Here's the scenario: You're in the final round of a Store Championship, and you're down a game. You absolutely need to win this final round to get into the top cut. You're opponent is in the exact same situation. This is a win-and-in match. You play a heated game against a similar list. After 75 minutes time is called, and both you and your opponent have 1 ship on the board, and they cost exactly the same amount of points. It's a draw, and that means neither of you are going to the top cut. You and your opponent both agree it would be a waste for neither of you to make it into the top cut, but neither of you is willing to be the one that concedes. So you pull out a coin and you both agree that one of you will go to the top cut on coin-flip.

Here's the problem: Neither of you actually deserve to move on to the top cut. That spot is for winners, not non-winners that colluded with their opponent to put a false win on their result slip. There is another player in that tournament that actually did better than both of you, but because you both chose to lie about the results of your match, you have cheated that player out of their rightful spot in the top cut. It's the same as two undefeated players agreeing to an intentional draw in the last round without playing to ensure they both make it into the elimination rounds, which most TOs know is not allowed.

There is nothing currently in the Tournament rules that prohibits this behavior specifically, nor for that matter is there any rule specifically prohibiting intentional draws or bribery in exchange for match wins. "Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden." Many tournament players and TOs know that intentional draws are not allowed in X-Wing, and studious TOs probably know this is the rule that prohibits them. This is the only thing in the Tournament Rules that might be interpreted to address this issue, but it's incredibly ambiguous and poorly worded to the point that even Sean Dorcy, X-Wing TO extraordinaire, just publicly and proudly admitted to doing exactly this behavior twice in the Minnesota Regional in 2014 (Nova Squadron Radio ep 41, 24:00), getting two match wins that he shouldn't have by winning a coin flip. This is NOT an indictment of Sean, I'm sure anyone you ask would tell you he is an amazing TO, player and person. The reason I am bringing him up specifically is because if a TO as accomplished and excellent as Sean can make an error of judgment this big about the rules, I'm sure there are many other TOs and players out there that will fall victim to this behavior as well.

Make sure you talk to your TO about this issue before you attend your local Store Championships, and report anyone you hear talking in a tournament about falsely reporting a match based on a coin-flip or for a favor or intentional draw to the TO, lest you find yourself losing your championship slot to one or both of those players.

If this is true then Sean cheated as it's blatantly covered by the Collusion rules. Their scores were were manipulated by the players which is forbidden. I don't see where the ambiguity is.

If this is true then Sean is a cheater as it's blatantly covered by the Collusion rules. Their scores were were manipulated by the players which is forbidden. I don't see where the ambiguity is.

It's ambiguous in that it doesn't specifically mention deciding games based on chance, which a lot of people might not realize is considered collusion. I was a MTG judge for 3 years, and they really struggled for a long time with people doing this and thinking it was okay even though they knew collusion was not allowed.

It also allows me to give Sean the benefit of the doubt. He's done a lot for the community and I honestly think he thought what he was doing was okay and wasn't hurting anyone.

Isn't there a tie-breaker built in for these kinds of situations?

Hard to interpet that text, but I think I get it.

Yes. Don't do this people.

Isn't there a tie-breaker built in for these kinds of situations?

There is only a tie-breaker in elimination rounds, which is that the player with initiative wins in the event of a tie. In Swiss rounds, ties are worth 1 point for each player, as opposed to full-wins which are worth 5 points and modified-wins which are 3 points.

The game state you described is that both players should be awarded a draw.

Both players then agreed (colluded) to use a random method to manipulate the scoring.

It is expressly forbidden.

If two players have exactly the same score, prior to elimination rounds, then the next tie breaker is MOV. If this is also a tie, then strength of schedule is calculated.

In this instance the players thought that they were tied exactly in all tie breakers. I would inform your T.O. of the situation and let them determine any extra tie breaker needs. Flipping a coin to decide who wins is considered collusion and should be avoided at all times. It is not up to the players to determine who advances in a tournament. That is the T.O.'s responsibility.

Smells rotten to me.

If two players have exactly the same score, prior to elimination rounds, then the next tie breaker is MOV. If this is also a tie, then strength of schedule is calculated.

Double check the tournament rules, your thinking of tie-breakers for players in Swiss rankings that have the same number of match points.

"End of Match Procedure" page 3, second bullet.

