Gencon Tournament Format - Comment thread

[nix]

We (the Gencon Malifaux TO's) tried out a number of small changes to the non-story-encounter tournament format this year and I wanted to start a thread to gather feedback and thoughts. There are some specifics that we are very interested in, then some areas where we already know we need to pay special attention. In addition to these, we would very much like your feedback on anything you saw that worked well and that didn't work well in the overall format.

So, let me start by posting what we already know:

• Time limits on the event - we know everyone felt rushed and we will be looking at the time limits on events.
  
• Terrain - we know there were no trees, rivers, water features, etc. The boards are Terraclips because that's what travels, it looks good, and its a featured Wyrd product. This is unlikely to change.
  
• Single Elimination - we are aware that Single Elimination is not a common format. We will do better in explaining this for the future.
  

So, with that, here are some specifics we would like to hear your feedback on:

• Declaring your Master - the competitive events had players declare their master before hiring their crews. Opinions?
  
• Adjusted Destroy the Evidence - what did you think about the Destroy the Evidence changes?
  
• Changes to Treasure Hunt - what did you think about the Treasure Hunt changes?
  
• Terrain Density - we tried to increase the terrain density from last year. Was it sufficient?
  
• Terrain Types - we tried to increase the amount of "4 sides open topped buildings" along with multi-floor structures. Opinions?
  
• Scoring - TP/Diff/VP was the format used, opinions on this as the sole format used through the event.
  

Then, please let us know what we did right and what went badly. We want your feedback to improve future events, but keep it civil.

[Nayte]

While I wasn't able to make it to GenCon, I have a quick question regarding terrain/terraclips: Did you guys count the sewage water pieces as water terrain? That might be something you guys could look into doing because some models function even better with water terrain(Go Silurids! Wooo!). Also, there is a fountain piece in the Streets/City terraclips that could also be used for water.

How did you guys handle the doorways to building? Were 50mm base models able to walk into buildings?

[Gruesome]

Was not there either but was wondering if double-elimination/losers bracket was considered for the last day tourney?

[Korrosion]

• Declaring your Master - the competitive events had players declare their master before hiring their crews. Opinions?
  
• Adjusted Destroy the Evidence - what did you think about the Destroy the Evidence changes?
  
• Changes to Treasure Hunt - what did you think about the Treasure Hunt changes?
  

Then, please let us know what we did right and what went badly. We want your feedback to improve future events, but keep it civil.

Could you please elaborate a little and tell those of us who couldn't make it what/how destroy the evidence and treasure hunt were changed? If its not to much difficulty could you also say why?

[cerealkiller195]

only played the thursday event but time did seem a bit rushed even if it was only 25 ss event. In addition maybe clarifications before hand that certain pieces are water, severe etc.

understand that terrain can't really be changed but more of it would always be a good thimg

[DeusInnomen]

only played the thursday event but time did seem a bit rushed even if it was only 25 ss event. In addition maybe clarifications before hand that certain pieces are water, severe etc.

understand that terrain can't really be changed but more of it would always be a good thimg

Generally speaking, when it comes to terrain meaning severe or what height it is, we leave that to the players to decide and agree upon. For example, one of the board at the first table had a large room (probably 1.5' by 1' in size) that only had one entrance, and that entrance was facing the starting area of one player. That table's players agreed that, since another piece of Terraclips wasn't available to make the change they wanted, the room had another door directly opposite the actual door so they both could get into the room. A lot of folks also agreed that the water parts of the sewers mats were severe terrain.

With every board being so different than the others, it's far easier to let the players decide what's what.

[nix]

Here are the modified Strategies mentioned. While we are interested in everyone's feedback, at this time we are most interested in the feedback of those who played and experienced the new strategies.

Shared Destroy the Evidence

Set up

Place one 30mm Evidence Marker completely inside your opponent’s

Deployment Zone.

Place a further two 30mm Evidence Markers completely within 10” of his/her

opponent’s Deployment Zone. These Markers must be placed at least 8” from

one another

Special

A friendly model may take a (1) Interact Action whilst in base contact with an

Evidence Marker which they placed and remove the Marker from the game.

