Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

The TO is now responsible to provide chairs:

"In addition to arranging a location, the organizer is responsible for securing tables that can hold a 3’ by 3’ play surface for each player, as well as chairs."

So what's considered "outside material"?

Am I the only one not seeing red text where changes have been made? It says there should be red text... lol

I don't see red text either.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

That's new. I wonder what is considered "outside information".

Is the little sheet I've got with all of the ship dial information considered "outside information"?

This would seem to allow access to the Rules/FAQ on the FFG website.

Am I the only one not seeing red text where changes have been made? It says there should be red text... lol

I don't see red text either.

It's cool, the red text was only mentioned in a preview article. We expect those to be wrong.

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

That's new. I wonder what is considered "outside information".

Is the little sheet I've got with all of the ship dial information considered "outside information"?

This would seem to allow access to the Rules/FAQ on the FFG website.

"However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents."

I believe it does exclude those maneuver sheets. I always viewed those like open book cheating myself and never used them.

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

So what is stopping anyone from saying this was their reason - nothing and again nothing can be proven.

I don't want to play my son as we play all the time so we just agree to a draw and call it that. That isn't any more collusion than going to eat lunch early.

Looks like we'll be getting top 32 at worlds this year(and GenCon and other national level events) like people were wanting last year.

Interesting stuff. Glad to see some clarification on a few points.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

That's new. I wonder what is considered "outside information".

Is the little sheet I've got with all of the ship dial information considered "outside information"?

This would seem to allow access to the Rules/FAQ on the FFG website.

"However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents."

I believe it does exclude those maneuver sheets. I always viewed those like open book cheating myself and never used them.

The content of dials isn't supposed to be hidden information. Players should be operating with perfect knowledge of what their oponnents' options are.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

The TO is now responsible to provide chairs:

"In addition to arranging a location, the organizer is responsible for securing tables that can hold a 3’ by 3’ play surface for each player, as well as chairs."

So what's considered "outside material"?

Those handy dial reference printouts, I think. Or a vassal movement flow printout.

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

So what is stopping anyone from saying this was their reason - nothing and again nothing can be proven.

I don't want to play my son as we play all the time so we just agree to a draw and call it that. That isn't any more collusion than going to eat lunch early.

Nothing is stopping them from saying that, but if they have discussed anything regarding taking a draw before calling a leader over, they've broken the rules. Not wanting to play someone you always play isn't collusion. Both of you taking a draw to ensure that you both make the cut would be.

Collusion is hard to prove. This new rule hasn't done anything to fix that.

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

Said only players who knew they just needed a non-loss to advance. Still collusion.

I guess it might happen at the bottom tables of a tournament, but at that point the players just tend to drop (not skip playing and take ties).

I assume it's for situations like:

(a) "Hey, we both advance to the cut win-or-lose since we're both undefeated and this is the last round. Want to call it a tie and take a break?" FFG has allowed top-table players to do this in the final Swiss rounds of Gencon in the past two years. So I don't think this is expressly collusion.

(b) "Hey, we're both at 4 Wins, and if we each get ties we advance without having to worry about MoV and other tie-breakers to make the cut. Want to call it a tie and take a break?" Is this collusion? It's an awful like (a), so I'm not sure that it is.

If (a) is not collusion, but (b) is collusion, then why even add this rule? There's literally no purpose. In the case of (a), if someone wanted the break that bad they could just forfeit (instead of tie), since they still get into the cut even with a loss. Which makes me think (b) is acceptable.

I assume the "collusion" stuff would be something like:

© "Hey, I'll give you my ruler ($10, a B-Wing, whatever else) if you take a tie, because that's all I need to advance."

(d) "Hey, we're friends / father-and-son and we don't want to knock one of us out, so let's take a tie even though it's only Round 2 because it's better than one of us taking a loss and we'll pair against worst opponents next round."

This new rule really doesn't do anything to make the differentiation between collusion and non-collusion any clearer. If I were TO, I'd probably allow (a) and (b) but not allow © or (d).

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

So what is stopping anyone from saying this was their reason - nothing and again nothing can be proven.

I don't want to play my son as we play all the time so we just agree to a draw and call it that. That isn't any more collusion than going to eat lunch early.

Nothing is stopping them from saying that, but if they have discussed anything regarding taking a draw before calling a leader over, they've broken the rules. Not wanting to play someone you always play isn't collusion. Both of you taking a draw to ensure that you both make the cut would be.

Collusion is hard to prove. This new rule hasn't done anything to fix that.

You couldn't agree to a draw before. You would have to play it out and either not shoot at anything os just shoot equal amounts off the table. This is far better.

Intentional Draws, huh? Is that one new?

Yes it is new. Before it was strictly against the rules as it was considered collusion but now is allowed.

It still can be considered collusion.

PG 6.

"The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3."

PG 3.

"Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

So if the discussion between the players in anyway deals with manipulating scoring, it's stil collusion.

If part of the discussion sounds like: "Hey, as long as neither of us lose this match we both make the cut" it's probably still illegal.

If this were the case, then there would be no scenario where it wouldn't be considered collusion.

It will manipulate scoring - instead of having 1 person lose and get 0 points, they both get 1 point and 100 MOV.

"I don't feel like playing this round but I don't want to take a loss. Can we just draw and go eat lunch?"

Not collusion.

Said only players who knew they just needed a non-loss to advance. Still collusion.

I guess it might happen at the bottom tables of a tournament, but at that point the players just tend to drop (not skip playing and take ties).

