Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

New FAQ and Tournament Rule Changes


#1

FFG has released an updated FAQ and new Tournament Rule updates.


Of particular note is the changes to tournament play when we get out of swiss round and into the Top 16/8. I am really liking the proposed changes, go take a look.


#2

I really like the clarifications about casual, competitive and premier events.

The double elimination is intresting and good from the standpoint that it will make less random losses, but will make for a pretty harsh schedule if you want to fit in a 5-round swiss top-8 tournament in one day.


#3

I’m on board with anything that reduces inconsistent results, though I suppose now I’ll have to bring lunch and dinner to a tournament.

On an unrelated note, I’ve been absolutely loving the artwork from Matthew Zeilinger and Mike Nesbitt.


#4

So, anyone got any thoughts about the new rule in the FAQ:
“Triggering Actions
A player cannot trigger an action unless he is also able to
resolve it.”

Does triggering the action occur before or after paying the cost?


#5

I’m on board with anything that reduces inconsistent results, though I suppose now I’ll have to bring lunch and dinner to a tournament.

Interestingly enough, if you work out the math…

5 Rounds Swiss Top 8 Single Elimination 65 minute rounds (old style)
Assuming you win the whole tournament, you’d play 5 rounds of Swiss plus 3 rounds of elimination which is 8 hours and 40 minutes of Netrunner.

5 Rounds Swiss Top 8 Double Elimination 65/35 minute rounds (new style)
Same assumptions, you now play 4 rounds of double elimination, you play for 7 hours and 45 minutes. Though, if someone goes into the lower bracket in the first round and then rise to the finals, they will have to play 6 games which would extend the tournament out to 8 hours and 55 minutes.

So, on average, the new tournament system will take about the same amount of time as the old system and possibly the tournament day is actually shorter by 55 minutes.

As for the Triggering Actions, I’d imagine triggering the action occurs after paying the cost, but you can’t initiate an action unless you first have the means to pay for it.


#6

It’s shorter until you add in all the time between rounds.


#7

Yeah, there’s always more downtime between rounds than people expect.


#8

Alright so I must be an idiot, but doesn’t the ruling on copycat + paperwall contradict their clarified ruling on card memory?


#9

Sure, all that math doesn’t include downtime between rounds. But tournament rules can’t enforce that kind of thing. Downtime between rounds falls to the TO/players and their efficiency at running/playing the event. Also, there’s downtime in both tournament structures. I was just pointing that the new tournament structure isn’t going to increase the amount of time spent at the tournament by itself.


#10

I think your forgetting that the top 8 single elimination rounds in the previous system actually wasn’t timed, and due to the nature of the games, actually moved fairly quickly. Also if one side of the bracket was done, they could start play in the semis right away. Now, you have to wait for everyone to finish, pair up, wait for the TO to restart the clock etc. It’s going to end up being much longer since your switching players etc. It’s an extremely significant increase in time imo.

I like the new rules other than the fact top 8/16 is timed, I don’t see the need for it.


#11

[quote=“eitanacex, post:5, topic:943, full:true”]Interestingly enough, if you work out the math…

5 Rounds Swiss Top 8 Single Elimination 65 minute rounds (old style)
8 hours and 40 minutes of Netrunner.

5 Rounds Swiss Top 8 Double Elimination 65/35 minute rounds (new style)
7 hours and 45 minutes.[/quote]
6 rounds Swiss, no Top 8 (similar effect to 5 runds and top 8): 6 hours 30 minutes and everybody gets to play 12 games. This is how I wanted to run the Regional Tournament in my city, unfortunately now I’m forced to let everyone play just 10 games and have the event last around 2 hours more despite this.


#12

I just want a print of this, please!

http://forum.stimhack.com/uploads/db0349/_optimized/16e/436/7c65be9276_591x500.png


#13

Imagine that as a playmat or card sleeves.


#14

No doubt. I was looking for prize ideas for tourneys, and would LOVE to make some playmats with FFG art (with their permission, of course, which they’ll never grant).

This would be perfect. However, let’s not get me started on art sleeves…


#15

I don´t like the switch to double elimination single game matches.
The new system is really bad, if there is an imbalance between sides.
Just to make my point, lets say corp wins 100%. With the new system there is no variance it is predeternined who will win! It would be the player that always gets to play corp.

All players on winners side have only played corp, so half of them will have to continue playing corp. I know this is an extreme imbalance and this will probably never happen.
But there will be people who will not get eliminated without playing a match as corp (or as a runner).

And yeah that picture would be an amazing playmat.


#16

Isn’t this kinda the case in the old system too? The corps would just win every game and seeding in Swiss would determine the winner. I don’t really think any tournament system will survive large side imbalances.


#17

While there isn’t any system that could mitigate a 100% advantage on either side, Bo3 would mitigate any advantage as much as possible, though there are time concerns and the issue of playing against the same deck twice, (though this issue is also present in the double-elim system, as the winner of the winner’s bracket is likely to have to win 1/2 corp games vs the winner of the loser’s bracket to take the tournament).

The fact that you could easily lose in the top 8 without playing your runner deck at all is definitely a concern to me. I don’t think I like this system as much as bo3, (maybe with an extra round of swiss and a cut top top 4 instead of top 8 to mitigate time concerns), but basically anything is better than having to play to less than 7 points.


#18

In the old system, when there is a huge imbalance, it would still count how hard you lost. Lets keep the example of 100% corp wins. The result would at least change depending on the runner decks since scoring some points changes the outcome.

Sure the 100% imbalance is a bad example because any kind of scoring would be severely crippled with such an imbalance.
But lets say
8 players 4 games 3 corps win.
=>3 runner and 1 corp player in loosers bracket
=>1 match in which the runner player has not played corp (and might get eliminated)

A 3/1 split is pretty common even in a perfectly balanced game. Even a 4/0 split will happen eventually.
But then again there are one to two players affected so it might still be the lesser evil.