Tournament Rules?

[XCoconutMonkey06x]

Good points, Germ. Never really thought about it from that angle. Could always end a tie in a good ol' fashion session of wrist wrasslin'!

[XCoconutMonkey06x]

So I thought about this some more last night. I'm starting to think that there really isn't a valid solution to tie breaking. I'm going to base that off 2 other systems I've played in tournaments in.

First is Warhammer. Rules for Warhammer clearly state that in order to win, you have to achieve "X" amount of victory points more than your opponent which vary depending on the point size of the armies participating. They include a cross referencing chart to further determine whether that equates to a minor victory, major victory, massacre, and even a draw if the differential is marginal at best. So their rules clearly state that a draw (and will occasionally) happen and have built their victory conditions around it. Granted, some Warhammer tournament organizers have taken steps to streamline the victory process by pushing scoring to a Win/Loss/Draw point scale and introduce scenarios that will grant a certain amount of bonus victory points for achieving but in the end, it's all about the VP's and the associated chart.

Second is Magic: The Gathering. Their rules clearly state that the only way to achieve victory is to reduce your opponent's life total to 0. If you are unable to do so in the time allotted, the game is considered a draw because there are no alternatives in the rules to allow for any other type of victory. The ONLY way to win is to kill your opponent. Plain and simple.

Summoner Wars is the same way. It's listed in the rules that the ONLY way to win is to kill your opponent's summoner. To try and come up with a way to tie-break will basically re-write that rule. It will also add a new element on how to win the game thus adding a secondary strategy. So one could play not to kill the other summoner any more but to achieve the tie-breaking factor so that when time is called, they have the win. It introduces 2 victory conditions over the currently printed 1.

That being said, the only option I can come up with to aleviate any sort of influx of ties in a tournament setting (although with the speed at which this game is played, I wouldn't really think there would be that many ties) is to steal a bit from games like Space Hulk and Blood Bowl and have timed turns. This will force the players to think fast and think actively. That and you'll know exactly when everyone will be finished, lol

[Truth]

You may be right. I don't think we can expect all tourney runners to have separate timing devices for each table though... that might be asking too much.

Even though the game plays quickly, I think 1 hr. time allotments will still see some players unfinished. Some people will think long and hard when making their moves in a tournament situation.

The best one offered thus far may be wounds on opponent's Summoner... but even that has flaws, because wounds are a bigger deal on some Summoners than they are on others. So back to my original suggestion of life points remaining on a Summoner. But that has its own flaws of certain Summoners starting at a disadvantage.

Maybe Tournament rules could detail how many points a wound on each Summoner is worth. Maybe there is a formula for figuring it out. Take a possible 10 points for killing an opponent's Summoner and divide that 10 points by the number of life points that Summoner starts with. That is the number of points each wound on that Summoner is worth. The player with the most points at the end wins. There is some room for ties, but less than if we don't have some sort of point system.

For example a wound on Prince Elien would be worth: 2.5 points
Whereas a wound on Grognack would only be worth: 1.4 points

Thoughts?

[SupaGerm]

To simplify your points concept, Truth, How about a straight percentage of wounds?

If I do 2 wounds on Elien, I am 50% of the way to killing him (2/4), but if I do 2 wounds on Grognack, I am only 33% percent of the way to killing him (2/6).

50 beats 33.

Here is how it breaks down (# wounds, then percent to death):

Elien
1 25%
2 50%
3 75%
4 dead

Grognack/Oldin
1 17%
2 33%
3 50%
4 67%
5 83%
6 dead

Sneeks
1 14%
2 29%
3 43%
4 57%
5 71%
6 86%
7 dead

The only overlaps are 50% to death, and Oldin vs. Grognack

[Goblin King]

Personally, I think that a good idea is to keep track of the points that you kill. If you kill a berserker, you get 2 points, or kill Krung you get 8. There has been raised the problem with the Goblin's Fighters and Slingers, however, I think that we can classify them as 1/2 points (They do get things done, but are less useful than say an orc fighter).

This would have the players have a total at time out, and the one who has more points is the victor.

If there is still a tie, have a next kill wins scenario, or use super germ's idea and see how many wounds each person has given to the summoner (33%, 50% etc.)

Goblin King

[rickert]

I think what to do with ties depends on the tournament structure. If you are playing round-robin and giving points, then ties aren't such a bad thing. I would favor something like four points for a win and one point for a loss and for a tie. I just like the idea that the person losing has nothing to gain from playing for a tie other than if they really want to mess up the other person's chances to win.

Then after a certain number of rounds if you cut to a final 2 or final 4, but at that point some type of tide-breaker would probably be necessary. But if you don't want that drama you could end the tournament after the rounds and then you wouldn't need a game tie-breaker but you would need a tournament tie-breaker, like perhaps the strength of the opponents the players defeated.

[XCoconutMonkey06x]

I'm still just wary of things that alter the win objective. By providing an alternate win objective (the tie-breaker), it could lead to players playing certain armies that play to that sole strength. For example, if you scored points for kills, one would tend to stray away from Goblins and probably more towards Dwarfs. Then they could work soley on a defensive strategy and eek out the win via kill points.

There has to be an alternative way that doesn't endanger the current game mechanics. Of the solutions present, I would put my vote with the Summoner wounds left percentage. It's a little wonky at first glance (seems daunting with all those numbers) but it's probably the best representation.

[rickert]

Originally Posted by XCoconutMonkey06x

I'm still just wary of things that alter the win objective. By providing an alternate win objective (the tie-breaker), it could lead to players playing certain armies that play to that sole strength. For example, if you scored points for kills, one would tend to stray away from Goblins and probably more towards Dwarfs. Then they could work soley on a defensive strategy and eek out the win via kill points.

There has to be an alternative way that doesn't endanger the current game mechanics. Of the solutions present, I would put my vote with the Summoner wounds left percentage. It's a little wonky at first glance (seems daunting with all those numbers) but it's probably the best representation.

I admire your optimism but I don't think it's safe to assume there has to be a better tie-break system. Warlord has been around for years and years and there's still not a good tie-break that doesn't give an advantage to one faction over another or one playstyle over another.

[Retlaw]

How about: rock paper scissors lizard spock?

• No points to count or keep track of
• Doesn't change the stategy of the game
• Doesn't favor one faction over another
• Doesn't favor one type of game play over another
• Quickly breaks ties
• And is completely unrelated to the status of the game when time runs out

[Truth]

I don't think percentage of wounds on the Summoner offers an alternative win scenario. I think it is still the most accurate tracking of how close you came to achieving the games only win scenario.