It is important to note, that the calls for intentional draws is likely coming from another game, most likely the Netrunner crowd.

I'm not sure Netrunner can draw.

I haven't looked, but I believe a draw is essentially a split win for both players in the match. The scoring in Netrunner makes this type of situation almost impossible to happen.

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

While I don't like what went down I also agree that blaming the players is probably not the proper course of action.

And I'm tempted to send that dude some tequila just for the amusing post lol!

soo...how has this thread not been locked yet?

LIfe's great mystery.

Here's the thing: a tournament is at it's best when every single player is playing as optimally as possible.

Is it?

I'd say the "best" tournament for a plastic miniatures game is one where everyone enjoys themselves and leaves smiling.

Might as well just match people randomly and do random drawings for the prizes kappa.

Why would someone like you ever play in a tournament? There are infinite opportunities to play a game of plastic miniatures and leave smiling and enjoying yourself outside the tournament scene.

Some of us like having the opportunity to try to be at our best, matched against other people trying their best. Tournaments were created for specifically this purpose.

Some of us like having the opportunity to try to be at our best, matched against other people trying their best. Tournaments were created for specifically this purpose.

Some of us like having the opportunity to try to be at our best, matched against other people trying their best. Tournaments were created for specifically this purpose.

Which is all well and good until someone or 8 decide to Intentionally Draw that opportunity away from you.......

They drew in a round that never should have existed.

Also, they didn't "take anything away" from anyone. None of those top 8 players were playing the people "on the bubble".

The people outside the top 8 weren't being denied anything. Their opponent was still across from them.

It is important to note, that the calls for intentional draws is likely coming from another game, most likely the Netrunner crowd.

I'm not sure Netrunner can draw.

And as a TO, I would absolutely say that prior consent (even nonverbal) means you don't get to just change your mind when it becomes convenient.

Then I hope you never become a TO, or at least actually read the rules, since you're making crap up that doesn't exist.

I could see the opponent being cautioned for poor sportsmanship, as disingenously allowing/encouraging an incorrect sequence of actions (moving all ships in a formation then taking all their actions) and then invoking the rules at the optimal moment falls under that definition. However, the fact remains that you can't move all your equal PS ships then take all their actions. What is wrong here isn't the player being disallowed from taking their actions Round 2. It's them being allowed to take their actions Round 1 for the purpose of disallowing them Round 2.

I still don't have to consent consistently. We never agreed on anything.

I did it with the express, predatory intent that he'd be lulled into thinking it was okay to miss his action opportunities so that I could take advantage of the situation when it would benefit me.

This is completely within the rules. It's not unsportsmanlike to ambush someone in a competitive war game.

Go ahead, measure with multiple ships while you're at it, you've just missed all your attack opportunities except the last ship. I'm not going to say anything. Yes, put more troops and material on that bridge *lies in wait with explosive detonator*.

I could see the opponent being cautioned for poor sportsmanship

Sure, if the person said "you can move all your ships at once" and then used it as a gotcha at some point. But that isn't actually against the rules, but only a matter of sportsmanship at the discretion of the TO.

But the larger point is this false idea that there is such a thing as consent that has to be revoked. I've let people move a swarm out of order simply because in the first round it's easier. They're not going to bump, but moving the PS1 who's behind a PS4 can be pain.

The fact that I allow that on the first turn however doesn't mean the person gets to do it every time, or I have to formally revoke my consent for him to do so, and if I don't the TO can step in and force me to allow him to do so.

The point is that missed opportunities is 100% at the discretion of the other player, and the fact that I let you do it six times before doesn't mean I have to allow you to do it the 7th time. It also doesn't mean I can't do it the 8th time if I so chose.

Letting someone get away with something for the whole game then nail them with it when it suits you best would be IMO poor sportsmanship, and maybe even worth a warning. But that's the most the TO can and should do.

I don't know why people are hanging on the idea that collusion has to be secret. It just normally is because it's illegal in business.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

Mature, funny, and clever.