I assume it's for situations like:

(a) "Hey, we both advance to the cut win-or-lose since we're both undefeated and this is the last round. Want to call it a tie and take a break?" FFG has allowed top-table players to do this in the final Swiss rounds of Gencon in the past two years. So I don't think this is expressly collusion.

(b) "Hey, we're both at 4 Wins, and if we each get ties we advance without having to worry about MoV and other tie-breakers to make the cut. Want to call it a tie and take a break?" Is this collusion? It's an awful like (a), so I'm not sure that it is.

If (a) is not collusion, but (b) is collusion, then why even add this rule? There's literally no purpose. In the case of (a), if someone wanted the break that bad they could just forfeit (instead of tie), since they still get into the cut even with a loss. Which makes me think (b) is acceptable.

I assume the "collusion" stuff would be something like:

© "Hey, I'll give you my ruler ($10, a B-Wing, whatever else) if you take a tie, because that's all I need to advance."

(d) "Hey, we're friends / father-and-son and we don't want to knock one of us out, so let's take a tie even though it's only Round 2 because it's better than one of us taking a loss and we'll pair against worst opponents next round."

This new rule really doesn't do anything to make the differentiation between collusion and non-collusion any clearer. If I were TO, I'd probably allow (a) and (b) but not allow © or (d).

How is D any different than scenario a or b?

You can't really prove anything either way so you basically have to allow them to intentionally draw if they want to. An intentional draw IS a change in the final outcome of the tournament for both players so it must always be viewed as collusion as it benefits both parties since neither suffers a loss.

I think that is new:

"Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round."

The TO is now responsible to provide chairs:

"In addition to arranging a location, the organizer is responsible for securing tables that can hold a 3’ by 3’ play surface for each player, as well as chairs."

So what's considered "outside material"?

Those handy dial reference printouts, I think. Or a vassal movement flow printout.

That's what I'm wondering. There are tons of those out there. You could argue the maneuvers are game info and thus not "outside," and so neither would collecting them in one place be so, but who knows?

My initial thought was you can't go online on your phone and Google "Anti-TLT strategies" or "Brobot help" or stuff like that.

Collusion was previously defined as affecting the standings of the event purposely - either by forfeiting to give your friend a win or whatever if you had no chance anyway.

Intentional draw is a better way to prevent this from happening. Neither is an outright winner in the situation but neither is also a loser. Since it plays out like this, there is no way it can be construed as collusion.

That's what I'm wondering. There are tons of those out there. You could argue the maneuvers are game info and thus not "outside," and so neither would collecting them in one place be so, but who knows?

My initial thought was you can't go online on your phone and Google "Anti-TLT strategies" or "Brobot help" or stuff like that.

Yeah, or looking up probability tables etc. I can't believe that direct references to the game itself are what they're talking about. Lord knows it's easier to check my app for manoeuvres than asking my opponent to see a dial every other turn.

There is no red text because they basically rewrote the whole thing, therefore it would be all red.

Yaaaaay to the blessing for physical ship mods!

I no longer have to dread some weirdo trying to get me ejected for slapping an obnoxiously huge cannon on Dash or turning my Hound's Tooth into Moby ****.

Dice marking is interesting too. When i was naive rook I painted the result faces on my dice lime green and hot orange, then ended up stripping them back down to the factory white when I realized it was going to be suspicious for competitive play.

I'm slightly interested in re-marking my dice, but I also feel like I'd be flirting with breaking the rules: does a paint Sharpie count as a marker or paint?!

So, I'm absent-minded, and the handwritten checklist I have "place dial, check PS, check pilot ability, flip dial, clear stress, complete maneuver, do action" would technically be illegal now?

I guess I'll just have to have the rulebook on me at all times open to the summary page.

Oh, and anyone who wants the 'dial sheets' will have to cut and paste the individual dial pictures from each and every pack. Because that IS FFG-provided information...

So I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I'm finally free to destroy my Phantom in the name of it looking like it's cloaked. On the other, this 'outside information' sticks in my craw.

So, I'm absent-minded, and the handwritten checklist I have "place dial, check PS, check pilot ability, flip dial, clear stress, complete maneuver, do action" would technically be illegal now?

I guess I'll just have to have the rulebook on me at all times open to the summary page.

Oh, and anyone who wants the 'dial sheets' will have to cut and paste the individual dial pictures from each and every pack. Because that IS FFG-provided information...

So I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I'm finally free to destroy my Phantom in the name of it looking like it's cloaked. On the other, this 'outside information' sticks in my craw.

Technicaly your opponent is required to bring the manouver chart for all ships he is using. If they don't enforce that, enforcing a ban on self made cheat sheets is ridiculous.

Concerning mutual draw thing, the first thing that came to my mind was a podcaster who talked about how he and another Armada player had these fleets that didn't do very well flying straight at each other. So they both just danced around on their side of the mat and both just decided to call it a draw. Two players unwilling to make a move both decide to draw, without any colluding involved concerning making a cut.

Maybe they had something like that in mind.

So, I'm absent-minded, and the handwritten checklist I have "place dial, check PS, check pilot ability, flip dial, clear stress, complete maneuver, do action" would technically be illegal now?

I guess I'll just have to have the rulebook on me at all times open to the summary page.

Oh, and anyone who wants the 'dial sheets' will have to cut and paste the individual dial pictures from each and every pack. Because that IS FFG-provided information...

So I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I'm finally free to destroy my Phantom in the name of it looking like it's cloaked. On the other, this 'outside information' sticks in my craw.

Technicaly your opponent is required to bring the manouver chart for all ships he is using. If they don't enforce that, enforcing a ban on self made cheat sheets is ridiculous.

Wait, where's that? I haven't kept a single one of those ever.