The entire top 8 at Roanoke just did it. On the bubble? Nope, turns out your last match is a waste of time. See you next year, suckers.

EDIT: forgive the typo, I'm just that mad about it.

Update: the number 9 player going into the final round won, and had 8 other people not decided before the tournament ended that he didn't deserve it, he would have been the 6th seed.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

This isn't magic. If you want to play magic, go play magic.

I'll be over here, actually getting a say in whether I get to play a final round that matters.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

It wasn't standard before the rule change. It will be going forward. The last round of swiss now matters less than the rest.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

This isn't magic. If you want to play magic, go play magic.

I'll be over here, actually getting a say in whether I get to play a final round that matters.

I'm sorry you're angry but that doesn't change that a comparison to a very popular game that uses swiss rounds is accurate.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

It wasn't standard before the rule change. It will be going forward. The last round of swiss now matters less than the rest.

Which is garbage. The last round is THE most important.

I mean it's standard fair for these things. Magic it's almost a given.

It wasn't standard before the rule change. It will be going forward. The last round of swiss now matters less than the rest.

Even the players that are doing it say they don't like the rule. That means something is wrong.

I'm ashamed of every last one of those players for taking the IDs. This is a BS rule.

I'm ashamed of every last one of those players for taking the IDs. This is a BS rule.

The rules allow it. They shouldn't be expected to add an artificial disadvantage out of principle. We should expect those who create the system of rules to make a system that doesn't incentivize not playing the game.

A 0 pt ID would be ideal.

You're awesome enough that the equivalent of a full loss doesn't matter? Sure, take a break. You're not? Well, you should play to prove you deserve it then!

I'm ashamed of every last one of those players for taking the IDs. This is a BS rule.

Don't blame the players for the design of the system.

Every person that says "oh, this is bad" but takes it is a self serving jerk. I don't blame them for the design, just for using it.

Did it change the top 8 standing at all?

I'm ashamed of every last one of those players for taking the IDs. This is a BS rule.

Don't blame the players for the design of the system.

Every person that says "oh, this is bad" but takes it is a self serving jerk. I don't blame them for the design, just for using it.

In a certain way, doesn't this example further the cause of those of the side of "this is ridiculous"? If most of them turn it down out of principle, the design is never exposed for the farce it is. It just goes under the radar causing low level problems forever.

So I guess that means that all the top 8 were all X-1 otherwise they would have been potentially jumped by the winners from the last round who would have been X-2 at that point. And if any of the top 8 had a modified win or 2 losses then they still would have had to play.

This situation seems like a prefect storm of points to even make it viable for all the top 8. Under normal circumstances they wouldn't normally have that guarantee.

However for all 8 to do it certainly falls under collusion. Some of them are just waiting to see if others are taking an ID, or are being pressured into because "everyone else" is doing it.

The ID rule is easy to fix, just make it a double loss (no MoV) so that only players who are actually safe and earned enough points to qualify can use it.

I certainly hope we get an emergency revision of the tournament rules out of this. It certainly isn't working as intended, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.

Did it change the top 8 standing at all?

No? And yes?

All top 8 players stayed the same, since they all took it.

Players 9-20 who still had a chance to make it in on a win were instantly eliminated before playing their final round.

I'm not really sure what is/did happen here? Why would you just call it quits after making it to top 8?

Anyone saying they are ashamed of the players for taking the ID when they disagree with it, don't be. Maybe not the best way to make your stance heard, but I know of plenty of players who hated Fat Han or Whisper back in Wave 4, but for the same reason as these players took IDs here, they used it to get on the top tables.

I'm not really sure what is/did happen here? Why would you just call it quits after making it to top 8?

By taking intentional draws, all of the top 8 players automatically make the cut as the next player down already had 2 losses where they all just had 1. Therefore, the games being played in the last round literally have no effect on the top 8, whereas if the top 8 players had played out their games, players 9-20 (?) would have had a shot at making the cut.

I'm not really sure what is/did happen here? Why would you just call it quits after making it to top 8?

They didn't completely call it quits. They took draws for the final round to guarantee they all made the top 8. Which screwed everyone in 9-20 who would have been in the running to make it based on tie-breakers if half of those top 8 had lost their games.

Hopefully this ill put a light on this. I also feel that the TO should have said yes to the two 5 and 0. everyone else had to play. To me that would have been fair.

Did it change the top 8 standing at all?

No? And yes?

All top 8 players stayed the same, since they all took it.

Players 9-20 who still had a chance to make it in on a win were instantly eliminated before playing their final round.

That's pretty rubbish. If I was in that second lot of players, I'd be pretty pissed off too, to be denied the chance of a top 8 place. If I don't make it? Fine. But hell, at least give me a shot.

Even the players that are doing it say they don't like the rule. That means something is wrong.

The rule is not the problem, the ******* TO who does not protect the integrity of the tourney is the problem. The rules clearly state that this is ONLY legal if it does not compromise the tourney integrity, which means manipulating results is still off-limits.

The rules as well state that the TO needs to accept each of those draws and should only do so if it is not ******* up everyone else. It is a good rule to allow draws to prevent time-wasters, there are situations which can not resolved and will end in a draw. No point in waiting for the clock in those cases. But for christ sake, we have this in our Tourament rules:

Unsporting Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round. However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents. The organizer, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Complaining about the option to have a draw is imho not justified when just suggesting to a TO to decide who makes the cut with pre-arranged draws is a offence which gives the TO the right to remove those players without even second thought. It's good that we have the ability to agree on a draw, the rules are not at fault if a TO screws up and allows this to get out of hand.

Intentional Draws

During Swiss rounds, players may intentionally draw a game so long as a leader is present for any discussion between players prior to the agreement. The leader’s presence is required to prevent any breach of the tournament’s integrity. The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3. If two players intentionally draw a game, each player receives 1 tournament point and a Margin of Victory of 100, just as if they were to arrive at a natural draw over the course of play.

Even the players that are doing it say they don't like the rule. That means something is wrong.

The rule is not the problem, the ******* TO who does not protect the integrity of the tourney is the problem. The rules clearly state that this is ONLY legal if it does not compromise the tourney integrity, which means manipulating results is still off-limits.

The rules as well state that the TO needs to accept each of those draws and should only do so if it is not ******* up everyone else. It is a good rule to allow draws to prevent time-wasters, there are situations which can not resolved and will end in a draw. No point in waiting for the clock in those cases. But for christ sake, we have this in our Tourament rules:

Unsporting Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. Players cannot reference outside material or information during a round. However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents. The organizer, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Complaining about the option to have a draw is imho not justified when just suggesting to a TO to decide who makes the cut with pre-arranged draws is a offence which gives the TO the right to remove those players without even second thought. It's good that we have the ability to agree on a draw, the rules are not at fault if a TO screws up and allows this to get out of hand.

Intentional Draws

During Swiss rounds, players may intentionally draw a game so long as a leader is present for any discussion between players prior to the agreement. The leader’s presence is required to prevent any breach of the tournament’s integrity. The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3. If two players intentionally draw a game, each player receives 1 tournament point and a Margin of Victory of 100, just as if they were to arrive at a natural draw over the course of play.

I don't like it, but FFG already set the precedent for allowing IDs to guarantee spots in the cut at Hoth Open.