This action cannot be taken:

• Anytime during Turn 1
  
• By Insignificant models
  
• Models engaged with enemy models
  

Victory

A player scores 2VP if one of their models takes a (2) Interact Action to destroy

the two Evidence Markers he/she placed outside an opponent’s Deployment

Zone

A player scores +1VP if one of their models takes a (2) Interact Action to destroy

Evidence Marker he/she placed inside an opponent’s Deployment Zone

A player scores +1VP if his/her crew are the first to take a (2) Interact Action to

destroy one of the Evidence Markers he/she placed on the board

Shared Treasure Hunt

Set up

Place one 30mm Treasure Counter in the center of the table AFTER the Crews have been

deployed, but before the Encounter begins

Special

A model may take a (1) Interact Action whilst in base contact with the Treasure Counter to pick it

up

This action cannot be taken:

• Anytime during Turn 1
  
• By Insignificant models
  
• Models engaged with enemy models
  

A model carrying the Counter, can drop or pass it to another significant model in base contact as

a (1) Interact Action

A model changing position on the table by an effect other than the Walk Action or leaving play drops the Treasure Counter in base contact with itself. Whilst carrying the Counter, a model reduces its Wk to 4 and cannot have its Wk increased by any means.

Spirits lose the ability to move through other models and the ability to ignore terrain penalties whilst carrying the Treasure Counter. Models with Flight or Float lose that ability whilst carrying the Treasure Counter

The Treasure Counter does not count as being carried if carried by an Insignificant model at the end of the Encounter

Victory

A player scores 1VP if one of their models takes a (1) Interact Action with the Treasure Counter during the Encounter

A player scores +2VP if, at the end of the Encounter the Treasure Counter is:

Carried by one of his/her models but is not in his/her Deployment Zone, OR

Completely within his/her Deployment Zone but not carried by a model

A player scores +3VP if the Treasure Counter is carried by one of his/her models, and that model is completely within his/her Deployment Zone at the end of the Encounter.

[bashamer]

this is for 8 games played during gencon.

• Time limits on the event - we know everyone felt rushed and we will be looking at the time limits on events.
  -- I liked them where they were. Keep the end of round mechanics consistent over the entire weekend.
  
• Terrain - we know there were no trees, rivers, water features, etc. The boards are Terraclips because that's what travels, it looks good, and its a featured Wyrd product. This is unlikely to change.
  -- If terain stays the same then expect flight and spirit to stay dominant; and factions with ample access to place better.
  
• Single Elimination - we are aware that Single Elimination is not a common format. We will do better in explaining this for the future.
  -- not ideal with ties but I guess it worked.
  

So, with that, here are some specifics we would like to hear your feedback on:

• Declaring your Master - the competitive events had players declare their master before hiring their crews. Opinions?
  -- some masters would be really hard to run (Collodi) and people with good model access can counter others. It really rewards model access & experience.
  
• Adjusted Destroy the Evidence - what did you think about the Destroy the Evidence changes?
  -- all markers were destroyed in our game, but it took 8 turns.
  
• Changes to Treasure Hunt - what did you think about the Treasure Hunt changes?
  -- that was the game where my opponent got 4 red jokers. I'm unsure what the changes were, I was a bit frustraded.
  
• Terrain Density - we tried to increase the terrain density from last year. Was it sufficient?
  -- density was good, placing more terrain felt valuable.
  
• Terrain Types - we tried to increase the amount of "4 sides open topped buildings" along with multi-floor structures. Opinions?
  -- more impasible terain and places that spirits / flying models could not reside. more area terain; these boxes really were amazing for spirits and flying models that did not want to get shot. It really made it imposible to cover aproach lanes to your models untill they were in melee.
  
• Scoring - TP/Diff/VP was the format used, opinions on this as the sole format used through the event.
  -- liked it.
  

Edited August 22, 2012 by bashamer

[011121]

this is for 8 games played during gencon.

• Declaring your Master - the competitive events had players declare their master before hiring their crews. Opinions?
  -- some masters would be really hard to run (Collodi) and people with good model access can counter others. It really rewards model access & experience.
  

Why Collodi specifically? He's no more affected by anti-construct stuff than say Ramos or Hoffman, and he doesn't really rely on the enemy having taken x to be effective.

[Victoria]

I liked everything but declaring the masters. Declaring factions is ok for me, though I guess it can give guild a bit of an advantage... but declaring masters certainly makes things easier for people who have a wide variety of models to use and a good guess at what works at that ss level for other masters.

[desilijic]

First, let me once again thank Nilus and Nix for running great events. I had a blast. Overall, I have no major complaints. As my family and coworkers will tell you, that's very rare... so take it as high praise.