Re: the reason for IDs - IDs mean that Strength of Schedule/Opponent Match Win is more relevant, as is the norm in most competitive games. I came second in a swiss tournament a few months ago where I lost round one and tabled opponents in the X-1 bracket all day, while the player who ended up in fourth or fifth was undefeated until the final round, but not able to table as many people due to stiffer competition in the X-0 bracket. For me, at least, SoS/OMW% is a better choice of tiebreaker than MOV.

Mature, funny, and clever.

Nothing screams maturity like labeling people who voice their opinions as assholes and pandering with overdone jokes about alcohol.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

soo...how has this thread not been locked yet?

LIfe's great mystery.

I think it's because, despite it being uncomfortable, it's largely been about X-wing and its been civil despite some very dissenting opinions.

I don't know why people are hanging on the idea that collusion has to be secret. It just normally is because it's illegal in business.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

Mature, funny, and clever.

Re: the reason for IDs - IDs mean that Strength of Schedule/Opponent Match Win is more relevant, as is the norm in most competitive games. I came second in a swiss tournament a few months ago where I lost round one and tabled opponents in the X-1 bracket all day, while the player who ended up in fourth or fifth was undefeated until the final round, but not able to table as many people due to stiffer competition in the X-0 bracket. For me, at least, SoS/OMW% is a better choice of tiebreaker than MOV.

Have you looked at the SoS from Roanoke? It's a couple (dozen?) pages back, but there were 3-4 players that had a much higher SoS than a handful of the Top 8. A better way to put it is that the existence of IDs mean playing better (or easier opponents) early is more important than playing well later.

I don't know why people are hanging on the idea that collusion has to be secret. It just normally is because it's illegal in business.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

An interesting opinion from the number 10 player

http://www.notsuchabadpilot.com/uncategorized/a-word-about-the-intentional-draws-in-roanoke/

Mature, funny, and clever.

Re: the reason for IDs - IDs mean that Strength of Schedule/Opponent Match Win is more relevant, as is the norm in most competitive games. I came second in a swiss tournament a few months ago where I lost round one and tabled opponents in the X-1 bracket all day, while the player who ended up in fourth or fifth was undefeated until the final round, but not able to table as many people due to stiffer competition in the X-0 bracket. For me, at least, SoS/OMW% is a better choice of tiebreaker than MOV.

Have you looked at the SoS from Roanoke? It's a couple (dozen?) pages back, but there were 3-4 players that had a much higher SoS than a handful of the Top 8. A better way to put it is that the existence of IDs mean playing better (or easier opponents) early is more important than playing well later.

Generally, people who lose mid-tournament rounds will have higher SoS than players who don't lose any, since players who lose mid-tournament will lose to undefeated players. It's not uncommon for the players at the top of the standings in their bracket to have much higher SoS/OMW% than players in the bracket above them since they will have played 1 or more players with 100% match win % while any undefeated player's opponents will have at least one loss.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

What is your take on the Hoth open draw then?

Paul wasn't the top spot. He had one loss.

It was the 3-8 spots where the issue came up with. But the reason the Intentional Draw is allowed is because it is a pain in the ass to judge intention. Which is why making a judgement call when the next 3 tables did it is problematic. Because no where in the rules does it say only the top table can take it.

Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

But like it or not, that's not how the rules is apparently supposed to work per FFG's own TO's. It happened at Hoth IIRC and the TO there was fine with it, so the standard has already been set.

You can take the ID even if there's a chance of not making the cut.

That said, I think the comment somewhere about a ID giving 0 points so only someone who's so far ahead a 0 won't hurt them would want to take it, makes sense.

Then again as Vorpal Sword pointed out in another thread the real problem is that the whole system is a bit of a mess from the start.

your rule is bad and you should feel bad

You would not believe the amount of angry posts I've seen from people that have never met me, calling for my head. I can ignore all of that from random anonymous internet trolls, but it was really Doug's Facebook post that set me off. I try to make sure my "public persona" is a good ambassador for the game, since I know a lot of you only know me through podcasts and posts, but even I have limits.

So I'm Iron Man, not Cap, right?

Regardless of where FFG stands with the rule, I have to say I am more disappointed by the posts the two of you wrote than anything else, really.

I can see where both are coming from, but... Couldn't both of you just have taken a deep breath before letting all of that out?

