Draw the goods" as your entire squad is there and ready.

Sure, there are bad dice rolls, but dice rolls can only do so much. They don't add so much chance that it can't be overcome with good placement.

I'd be willing to wager that if there was a "Best of three" match system in SWM, much more than half of matchs would end with 2-0 scores, since I think there is not enough chance to compensate for bad matchups.

I'd be further willing to bet that the matches that go 2-1 will have the winner of the match be the winner of the first game (Because of the significant role that map choice has, and assuming that map choice in a best of three is given to the loser)

Just my thoughts on why I think best of three isn't for a miniatures game (regardless of the Time factor)

Matchups, map rolls, and a bit of luck are always going to play a large part no matter how you try to mix it up. The differentiation in skill level among the top 30 players or so is just too small to be accurately determined. Any of them could win on any given day if they get good matchups and the dice don't fail them horribly at a critical moment.

Point in case, I lost my semi-final game to DrDivot SIMPLY because of dice rolls. There are about 5 different chances at the end of the game where I could've won, but I failed to roll higher than the 7 that I needed, or he managed to make his last Deflect save. On the other hand, I happened to narrowly win initiative in an earlier round which let my Boba BH kill his Boba BH. If he'd won that one, it would've gone the other way. Luck of the dice is always going to factor into the game. I honestly felt like DrDivot was a good match up against me strategically, and like Nickname said the skill level difference was so small, there's probably no real way to set us apart (except for his brilliance in squad/map choice for the tourney). Playing three games would not have tested our skills any better than one game did, just would've given more chances for the dice to randomly decide who it wanted to win.

Exactly.

In my case it was a Disintegration on EMR131's undamaged Vader with mere minutes to play that pushed me luckily to 4-1 and my Ewok and Gran losing the Gambit fight with WedgeIkari's lone Ewok that unluckily dropped me to 4-2. I don't think a serious tactical error was made by either player in either game (though every game has its minor mistakes.)

After 3 rounds to weed out the terribly unlucky, lesser skilled, or good players who brought subpar squads, there's not a lot left to decide games.

Spenc I will take you up on the three rounds any Tuesday you want to do it.

I really don't think that there needs to be a qualifier. Let's look at our LGS for example and say that it represents the Lafayette region.

Sam (age 12 or 13)propably wouldn't qualify, because he would have to better than Caleb, Chris, you, and I. Not to mention Rob, Dave, and nathan. Should a player not be qualified to go because he or she plays in an area where there are several good players? I don't think so. Sam should be able to go down to Indy and set across the table from anybody and play and see where the dice roll. Knowing Sam's luck and his favorite squad things would go his way, but you see what I am getting at right?

Another example of this is the players across the pond that came over to play. Maybe they aren't the best in there area, but they have the cash and time to come to the Con. If they weren't qualified, they wouldn't be able to play?


I think the Ironman event would be good for Friday at Gencon. Last year I decided not to play the tournament for the Ipod, because for startes my gaming moey wouldn't stretch that far and the prize was an Ipod. Thanks but I already got one, why do I need another?

For the most part, this is completely true. While I would love qualifyers, I can live with it as is, especially if we do it as a two day event this year and be perfectly happy about it (2nd day only for top .

My two loses, one was to Dr. Divot, which basically could have gone either way with some inits, or side roll changed. But there was no need for 3 games for that one, we were both equally skilled.

In my finals game, I absolutely would have loved to have had 2 more chances. Heck, I lost by one point on his map, after losing set up roll, and Han missed a ton of shots. Give me two more games in that one, and I likely win both.

With that said, I was more than happy to have it decided by one game. Just as I lost due to some untimely factors, there is no guarantee that I win that game 2 more times either. I am perfectly happy with a one game deal.

And certainly, there were other games I had that could have gone another way given a 3 game deal that I won, so I am sure it all pretty much equals out. Perhaps the finals could be a best of 3, but even then, that doesnt really change a whole lot.