I don't know if this is a mistake but I don't remember seeing a nrdu contracted scout list on the top tables, I was rank 15 going into the third round and was running 2 contracted scouts and 4LOM. If I had won that last match... With only 4lom and a half point scout I think I would of beat Ryan out of his 8th seed. Oh well, next time!

My understanding is that the Ndru + 2 Scout list finished 11th. Was flown by our lone Canadian from the Toronto meta that made the trip down.

Funny enough the intentional offer of a draw used to be legal in Magic and now is completely illegal. Absolutely.

Its a bad gift to players who compete often, I think.

This is very, very untrue.

Does anyone know the BroBots list that made top 16?

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

I don't care about the draw rule enough to argue for or against. However, philosophically speaking on a personal level, I would play it out. I came to the tournament to play and compete, so I should give every round my best effort. Win or lose the results of my game may have effect on other's seedlings, if I understand the system correctly.

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

Because it's gaming the system and potentially denying other people better finishes and the potential of making the cut. All of the games should be played fully to keep everything fair.

Rinehart is the man. And a terrific sportsman.

And MJ, I dunno who this "David" Yun is, but there was definitely a Dee Yun that Brad Miller punted out of the tourney!

Hm. FFG results had it listed as "David" as #3 after Swiss. Was this you? I can update to Dee if it is.

I wonder if I could convince everyone at a tournament to draw all their games. Then what, we watch the TO's head explode?

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

Because it's gaming the system and potentially denying other people better finishes and the potential of making the cut. All of the games should be played fully to keep everything fair.

The people it's denying are ones who have flown worse up to that point, I don't think it's super vital to protect thier interests over top players at a large event.

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

Because it's gaming the system and potentially denying other people better finishes and the potential of making the cut. All of the games should be played fully to keep everything fair.

But I don't think it is gaming the system. What if that player that would have made the cut with a draw, instead has two loses against two of the top 4 finishers, and a win against the player who just made the cut ahead of him? He potentially misses the cut, even though he obviously should have made it. Seems unlikely, but I don't think impossible. He could have been paired up with one of the top 4 players in the first round, lost, played his way up to be paired up with the player who would eventually take his spot in the top 8 at a top table, beat him, and then faced another top 4 player in his last round, where he again loses (instead of calling a draw). Surely the player who had beat one of the top 16 players head to head and only has a single loss to a top 4 player heading into the last round should not miss the cut because he is forced to face yet another top 4 player. While an intentional draw may seem somewhat unfair, I think it is far more fair than having a player in this circumstance miss the cut.

I don't know if this is a mistake but I don't remember seeing a nrdu contracted scout list on the top tables, I was rank 15 going into the third round and was running 2 contracted scouts and 4LOM. If I had won that last match... With only 4lom and a half point scout I think I would of beat Ryan out of his 8th seed. Oh well, next time!

My understanding is that the Ndru + 2 Scout list finished 11th. Was flown by our lone Canadian from the Toronto meta that made the trip down.

You know what, I completely forgot about him, pretty sure I lost to him in Swiss now that I think about it. Lot was happening. I was just wondering because he said top16 tables going into round 3. Yet my list variant was listed was all.

Rinehart is the man. And a terrific sportsman.

And MJ, I dunno who this "David" Yun is, but there was definitely a Dee Yun that Brad Miller punted out of the tourney!

Not going to lie, really thought you had him. That last move by whisper surprised me that you both moved in on each other like that.

Funny point here, what if the 1 or 2 loss players only had losses because they matched the Top 4 players and lost to them?The only difference in these 2 scenarios is the timing of loss that could happen, and that in the final round players know for sure that a draw is advantageous. It just feels like a real shame that anyone misses the cut due to intentional drawing.

Funny point here, what if the 1 or 2 loss players only had losses because they matched the Top 4 players and lost to them?The only difference in these 2 scenarios is the timing of loss that could happen, and that in the final round players know for sure that a draw is advantageous. It just feels like a real shame that anyone misses the cut due to intentional drawing.

Agree here for sure. Either way, whether there is a draw or no draw, it feels like someone is losing out.

I think the only real answer is a larger cut. But, time constraints hurt that option as well unfortunately. I've always been for shorter swiss rounds and larger cuts. I mean, if I even get in just 3 games in a row of X-wing, even if I don't make the cut, 3 games of x-wing is plenty to leave me satisfied. Obviously in tournaments of this size though there needs to be more rounds than 3, but I suspect my point is understood.

Funny point here, what if the 1 or 2 loss players only had losses because they matched the Top 4 players and lost to them?The only difference in these 2 scenarios is the timing of loss that could happen, and that in the final round players know for sure that a draw is advantageous. It just feels like a real shame that anyone misses the cut due to intentional drawing.

This is a valid point and I've had it both ways. I've lost an early game or two and then faced a decidedly easier schedule in my route back to the cut to the point where I know I made the cut because I had a much easier "play-in" round than another opponent at a higher table who lost and then missed the cut. I've also had great tournaments only to lose my last round of swiss and miss the cut myself because I was ranked #2 and then lost to the other best player for the day.

In general, I don't mind the ID because of those situations, but I do see your point, especially as FFG's tourney system is paired by tournament points only without tiebreakers included. It also makes me wonder about SoS as a tie-breaker again (obviously with some tweaks).

