My outlook on the bye was shaped by long experience with WizKids games and how it is handled therein. The first round bye has always been seen by WizKids as slightly punitive. That's why for many years judges (and warlords, and battlemasters) were encouraged to give someone taking the first round bye voluntarily extra consideration when determining Fellowship. It's clear that the bye was recognized to be slightly punitive, and since they certainly could have made it desirable the logical conclusion is that they desired it to be as it is.
That advice (as well as all discussion of what constitutes Fellowship) was left out of the NECA-era tournament documents. Perhaps they intend to change this going forward. Time will tell. But I see no reason to make the bye desirable: players should prefer to play.

I think they do for the most part. Even at venues that give full KO points for a BYE I have Never, Ever, Ever been happy to get the BYE. In fact, short of a single time when I was really, really hungry, I have never been remotely happy to receive the BYE. So I feel the BYE is undesirable enough without also potentially ruining a player's chance to win the tourney.

Agreed. That's how dad it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty good so far.

I am not sure how things are where you play but I don't know ANYONE at the venues I play at that EVER wants the bye. We all want to get to play.

I hate the bye, regardless of its' affect on my chances of winning, because I came to play. I have waited all week and hoped that my work schedule will allow me to make the game. Now I am here, excited to play my theme team of the week and, what is this? I have the first round bye? Ugh. So now, not only do I have to sit and watch others play for possibly the next 50 minutes, but my chances to actually win and get this cool prize have been extremely hindered? Seems like some excessive punishment to me.

But, as you said, we won't see eye to eye on this. The focus we have our minds set on are in different ares. I respect that, though I don't really understand it. This game should be about equalizing the playing field as much as possible. Not singling out one person to suffer the greater hardship just because the number of players is an uneven number.

My point of view is simply that the zero-point bye is not that burdensome, that the bye is not supposed to be desirable, and that the bye is not supposed to equate to a played game. I can accept that trypswitch, Ignatz-Mouse and jonidschultz are simply seeing this from a different point of view. And how you do things at your venues is obviously up to you. it's always possible that the powers at NECA-WizKids see this more from your perspective rather than that of "old" WizKids, and that the official policy will shift more towards your view. Time will tell.

I do want to say how much I appreciate both the civility and the intelligence of the debate. It could only have been improved by the addition of refreshing beverages all around (or by your conversion to my POV)

If a bye is viewed as a negative then your doing it wrong. only in clix is a bye viewed in a negative light. not in any other competition is a bye undesired so the view of making a bye undesired is flawed. Any system where a player can go undefeated and score the max points And still lose is not even close to fair and all the intellectual justification in the world won't make it right. I do like the take the avarage of a players other wins idea over the auto max points.

If a player goes undefeated and scores the max points they should win. What they shouldn't do is win because they did well in two games and were given a win with points while sitting out a third game.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that most systems were the bye is a positive it's also a reward for past performance. In sports, for instance, you don't get a bye in the play-offs because there are too many teams (or competitors) and you're all seeded equally to start. You get a bye because your performance in the regular season seeded you high, so you're effectively treated as if you had a win (with no points) in early qualifying rounds. This is an entirely different situation.

Eh... sort of. A BYE in a Single-Elimination tourney is generally a reward for past performances. Single Elimination tourneys and Swiss tourneys are of course extremely different in principle AND practice. If I were playing in a large Single-Elimination tourney then I would be probably be happy with the BYE as it means I am saved from elimination whereas half of the players (-1) in the tourney are eliminated. Also, this is extremely different than your thought of a "win (with no points)" for several reasons, but the most important being that cumulative points don't matter in any Sports competition I can think of except maybe Golf depending on your perspective. I think that in a perfect world we wouldn't need cumulative points in Heroclix either, however due to the abundance of ties (equal win-loss records) we need to have tie-breakers.

In fact, I think that's a fairly important point that hasn't been mentioned yet. Even the Heroclix Comprehensive Tournament Guide says that two (or three or four) players with a 3-0 record are TIED. However it says that cumulative ko points are used for a tie-breaker. Followed by Strength of Schedule (paraphrasing). So the inherent problem here is the fact that the BYE deprives a player of both cumulative Ko points (tie breaker #1) and Strength of Schedule (tie breaker #2).

Ultimately it is a rough problem, and I'm sure that the upcoming Battles for Thanos will give us at least a few shining examples of the systems shortcomings.

For the purposes of this discussion, let me examine more alternate BYE methods. Because it seems you are getting caught up in the thought that the BYE is a "free win, and that should be enough."

1) The BYE is NOT random in the 1st round. It is given to the player whose cumulative win-loss % at that venue is the lowest.

2) The BYE is not random in the 1st round. It is given to the player whose cumulative win-loss % at the venue is the highest.

Thoughts?

You're suggesting the bye go to either the best or the worst player at the venue (judged by cumulative record)?

I voted Other.

If your are Late for Game 1, (This is For Locals.)
0 Points and Loss for the First Round.

For 3 Rounds.
Round 1 Byes should be the Average of your other games.
Ex. Score 200 and 300 First round would be 250 so total of 750.

Round 2 Byes Should Score average of the 2 Rounds divided by 2.
Ex. Scores 50 Points Game 1 and 300 Game 3, So 175 for Total of 525.

Round 3 Byes Should Score Average of the 2 Rounds Divided by 3.
Ex. 50 Game 1 and 0 Game 2 So 17 Points for total of 67.

For more than 3 Rounds
Round X Byes Average of Non Bye Rounds Divided by X

Yes. People have an issue with giving a random player a BYE that may cost them the ability to win the tourney. You have a problem with giving someone a free win, and points, that may win them the tournament. So what if the BYE wasn't random?

Non-Random 1st Round 0-Point Byes Should always be given to the Player that has done the Worst in that Situation.

However 0-Point Heroclix's First Round Byes are Bull.

Your Right Someone Winning the First two Rounds then getting a bye would be Wrong, no Less Wrong the the First Round Bye Person Scoring 600 Points in a Large enough Setting, and losing because he didn't beat the other Undefeated because they Scored 50 Points 300 and 288. for their three rounds.

So either the win-with-points is unlikely to matter because the player is likely to lose a subsequent round (and if he doesn't, yea! for him) or they likely will matter but you have reason to suppose that specific player would have done that well anyway. it's either compensatory to the consitently worst player to give him a "leg up" or it's compensatory to the best player for his consistent excellence.

OK, now we have some logical reasoning for this specific player to be getting the advantage of a bye-with-points. Assuming the player base was good with it (and keeping in mind the dreaded "road to Abilene") I'd be good with that as a house rule, and if it were to become the standard WK policy I wouldn't cringe.
More record keeping (unless you already do this) but workable.

Yeah, I think it's time I drop completely out of this thread. The ideas here are hurting my head.