Tournament rules fridge logic incoming.

Is it possible to use this metric to sandbag, (by sabotaging your own ship or having them run off the board) in order to get into an easier match-up on the following round, while still maintaining the 5 points for the round necessary to stay competitive?

That could be worse for the game than the rise of the Fat Turret, if so.

Yes.

If you're in the planning phase of the final round, you could count up points and fly some of your ships off the board, keeping just enough points on the table to have a 12 point difference.

But that'll screw you over if you end up going 3-1 or 3-2, or whatever performance means MoV decides who makes the cut.

If matching is based on MoV then sure. Even if it's not there is nothing preventing you from making it very easy for your opponent to earn points and close the MoV gap. Just be aware of the possible collusion accusations that could come for not winning by as much as possible.

Yikes.
I need to enter a tournament and use this tactic to steal my way into top 8, so I can get a rules-patch.

Sandbagging is very not healthy for tournaments.

And yes. This is coming from a guy who's pro-fortress, so the fact that I balk at this should lend it extra weight. Kinda like a Furry saying someone's hobbies are out-there.

You're a Furry Dracon?

#letsstartarumor

Some would argue that flying enough points off the board in the final round of a match you expect to win (in order to secure, if possible, a win, an easier opponent in the next round, and possibly help the opponent you just beat advance to the cut, since you're pretty certain you can take him again if need be) is simply a strategy or tactic.

I wouldn't.

That's not playing the game, that's playing the system, and if I was the TO and caught someone doing that there would be consequences.

I agree - that sort of thing ruins the game.

If it affects matchups and you think you can win those matchups then go for it. I guess the thing to consider is the type of squadron you'd need to fly to have just the right number of points to bleed off to do this as you're unlikely to do this with a two ship list. You may also want to consider what kind of MoV certain squadrons often end up with.

It could be done but I'm not so sure it will really be viable in X-Wing where pieces can be worth such a wide range of points.

Yes.

If you're in the planning phase of the final round, you could count up points and fly some of your ships off the board, keeping just enough points on the table to have a 12 point difference.

But that'll screw you over if you end up going 3-1 or 3-2, or whatever performance means MoV decides who makes the cut.

Yep. At regionals I made Top 8, at #8, with a 4-1 record, by 2 MoV points. 2! And there were several people, both above and below, within the 12 point range. Trying to game the system like this is possible, but you're taking a massive risk.

Is it possible to use this metric to sandbag, (by sabotaging your own ship or having them run off the board) in order to get into an easier match-up on the following round...

I don't think that the possibilities for abuse are large enough to justify trying to prevent it. For the most part, the types of lists that are going to be able to do something like this with any sort of regularity are lists that are going to tend towards the lower end of the MoV naturally. You need to have ships that are cheap enough to have more granular control over how many points you sacrifice at time. For someone to really pull this off they'd more or less need to be running a swarm (or at least a miniswarm). Tools that can damage your ships while at the same time hurting you opponent like Feedback Array or Bombs would also be helpful.

From a purely technical point of view, yes, it is possible. From a practical point of view: good lucky trying to make it happen.

You need to:

1 - Dominate the match that you're in.

2 - Excuse yourself from the match as it nears the end to calculate or estimate the score + MOV of every other player near your position (regionals include 64 players) without having your opponent call the TO on you for being away that long (it would be quite rude).

3 - Calculate the exact MOV that you would need to possibly face the desired player while hoping that the player in question (and every other players in the same bracket) does not screw up in the last few minutes of the game, ruining all the work you just did.

The best possible outcome of said proposition is a favorable match with a MOV handicap that could turn against you later on.

The least favorable outcome would be that you just sabotaged your own MOV for no good reason, excluding you from the finals or ensuring that you face the toughest opponent right away in the finals.

Considerering how fatigue can cause you to make mistakes in later matches in large competitions, I would advise something far simpler: show no mercy and utterly destroy your opponents early on to get as high a MOV as you can and hope that such a lead will come in handy when the unavoidable brain fart happens later during the day

...

Considerering how fatigue can cause you to make mistakes in later matches in large competitions, I would advise something far simpler: show no mercy and utterly destroy your opponents early on to get as high a MOV as you can and hope that such a lead will come in handy when the unavoidable brain fart happens later during the day

Although some call it collusion this is where I'd like to see "freeze game" type of concession where the game ends with the current MoV instead of having the losers squadron suddenly self destruct. I call it a soft concession that one would not be required to accept (no one should turn down a full/hard concession unless you're trying to minimize MoV).

I theory, yes. If you knew who you were pairing up with at your current points (knowing if you were going to win or lose your match) you could adjust your MOV with self destruction to obtain a better matchup.

In actuality, no. The information you would need would not be all recorded for the analysis to be accurate enough to be effective.

...

Considerering how fatigue can cause you to make mistakes in later matches in large competitions, I would advise something far simpler: show no mercy and utterly destroy your opponents early on to get as high a MOV as you can and hope that such a lead will come in handy when the unavoidable brain fart happens later during the day

Although some call it collusion this is where I'd like to see "freeze game" type of concession where the game ends with the current MoV instead of having the losers squadron suddenly self destruct. I call it a soft concession that one would not be required to accept (no one should turn down a full/hard concession unless you're trying to minimize MoV).

No. If you allow that, you'll have players at 3-1 or 4-0 going into the final round accept to just call it a draw, guaranteeing their spot in the top 8/16.

...

Considerering how fatigue can cause you to make mistakes in later matches in large competitions, I would advise something far simpler: show no mercy and utterly destroy your opponents early on to get as high a MOV as you can and hope that such a lead will come in handy when the unavoidable brain fart happens later during the day

Although some call it collusion this is where I'd like to see "freeze game" type of concession where the game ends with the current MoV instead of having the losers squadron suddenly self destruct. I call it a soft concession that one would not be required to accept (no one should turn down a full/hard concession unless you're trying to minimize MoV).

