SotM tournament

Hi All,

I've offered to runa  Snetinels of the Multiverse ournament at a local gaming convention.

I have 3 3 hour sessions (1 session each day) to run games.

However, I would like there to be a winning team.  I have one thought:

Add each character's current HP at the end of the game for the table's total.  keep a runnign total over all three sessions.

Alternatiovely, if people are going to be switching tables just keep a running total for each player over the three sessions.

Also, with a 3 hour session limit I think I can get in at least two games per sessions (90 minutes for each game).  Too short or long?

I have my set which includes all expansions, and I have all the alternate hero cards thanks to the Hero Foil Set from the OblivAeon KS.  There will be two other sets available fromt he Board Games Library, but I don't know how complete they'll be.  So suggestions on which heroes and villains to use for each game?

I hope that the sets are complete as I'd like to run Iron legacy as the final battle.  Ah, but if only OblivAeon would be ready and have been shipped by Easter....  Ah well.

So, happy to entertain all thoguhts and suggestions.

Anestis.

Good luck!

I never figured out a way to run a SotM tournament that made sense to me.

HP seems like a bad idea.  Some charaters are better at keeping their HP up than others, and that means that someone might choose to play someone like Scholar or the Naturalist when they'd really prefer to play Fanatic or Chrono-Ranger, and that's not fun.

Give me a bit, I'll see if I can come up with any ideas.

Very true.

Still also looking for suggestions for Heroes  vs Villains.

Best way to probably do it would be a stacked game similar to how Pandemic Survival is done, you'd need pick heroes/villain/environment who don't shuffle their deck once setup is done and to setup the decks and that beforehand, but see who defeats the villain first/survives longest.

Agreed that the HP thing is a bad idea, because it would discourage risky characters like Fanatic or Setback.

One way to do it might be to assign values for villains and environments and heroes -- like beating the Chairman is worth 4 points, in Rook City is worth 4 points, etc.

I think the problem really stems from trying to make a competitive scenario out of a decidedly non-competitive game. That's not to discourage any effort to try, but it's going to be difficult to form rules and a system to this tournament that have "fair" parameters, as I can't imagine a system that won't have some problems or large disadvantages in it.

But for the sake of discussion and to be more helpful than pessamistic, I think MWC146 is probably on the trail of something workable. You could have a point system for games that assign points based parameters like:

• win
• loss
• villain difficulty
• environment difficulty
• heroes survived
• advanced mode
• number of heroes (though you might want to consider making this standard throughout the tournament)

I'd stay away from assigning points based on HP or hero difficulty since that will unnessesarily promote/discourage certain heroes from being considered.

I think if you were to design a point system like this, the tournament points would revolve around cost/benefit and risk assesment of the games. A team participating would need to evaluate how much risk they want to take in overall difficulty of the game vs how much points they stand to win in relation to how many points they could gain by doing an easy game. This risk assesment in points should be weighed correctly to make this choice interesting. For example, if a win vs Chairman in Rook City only awarded 3 points total, a loss in that scenario awards 0, but a win vs Baron in Freedom Tower is 2 points, then there would be no realistic insentive to take the higher risk, especially if there is any sort of time constraint attached where teams will feel pressured to not only consider quality of games but also quantity of games within the alloted timeframe. With timeframe and the above scenario, Baron in Freedom Tower is clearly the better choice as you could easily get in two games of that with easy wins for 4 total points in the same time you might finish a game vs Chairman where the win is much harder to get and the payoff is only 3 points in the same timeframe. Again, no inscentive to take the risk. This should be avoided.

I'd go simple and not worry too much about fairness. Pick scenarios. Have teams play the same scenarios. Whoever wins the most scenarios win. If there's a tie, there's a tie.

Yeah, I was going to suggest having people play against the same villain multiple times and keep track of who won the most, but scenarios is better. That will add enough variety to keep people’s interest, while giving you enough control to make sure everybody is on an even playing field.

Yes, that's what I plan to do.

i.e, For the first Game Legacy, Bunker, Ra, Tahcyon, and Haka vs Baron Blade in Megalopolis.

All three tables would play this as the first game.,

Second Game would be five other heroes, a different villain, and a different environment, but all three tables would play the same set.

And so on.  The Heroes would get tougher, the enviornments more dangerous, until the final round.

If you have a lot of participants, you don’t have to run the same scenario with everyone simultaneously. You could have one group battling Blade while another fights Voss, etc.

That throws the progression out.

Ive ran a few tournaments now. How we did it is just same villain same environment. We took a page from tactics and took turns picking heros so there is no over lap and also force the other to play a specific hero. If you have too many games going at once id understand not playing by that but it works pretty well in my experience

I'm thinking 2 points for a victory with no casualties, 1 point for a victory with casualties, and 0 for as defeat.