Time limits on the event - The rounds could have been slightly longer, but if they're too long then you increase the likelihood of player burnout. Players should enter these events realizing that they need to play quickly and score/secure VPs as early as possible. I do not recommend taking Avatars in this type of format (I didn't manifest an Avatar all weekend).

Terrain - In addition to the reasons you stated, it's important to remember that the hall is open throughout the duration of the convention. If elaborate (i.e. expensive) terrain is used, it might disappear during the night.

Single Elimination - Single elimination is perfect for the final day. Swiss tournaments can result in two (or more) players with the same W/L ratio; Single elim allows for a clear winner.

Declaring your Master - I loved this. I hope it becomes standard practice. Especially when playing against Outcasts, it was a relief to know what master I was facing before picking out my crew.

Adjusted Destroy the Evidence - I liked this a lot. Collodi is generally able to secure a VP on the first activation; this made him wait an extra turn. It actually let me fill Collodi with stones first turn (normallly I would make my dolls fast so they could destroy the middle evidence marker). Speaking of which, I liked that there wasn't a middle evidence marker; it made the tactics of scoring VPs far more interesting because the players had to head toward their markers while trying to keep models near their opponent's markers. This was one of my favorite games of the weekend.

Changes to Treasure Hunt - Normally I would take Collodi (with either Zoraida or Lilith) without blinking because he and his Marionettes can grab the counter during their first activation. Since it couldn't be picked up until the second turn, I decided to take a crew that I much prefer: Dreamer. It was my only loss on Saturday (Mr. Weakland won), but it was still fun. I liked getting a VP for just picking the counter up once.

Terrain Density - MUCH better than last year. As others stated, my spirits had a fine time with it while some more "traditional" models had trouble. Some people were complaining about the lack of firing lanes; they should remember that Malifaux is a very melee-oriented game. Models often need to get in their opponents' models faces in order to score VPs. By the way, Von Schill made plenty of long-range kills during the one and only game that I took him.

Terrain Types - There were some structures with only one door, and some without any doors. A bit more care could be taken in constructing these. If nothing else, take a pair of scissors to some of the walls to create openings. I liked playing with more buildingy-looking buildings on Sunday.

Scoring - Perfect; this is the best scoring method, from my point of view. That being said, I like formats that award tie-breakers based on strength of schedule, but this can be burdensome to calculate and implement fairly.

Edited August 23, 2012 by desilijic

[Toonook]

Are there any photos of the terrain anywhere? Always interested to see how they're laid out for official tournaments

[Victoria]

Here was one, not the best pic.

[ravenborne]

I wasn't there, so take this feedback for what it is (Hope to go next year, its so far away!)

-Love the idea of declaring Masters.

-Love the changes to the strategies.

-Strict time limits favor very fast masters/crews and thus limit a potentially diverse Master and Crew selection; and even faction selection.

-Wyrd should make some trees, water and similar features if their products are what is to be used. Certain models specifically name terrain types so Wyrd should support those terrain types. I'll buy them.

Edited August 23, 2012 by ravenborne

[Omenbringer]

Well my opinion (to be taken with a grain of salt since I didn't have to actually compete on them).

Having watched several games and looking at the boards I would say that the terrain could have been substantially denser (though with the ammount of Kirai crews I saw represented this was probably a good thing).

Most of the boards were fairly sparse and more reminiscent of the boards I saw for the Warmachine and Hordes events.

Perhaps though, it is just that my local community tends to favor the high side of the Books recommended amount of terrain.

[Gruesome]

The strategy changes sounds very nice.

Declared masters... Would love to hear more opinions from attendees that did it... Part of me thinks I like it, but part of me fears for Seamus.

[LoboStele]

Nix, I know you and I chatted about some of these already, and I did chat briefly with both Keltheos and Nilus at different times about some of it too. I'm afraid some of this is going to come off really negative, and I'll try to avoid that, but I want to temper all of this by saying that I had a GREAT time playing the games that I did get in, and would definitely recommend anyone going to GenCon to jump into the Wyrd official tournaments next year. I'll try not to be TOO verbose on some of these, but I've had quite a bit swirling around in my head since Saturday/Sunday on this topic, and just hadn't been able to get around to starting a thread on my own about it.