That sounds like you'd have a lot of final rounds of swiss pairings having an undefeated player offering his opponent a partial win where both players walk away with 100 MoV as they are setting up their ships. Both players will most likely make the cut and have an hour and a half (or so) break before needing to play again.

...

Considerering how fatigue can cause you to make mistakes in later matches in large competitions, I would advise something far simpler: show no mercy and utterly destroy your opponents early on to get as high a MOV as you can and hope that such a lead will come in handy when the unavoidable brain fart happens later during the day

Although some call it collusion this is where I'd like to see "freeze game" type of concession where the game ends with the current MoV instead of having the losers squadron suddenly self destruct. I call it a soft concession that one would not be required to accept (no one should turn down a full/hard concession unless you're trying to minimize MoV).

That sounds like you'd have a lot of final rounds of swiss pairings having an undefeated player offering his opponent a partial win where both players walk away with 100 MoV as they are setting up their ships. Both players will most likely make the cut and have an hour and a half (or so) break before needing to play again.

The only way to get a 100 MoV is to have a Draw. If two players wanted to do that there really isn't a lot stopping them from doing that anyway as they could just agree to walk away from the table and then come back how ever minutes later when time is called. Depending on how big the Swiss is how often would X-0-1 let you make the cut as you should have more points than any X-1 player even if you don't have the MoV. I see nothing in the rules that would force two players who want to draw to fight things out if that is what the goal is.

In that example I guess one player could concede a game to his opponent giving him a partial win (3 points instead of 5) and both a 100 MoV. Perhaps so many points would help make sure the X-1 player makes the cut but see the previous paragraph.

In that example I guess one player could concede a game to his opponent giving him a partial win (3 points instead of 5) and both a 100 MoV. Perhaps so many points would help make sure the X-1 player makes the cut but see the previous paragraph.

That's not how conceding works.

If you concede, you basically take all your ships off the board. So it'd be a full win, with 200 MoV for your opponent.

In that example I guess one player could concede a game to his opponent giving him a partial win (3 points instead of 5) and both a 100 MoV. Perhaps so many points would help make sure the X-1 player makes the cut but see the previous paragraph.

That's not how conceding works.

If you concede, you basically take all your ships off the board. So it'd be a full win, with 200 MoV for your opponent.

Take a look at the "example" I am talking about.

I know how concessions get scored. I just believe there should be a soft, or partial, concession where one side is admitting defeat but can be allowed to 'save face' by not counting all of its ships as being destroyed. I believe it would be used a lot more than the standard concession as it would allow a player to end the game early if the opponent agreed instead of resorting to various point saving tactics if keeping MoV close is desired.

I have a hard time seeing anyone Conceding a 200 point MoV in a final round of Swiss. It would be a big gamble thinking you could make the cut at X-1 when you score nothing for your MoV in that final round unless you already know you're in as all the X-1 players will make the cut. Taking the loss but keeping the draw level MoV is a lot more likely to get you past the X-1 cut. If both players are undefeated then taking a draw is likely to get both in.

The only way to get a 100 MoV is to have a Draw. If two players wanted to do that there really isn't a lot stopping them from doing that anyway as they could just agree to walk away from the table and then come back how ever minutes later when time is called. Depending on how big the Swiss is how often would X-0-1 let you make the cut as you should have more points than any X-1 player even if you don't have the MoV. I see nothing in the rules that would force two players who want to draw to fight things out if that is what the goal is.of 5) and both a 100 MoV. Perhaps so many points would help make sure the X-1 player makes the cut but see the previous paragraph.

If neither player complains about how long a turn takes is it the TO's right to say they must play faster? Ok then, you either just fly back and forth in circles or lock up in pile that allows you to perform the same maneuver over and over again without going anywhere.

If two players want to intentionally Draw there is nothing that prevents this although the 1 tournament point is likely to prevent it early.

Why do you think the rules prohibiting "collusion among players to manipulate scoring", wouldn't cover a situation in which two opponents opt to pre-determine the outcome of the game?

Two players agreeing to a draw would certainly be colluding in order to manipulate scoring, so if that is expressly forbidden under the rules why are you saying there is nothing preventing such an agreement?

If you can't prove what's going on in someone's head, you can't police their thoughts. Intent will never be enough to DQ a player.

At any rate, the solution is simple: replace MoV.

You don't need to police thier thoughts. If two players are walking away from the table (as has been suggested) it is abundantly clear that they are working towards a contrived game result. That would certainly be enough for a TO to take action on.

You can't prove that.

Let's be real, in principal it would be nice to DQ people over any perceived infraction. But real game stores are ran by real store owners, and they tend to be less hard-nosed where customers are concerned. Alienating those customers is something they tend to shy away from, especially if they aren't complete strangers, and even more so when the situation has an element of ambiguity to it.

Yes, I have absolutely seen a venue owner allow a player get away with near murder because they were a regular. That didn't change the fact that what the venue owner allowed was certainly in no way legal in that game.

If, at Gencon, two players walked away from them table and attempted to report thier game as a Draw I would expect FFG to take some level of action againstthem based on the rules against collusion . Some agreement was clearly reached in which the result of the match is being pre-determined. What the agreement was, or the specifics of it, or the intent of either party isn't really relevant.

FFG in the past has DQ'd 3 out of 4 players from a Game of Thrones Melee Final Table for collusion. They certainly take it rather seriously. Though likely more seriously in that format over others.

Now absolutely, it is harder to enforce if players are duplicitous about it. I fully understand your point in that regard. But there are plenty of situations, like the one being discussed, in which it is an easy call. And it is absolutely something the rules do address.