[Each player calculates their score by adding together the total squad point value of their opponent’s destroyed ships... If both players have the same score, the game ends in a draw.]

Not to make this worse, but here's an interesting one. This is much harder in Xwing...

I played an Armada tournament where a guy took the hard counter to my list and then had objectives that I felt only exacerbated the hard counter. Yet from his history, he's also risk adverse and won't engage. He also has a slow list that doesn't really chase or engage well at all.

On Armada mats there's plenty plenty of space to run if you don't feel like engaging.

So... we did that. We were the last players in a tournament cuz the other two left early. For 3 out of 6 turns (there's a turn cap in armada), we literally drifted away from each other. At turn 4, we agreed to call it a draw, wherein, he gets first place due to having a previous win, and i get... dubiously 2nd place, with an altogether unexpected 1win 2 draws (even after MOV). Both other players took a loss and left before playing the 3rd game.

Is that colluding?

I played an Armada tournament... Is that colluding?

It's probably best discussed on the Armada Forum?

Different game, different tactics, different scoring systems with different victory conditions.

Probably not worth confusing the issue, here, with the specific X-Wing example that's given in the OP.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

Absolutely cheating. Those players don't get to decide the results like this. The TO gets the scores and then determines who makes the cut.

If this is true then Sean is a cheater as it's blatantly covered by the Collusion rules. Their scores were were manipulated by the players which is forbidden. I don't see where the ambiguity is.

It's ambiguous in that it doesn't specifically mention deciding games based on chance, which a lot of people might not realize is considered collusion. I was a MTG judge for 3 years, and they really struggled for a long time with people doing this and thinking it was okay even though they knew collusion was not allowed.

It also allows me to give Sean the benefit of the doubt. He's done a lot for the community and I honestly think he thought what he was doing was okay and wasn't hurting anyone.

I don't really care who he is or what he's done for the community, if this is true I personally think he should be penalized in the same way the guy who cheated at Conquest was. Obviously not quite as badly because I don't think the infringement is as bad, but there is no way he didn't know this was colluding. Cheating is cheating, no matter who does it.

Not to make this worse, but here's an interesting one. This is much harder in Xwing...

I played an Armada tournament where a guy took the hard counter to my list and then had objectives that I felt only exacerbated the hard counter. Yet from his history, he's also risk adverse and won't engage. He also has a slow list that doesn't really chase or engage well at all.

On Armada mats there's plenty plenty of space to run if you don't feel like engaging.

So... we did that. We were the last players in a tournament cuz the other two left early. For 3 out of 6 turns (there's a turn cap in armada), we literally drifted away from each other. At turn 4, we agreed to call it a draw, wherein, he gets first place due to having a previous win, and i get... dubiously 2nd place, with an altogether unexpected 1win 2 draws (even after MOV). Both other players took a loss and left before playing the 3rd game.

Is that colluding?

Yes it is,. you should have played it the full six rounds and then called it a draw if it was infact a draw.

This is very different to someone conceding when a game becomes hopeless, which in my opinion is not collusion.

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

How do you propose to penalise someone for an alleged infraction that was committed in 2014?

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

You can concede a game without your opponent accepting. Just take your ships off the board and walk away.

The danger is that if the TO decides to investigate your concession and can link it to an intent to manipulate scoring (by giving dis/advantage to someone else), you might be in trouble.

Concessions in some games and rounds can be far more important than concessions in others. If collusion is the motivating factor, then expect consequences.

Bottom to middle table concessions should rarely warrant any enquiry, as they would probably not be troubling the Top Cut scoring.

I conceded my last round at Nationals, after three turns of play, so I could watch my friends win-and-in for the Top 8 Cut. When you're in the bottom eight, with no escape, you want to feel like a winner by standing next to some of them! :)

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

Also, I just learned from the tournament rules that you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended. 3rd bullet in end of round procedures. So if you want your opponent to win, you can concede during the match, but if you just beat your opponent or got a draw but tell him to put a win on his score card because you want him to win, you have just colluded to manipulate results, because you are only allowed to concede during the match, not after it's over.

To clarify, this is because once you have destroyed all of your opponent's shops, or reached the end of the round after time has been called, or conceded, the match has officially ended and the results are locked in. Since you are only allowed to concede during the match, you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended from either of the first two conditions.