First of all, before digging into any specifics....I think the most important thing is that GenCon is NOT where new things should be getting tested out. If we want to have 'Masters' or 'Avatars of Malifaux' events and see who are the best of the best players, it should be done so with a rule-set that is at least somewhat established. Make changes to the Gaining Grounds document no later than July 1st, if necessary. That's how we handled it with another game I used to play competitively. If a change didn't make it in by July 1st, it waited until Jan 1st for the next cycle. Otherwise, making changes a mere 5 minutes before you start the first game because an exercise in who can adapt the fastest, or who happened to bring the right crews with them to take advantage of the changes, and I don't think that is necessarily fair. We have a published rule set, let's stick to it. That kind of plays into my thoughts on other topics too...

Time limits: My biggest problem with the time limits is that I feel like it really hinders certain types of crews. Obviously, as Ramos is one of my favorite Masters to play, and I consider myself rather skilled with him, this frustrated me in particular, because he needs 2-3 turns to get really moving, even when you're not running his Avatar form. I think some of the solid Resser crews (excl Kirai) suffer from this as well, and could be why there is a perception that they are not competitive. I don't think that it's that they are bad crews, it's just that they are crews which usually require 5-6 turns in order to win. When you have a 75 minute time limit (which included setup, so really more like 60-65 minute rounds), that's nigh impossible to play 5-6 turns, and automatically eliminates some crews from being 'competitive'. As I stated elsewhere, I know in at least 2 of my losses with Ramos, and probably all 3 losses, if we had played through Turn 6, I likely would have won. In only 1 of those losses did I feel like my opponent wasn't playing very fast, but I also knew he was a newer player, so I didn't make a big deal about it. 'Slow Play' is going to become a big problem going forward if we stick to tournament timing like we did at GenCon, and it will be something that will have to be addressed. Malifaux is designed to be 6 rounds, and if you can't play in a tournament with the goal of getting to Turn 6 in 70 minutes, then IMO, you shouldn't have entered the 'Masters' tournament, or at the very least, you shouldn't be flippant when your opponent mentions being disappointed that you only got to turn 3.

Terrain: I actually felt like the terrain was MUCH better this year than it was last year. Last year's tables had very little terrain higher than 2", so I saw a fair amount of improvement this year. However, I still saw quite a few boards that I would characterize as a Zoraida or Guild-shooters play-ground, and I think those kind of things need to be carefully dealt with. Granted, I don't necessarily want to say a maze of a board, with no firing lanes beyond 8" long. But at the same time, if you have the center 24" diameter of the board with nothing higher than 1" terrain in a few random places, and all the higher 2" terrain is on the edges, that severely favors the ranged crew. Tables should always have a broader mix of terrain, to at least force ranged heavy crews to pick firing lanes and create cross-fire zones, rather than relying on the fact that they can hole up 2" outside their deployment zone and cover 3/4 of the table. Lastly...A bit more 3" terrain towards the middle to help stymie Zoraida shenanigans, and no tables where the highest terrain on the table is in the deployment zone. It's incredibly aggravating, not to mention demoralizing, when Zoraida can start obeying any model she chooses in your deployment zone on the first activation of the game. At least make her (0) Raven and move somewhere first.

Single Elimination: I've got no problem with this. I think some people were confused about the tie = double loss bit of it, but it made sense to me. I like this format for the 'finals' but I agree that some losers brackets would be awesome. Going back to my earlier point, if some prizes were on the line, and players knew what they were, then you'd be more likely to get people to stick around.

Declaring your Master: I really didn't like this. It gives way too much of an advantage against some crew types and takes away part of the strategic aspect of Malifaux games. If I declare I'm doing Ramos, then people have a lot more freedom to make sure they take models with armor ignoring and anti-Construct abilities and such. But if my opponent says Viktorias, I really don't know if they'll include the Freikorps, or go all Ronin. Same with Neverborn. There are zillion ways to play Zoraida or Pandora, and so declaring them as a Master gives the opponent basically no indication of which way the crew will be built. But a competitive Hoffman or Kirai list are almost always the same. So I think it gives too much strength to the versatile lists, and further hurts the Masters who tend to have a smaller pool of competitive choices.