*sigh*

There's some context to those I believe you're probably missing.

I saw Hothie's original post in facebook not long after he wrote it. Apart from that, what might I have missed?

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

I hope I never play at a tournament where that guy is a TO.

Nobody has any responsibility to anyone other than themselves and their opponent in any given game. It is not a player's responsibility to think about the people on the bubble.

Doing the math on who might be in jeopardy and who might not is overcomplicating the situation. There are two simple solutions:

1) Do the correct amount of Swiss rounds.

2) Don't allow IDs

Slightly more complicated: change the tournament style.

Terrible idea: let random TOs make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "legal" Intentional Draw.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

What is your take on the Hoth open draw then?

The same logic must be applied. I am not entirely familiar with the Hoth draw, but if it was a case of one of the players could have lost his spot to someone outside the cut then the game should have been played. If not, then scores are being manipulated - which is against the rules.

I agree with the point VaderDM reiterated: Perhaps a 0 point draw could be the answer. No loss, no gain. If you are safe then you are safe, whether anyone below (or above) you wins or loses (or draws ).

Doing the math on who might be in jeopardy and who might not is overcomplicating the situation. There are two simple solutions:

1) Do the correct amount of Swiss rounds.

2) Don't allow IDs

Slightly more complicated: change the tournament style.

Terrible idea: let random TOs make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "legal" Intentional Draw.

Note that the "correct" number of Swiss rounds for most tournament systems is the number that creates a clear first place winner, not one that gives a clean cut to players with a certain record. It would be easy to just get rid of IDs and elimination rounds at the same time and play until the natural Swiss conclusion.

As a TO, I will say this. Being full set against the rule. But enforcement of them being my responsibility. And I follow the organization rules meticulously. If you come to me asking to draw, I will challenge you to prove to me that you have not discussed it before coming to me. Which I would only be justified in doing. If you are successful in that case I will examine the standings to determine if there is even a remote opportunity for you to be displaced from your rank, and if so disallow the draw as obviously I can't let you change the results of the tournament. So until it's revoked, I will enforce the rules. Most critically. If it's not revoked The Guardtower may need a new TO for their X-wing events.

See, this is what should have happened. Paul (and 1, possibly 2 others) would not have slipped from the top 8 regardless, but the others were indeed in danger of losing their spot to someone from below the final round top 8. This is where the mistake was made and the rules not followed (de facto cheating). Anyone with any chance whatsoever of not making the cut should have not been allowed to take the ID.

That is the crux of my issue with the whole thing.

The problem is that whether it's against the rules depends on where you're looking in the rules, how you define terms like "collusion" and "manipulate", and how FFG defines the same.

Organized Play has indicated via some e-mail rulings that their definition of collusion is... let's say unfortunately narrow, from my perspective. Basically unless you bribe your opponent in front of a judge, you're fine. So that's not part of the equation.

And if you want to think about manipulating the standings in a similarly narrow way, you could argue that all that's really being manipulated in an intentional draw is the result of a single match. In fact, I've seen several people essentially make this argument: nothing happens to other people that they didn't earn on their own, so what I do at my table shouldn't matter.

And then there's the fact that intentional draws were explicitly added to the rules, and it's hard to see what the intent was if it wasn't to allow a pair of players to preserve their positions in the cut by drawing (since that's the most obvious and straightforward consequence of introducing the rule). And, of course, it was legal at the FFG-officiated event at Adepticon.

What I'm saying is that there's no clear basis for a TO to disallow an intentional draw under almost any circumstances other than open bribery or (maybe) threats. Instead TOs are in the position of interpreting vague rules guidance, and furthermore they have to decide whether to screw the standings up by allowing IDs en masse or ruling against FFG's own precedent. Neither is a good choice.

The rule has to go, obviously. But putting it on the TO as if it's a clear and flagrant violation of the tournament rules isn't really supported.

The same logic must be applied. I am not entirely familiar with the Hoth draw, but if it was a case of one of the players could have lost his spot to someone outside the cut then the game should have been played. If not, then scores are being manipulated - which is against the rules.

The point is that's exactly what happened and the judges, while not FFG OP themselves, were advised by them and FFG OP were there and available.