How do you propose to penalise someone for an alleged infraction that was committed in 2014?

This isn't about what someone did in 2014, It's about protecting players from this behavior right now at the height of Store Championship season by countering the misinformation coming from that extremely popular (and usually excellent) podcast.

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

I don't think this is collusion unless it can be determined that there was no reason to concede beyond giving your opponent an advantage. It would have to be judged on a case by case basis.

How do you propose to penalise someone for an alleged infraction that was committed in 2014?

The same way they retroactively penalized the guy for cheating at the Conquest nationals?

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

Not if you're conceding before the match has ended because you're not getting anything for conceding. In the above example, one player conceded because his opponent offered him a 50/50 chance at a win instead of the draw they deserved. Without the offer of the coin flip, there would have been no concession.

Also, I just learned from the tournament rules that you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended. 3rd bullet in end of round procedures. So if you want your opponent to win, you can concede during the match, but if you just beat your opponent or got a draw but tell him to put a win on his score card because you want him to win, you have just colluded to manipulate results, because you are only allowed to concede during the match, not after it's over.

To clarify, this is because once you have destroyed all of your opponent's shops, or reached the end of the round after time has been called, or conceded, the match has officially ended and the results are locked in. Since you are only allowed to concede during the match, you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended from either of the first two conditions.

You can manipulate the MOV though. If you conceede, opponent gets 200-0 afaik. Therefore you might push through to eliminations opponents that wouldn't have got there with the non-perfect MOV had you played to the end.

On a related sidenote, wouldn't the anti-collusuon rule also disallow conceeding a game? If you conceed ans your opponent accepts, you have colluded to manipulate the results, have you not?

Not if you're conceding before the match has ended because you're not getting anything for conceding. In the above example, one player conceded because his opponent offered him a 50/50 chance at a win instead of the draw they deserved. Without the offer of the coin flip, there would have been no concession.

Also, I just learned from the tournament rules that you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended. 3rd bullet in end of round procedures. So if you want your opponent to win, you can concede during the match, but if you just beat your opponent or got a draw but tell him to put a win on his score card because you want him to win, you have just colluded to manipulate results, because you are only allowed to concede during the match, not after it's over.

To clarify, this is because once you have destroyed all of your opponent's shops, or reached the end of the round after time has been called, or conceded, the match has officially ended and the results are locked in. Since you are only allowed to concede during the match, you are not allowed to concede after the match has ended from either of the first two conditions.

You can manipulate the MOV though. If you conceede, opponent gets 200-0 afaik. Therefore you might push through to eliminations opponents that wouldn't have got there with the non-perfect MOV had you played to the end.

To what end? You gain nothing from it. If it was your buddy and it was obvious you hadn't lost then maybe there is a case for collusion, but that's why I said that this is a case by case judgment.

In any case this is apples and oranges; the situation you're bringing up is completely different to the one under discussion. Agreeing to coin flip for the win is *obviously* collusion, not a grey area like conceding.

Collusion and conceding are not the same thing. If it is just a matter of time before you lose your last ship that is limping around the board and you want to concede so you can go get something to eat and beat the bathroom rush by all means, why drag out the inevitable ?

If you are manipulating things so that your buddy who has a better chance of winning the top cut makes the cut because his list is favoured against the other lists that made the cut, that is cheating and expressly forbidden.

To the original poster, please report this incident to FFG Organized play.

This isn't about what someone did in 2014, It's about protecting players from this behavior right now at the height of Store Championship season by countering the misinformation coming from that extremely popular (and usually excellent) podcast.

I agree! What happened in 2014, whether it was right or wrong, stays in 2014. I don't see how it is possible to investigate and penalise an alleged infraction from 2014. There's no need for a retroactive witch-hunt. Case closed!

(I can't properly edit my previous post #17 quotes, so it may have conveyed the wrong impression?)

To what end? You gain nothing from it. If it was your buddy and it was obvious you hadn't lost then maybe there is a case for collusion, but that's why I said that this is a case by case judgment.

Regardless of intent, by conceeding a game that's not a steamroll (as in obviously he will beat you 200-0 anyway) you are manipulating your opponent's MOV and therefore the tournament result. It might not matter to you, but it likely matters to someone.