Adjusted Destroy the Evidence: I've got no problem with this one. Of course, we didn't realize till AFTER the game that you had to get BOTH markers outside the deployment zone for the first 2 VP (further reason why having new Strategies tested at GenCon is annoying), though it didn't actually matter in our game anyway. I might suggest making the first 2 VP be for any 2 Markers destroyed, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it as is. The 'no interacting on Turn 1' is nice for keeping super-fast crews at bay, but it does end up meaning that the strategy turns into a kill-'em-all type, because you have to fight to clear opponents off your Markers and then flip them. In the case of the Arcanists, Colette is typically a go-to crew for Objective/Interact games because of her speed. But with being forced to do more Combat, that makes her much less capable for this objective now, IMO. Ramos is a better choice from a combat perspective, but because of his slower speed, it gives your opponent a very nice advantage of being able to get to the markers quicker and get entrenched. So, not 100% sold on the 'no interacting on Turn 1' part, though I do understand the impetus there. No matter how you slice it, it will hurt some crews and help some others.

Changes to Treasure Hunt: No problems there. I think, again, not allowing the interact on Turn 1 will make this a LOT more combat heavy around the middle. But it helps with enough other issues in this strategy that I don't have too much trouble with it this way. Not sure how I feel about the first pick-up being reduced from a (2) to a (1). You have to wait till Turn 2, but if you've got a Fast/Nimble model like Von Schill already at the counter, you can get 8" from the center and back amongst your whole crew if you win init. I think being able to go 4" away from center (after a (2) action) is still strong, but not quite as bad.

Terrain Density: Kind of already touched on this. I thought the density was MUCH better this year. Lots of 1" small stuff for cover here and there. With the absence of things like forests, the small pieces of cover are definitely needed.

Terrain Types: The 'rooms' with 4 walls an no roof are certainly an issue, allowing spirits and such to get inside and be protected. Easily enough to work around by having the opposing models climb the walls to get inside I suppose. Would rather see doors/roofs on things to avoid that scenario though. Some forests would be AWESOME and I think is the main thing that needs to be considered next year. A really easy way to do it, and wouldn't be too set-up intensive, is to use some shapes (circles, peanut shaped, etc.) in green felt. Then you can have individual trees that you could place 1 or 2 of them loose on the felt to indicate a forest. This is how we typically handle it at the LGS. The trees can be moved around the piece of felt easily enough to avoid being in the way of a model. But it clearly defines the area as a forest. Otherwise, I'm cool with the terrain types. The addition of some of the Dungeon Rise pieces were nice since some of those had some interesting things to work around (as long as the lava pit one doesn't get put in the middle of the table, lol).

Scoring: I like all of the Scoring formats, though I think the TP/Diff/VP is a good one for the 'Masters' type tournaments. I think 'Story Encounters' are better done with VP as the primary. So I guess...I have nothing to add on this one, LOL.

OK, there. Sorry so much wall of text.

[Bigmike]

So I think all the scenario changes were brilliant and should be used from here on out. The amount of terrain was better this year, though i did see a few boards where people had to change the way things worked because setup gave one player an extreme advantage, IE no door on one side of a huge building.

I think calling the entire turn at time may have saved time but made the rounds way more stressful and made it way more noticeable and frustrating when an opponent was being overly slow.

All in all though it was a great setup and with some tweeks it will be amazing in the future

[Snacktastic]

Is there a way to make a tie breaker for single elimination? It seems rather disapointing that the winner of masters would win without playing a final round game. Even if its something as simple as, who has a better painted army? or who scored the first VP? How would the final round have been handled if it had ended in a tie? No winner?

And I swear, I thought Nix would be taller.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Snacktastic

[bashamer]

Why Collodi specifically? He's no more affected by anti-construct stuff than say Ramos or Hoffman, and he doesn't really rely on the enemy having taken x to be effective.

because his crew is countered exceptionally hard by things like papa loco, wichling stalkers, and other models with AOE attacks, burst attacks, and death bursts. Only the effigies and the stitched have a chance against those things. Hamlin the minion would also be pretty terrifying to have to face. Collodi would be the one I'm familiar with, but I imagine that many gremlin crews would feel the same way;

Some masters have less flexibility than others; but henchmen are really limited in their options. I imagine that being immune to influence would be pretty good against the Resurrectionist henchman.

So it doesn't impact many master options a lot. But if you do this you should realize that some of those options become really hard to play competitively.

---------- Post added at 07:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 AM ----------

.....Terrain Types: The 'rooms' with 4 walls an no roof are certainly an issue, allowing spirits and such to get inside and be protected. Easily enough to work around by having the opposing models climb the walls to get inside I suppose......

only spiders can do that. otherwise you have to agree that all walls have the climbable trait. There is no climb action that you can perform in Malifaux so either the terrain lets you or you have something that grants it to the terrain.