Finally, I'll add that while there IDs that clearly saved some players' spots in the top cut, concessions also played a big role in some players' MOV during tiebreakers. That's especially relevant in a today's tournament environment where 100-0 victories are much tougher to come by.

Rinehart is the man. And a terrific sportsman.

And MJ, I dunno who this "David" Yun is, but there was definitely a Dee Yun that Brad Miller punted out of the tourney!

Hm. FFG results had it listed as "David" as #3 after Swiss. Was this you? I can update to Dee if it is.

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

What is the point of having the final round if everyone who could make the cut just draws.

If you take a 32 person event and it goes 5 rounds with a top 8 cut.

If on the fifth round the top 10 players(every one 3/1 or better effectivly the top five tables) all took a draw 8 of them are guaranteed to make it the only the two with the lowest mov fail to make it. No nothing short of 3/1/1 can make the cut

If they the draws were not allowed

4 of the 3/1 and six of the 2/2 end up battling for the 2 spots of 3/2 who make the cut. (net effect top 11 tables have a chance of making the cut)

What is the point of the 5th round when everyone could draw?

Perhaps the answer is to just have a larger cut.

The people it's denying are ones who have flown worse up to that point, I don't think it's super vital to protect thier interests over top players at a large event.

How does taht even matter? If losing the game instead of drawing means you don't make the cut, it means because at that point *someone else flew better than you* to have beat you out in the cut. Assuming it's your first loss, and they only had 1 loss as well, then the only way they beat you in the cut if you lose is if they had higher MoV than you. I'm in the "ID is a bad idea" camp. If losing means you don't make the cut, then you shouldn't make the cut if you lose. You shouldn't be able to bypass that (and screw over someone else who SHOULD have made the cut) just because you decided you were going to not bother playing a game and take a draw with your opponent just to be sure you made the top cut. If you really wanna make the cut...win your games.

Perhaps the answer is to just have a larger cut.

Would you prefer going to an event that is (5 rounds top 8 or 4 rounds top 16) or (6 rounds top 16 or 5 rounds top 32) Time for the event usually makes a maximum number of rounds you can have. The more rounds of top x will mean less rounds of swiss.

I don't know what the fuss about the intentional draw rule is. If you are at table 1 or 2 in the last round of the tournament, and a loss would drop you out of the tournament, but a draw would not, why shouldn't you be allowed to draw? I think the example we saw this weekend was a good one. Nathan and his opponent saw their best bet to make the cut was to call a draw, and Lyle saw his best opportunity, even if Drew did want to call a draw, was to play out the game as he was guaranteed a place in the top cut even with a loss. It is the players decision through and through. It's not like they are "cheating" their way in to the top cut. They obviously are the better players there if they are on the top tables last round, and in my opinion, it's a pity these players sometimes miss the cut because they lost to the number 1 or number 3 seeded player in the last round of swiss .

I'm all ears as to why it's a bad thing, but so far no arguments have been truly convincing. All I've heard is it's bad taste, but that's not my feeling. Either way though, I can understand that sort of feeling, as those near the bottom of the cut can feel a bit off put by the fact that their last round is irrelevant when players a few tables up draw. But that last round is also irrelevant for all the tables below them as well.

Because it's gaming the system and potentially denying other people better finishes and the potential of making the cut. All of the games should be played fully to keep everything fair.

The people it's denying are ones who have flown worse up to that point, I don't think it's super vital to protect thier interests over top players at a large event.

say its a 4 round event which has only played 3 rounds why are they considered the top players when they have only play 3/4 of their games 75% =c

even at 4 rounds out of 5 they have only played 80% of the swiss = b-

Why should we considered them top players?

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are if your opponent offers an intentional draw, and you decline. For example, if you both know your squad has the clear advantage against his squad, and he asks for the draw, and you say "No thanks." That doesn't make you the bad guy, does it?

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are if your opponent offers an intentional draw, and you decline. For example, if you both know your squad has the clear advantage against his squad, and he asks for the draw, and you say "No thanks." That doesn't make you the bad guy, does it?

I would argue it never makes you a "bad" guy if you decline a draw. And if your squad has a clear advantage over your opponent's, what reason have you to need to take a draw anyway?

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are if your opponent offers an intentional draw, and you decline. For example, if you both know your squad has the clear advantage against his squad, and he asks for the draw, and you say "No thanks." That doesn't make you the bad guy, does it?

I would argue it never makes you a "bad" guy if you decline a draw. And if your squad has a clear advantage over your opponent's, what reason have you to need to take a draw anyway?

That was my thought process, too. I guess I'm just too sympathetic. To look into your opponent's eyes and think, "Sorry, you're not going to make it this time." It hurts a little inside. But hey -- I go to tournaments to play my best, not to sit around for an hour and watch others play.

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are if your opponent offers an intentional draw, and you decline. For example, if you both know your squad has the clear advantage against his squad, and he asks for the draw, and you say "No thanks." That doesn't make you the bad guy, does it?

I would argue it never makes you a "bad" guy if you decline a draw. And if your squad has a clear advantage over your opponent's, what reason have you to need to take a draw anyway?

That was my thought process, too. I guess I'm just too sympathetic. To look into your opponent's eyes and think, "Sorry, you're not going to make it this time." It hurts a little inside. But hey -- I go to tournaments to play my best, not to sit around for an hour and watch others play.

History is written by the victor and trolled by the looser. Crush him without mercy!