[DeusInnomen]

only spiders can do that. otherwise you have to agree that all walls have the climbable trait. There is no climb action that you can perform in Malifaux so either the terrain lets you or you have something that grants it to the terrain.

One table this weekend agreed on the walls of buildings having the climbable trait as so long as you can reach level ground in one or two consecutive movement actions (e.g. you can't stop halfway up).

[Guy in Suit]

I played in the Masters and the Avatars event.

I really liked the modified scenario's for both DtE and Treasure Hunt. Both prevented gimpy turn one scores and made players play through to the the end.

The FAIL part was that no games finished because of the absurd time limits. If it was so important to play such a fast game, then the soul-stone count should be reduced. Malifaux does not cater to the same crowd as hardcore death clock "I R KING NEERDDDD" crowd that Warmachine does, so fix this or people will stop coming.

Also, the terrain was sad. Not enough. Not nearly enough. The example Wyrd set by the terrain provided made a mockery of the recommendations in the rules manual.

All told I probably would not play again next year. Adepticon is simply better. Better terrain, more time and overall a more relaxed and fun environment.

Forgot to mention - I didn't care for announcing master first, as it really boned my gremlins! But overall I don't think it had a huge effect.

[CannonFodder]

I played in the Thursday 25SS game and in general it was ok. I do feel that timed games remove a significant aspect to the game which is that fact that it has 6 turns. While I acknowledge it needed to fit the tournament time slots, something needs to be done to to rectify it. My first game my opponent said if we played to turn 6 I would have won), in my second I was practically teaching the game to a newbie (Nice guy , but newbie) and we had to call it at turn 4 with 4-4 tie and I was an inch from his DZ for breakthrough. Third game we played to the end only because I killed half my own crew for SS.

I would try and make tournament rule for games that end early due to time, allowing each player to activate 1 model per turn short, allowing for final positioning.

I would also try an increase terrain density, avoiding terrain in one sides favor. I had to have a my gremlin crew try and run up to 2 Austringers who where in a horseshoe pieces of terrain in the center.

[Forar]

I wasn't at Gencon, but in reading the descriptions provided, I find the changes to the two strategies intriguing (though I agree that such changes should be announced well in advance to give people time to test and acclimate), and am a bit torn on the matter of declaring Masters first. I've seen it proposed before, and think it's an idea with merit, but also recognize that it does potentially limit or handicap certain masters/crews with common themes that can be penalized with certain schemes or minions.

But on the other hand, there are a wide array of minions that (between my experiences and those I've read on the forums) who end up situational enough that they don't see a lot of play, whereas knowing they have at least a higher chance of being useful might see them put on the table more often, but I don't have any tournament experience so that's pure conjecture, and I'm sure across 31 (?) Masters and Henchmen (26 + the 5 new ones?) we'll be up to shortly there's already a good variety represented and tons to know and learn as it is.

It certainly does tie into an advantage for those with larger figure collections and who have more game experience, but it'd be interesting to see how players might take that foreknowledge to use different crews to mess with their opponent, potentially becoming a "ECM/ECCM/ECCCM/Etccccm" style back and forth. "I know Ramos always runs with X's, so I'll run Y's, but last game he ran Z's, which Y's aren't that good against..." Where some people see a failing, I think could be used to shift metagames and reward those who think outside the box.

Also, knowing prizes in advance is probably a good idea. As interested as I am in potentially playing or even running tournaments, I know from my Magic experiences that knowing just what one is getting into when talking about potentially an entire afternoon or day can be a make or break part of participation. There used to be 2 pre-release tournaments run in my area. One had good prizes awarded based on standings after 4 matches, and each set of 4 (or "flight") could take around 4 hours, give or take. The other had slightly better prizes (at least if you placed very highly) but only ran 1 flight all day that went up to like 9 matches or more, so you could spend 6-8 hours+ playing and not even make the top 8 (where prizes were often condensed). For some, the simple appeal of paying once to get potentially two dozen games or more in held appeal, whereas for others, the similar prize pool with the potential to get in twice as many shots at winning some extra packs (with the similar increase in cost, minus a good discount) held appeal for others. Which isn't to say faster is always better, simply that it's a risk/reward balance, especially when that risk might be missing out on a booth, game, tournament or other event you wanted to see but won't necessarily have time for due to committing a day or multiple days to a tournament or set of them.

[nilus]

OK, there. Sorry so much wall of text.

Don't be. This is exactly what we want