FFG sticking to their guns is a good thing as far as I am concerned. I just wish they had had the balls to do it with the new Damage Deck as well.

The biggest problem with this statement (if it's actually true) is that FOUR SEPARATE tables of 8 competitors do not all decide to draw and call for a TO without there being talk between tables prior to the call to a TO.

Period.

That is in your, unsubstantiated opinion. Your opinions are not a fact, you have to realise and accept that.

If this response is real, calling it somewhat tone-deaf is an understatement akin to calling the Death Star a moderately imprudent investment. It's like calling Hayden Christensen a slightly unconvincing performer. It's like... it's like saying the Yuuzhan Vong pose a small challenge to the reader's suspension of disbelief.

If this is real, I'm going to really lose my temper. So for the moment, I'm going to assume it's some sort of elaborate prank in very poor taste, rather than an actual response from OP.

All I can say is that I first received the Message containing the statement 10 minutes before the show went live, I then ran around trying to get a second independent source before I was wiling to even mention it.

I got the second with 7 minutes to show time and made the decision to report on it.

I have posted before and will post again, I stand behind what I say and try to be as transparent as possible. It was not a stunt for attention, I produce a show for The Sentry Box and want to make it a show that people can respect and trust.

My reputation and the reputation of DiceHate Productions Inc are something I take seriously so rest assured I trust in this statement and will be checking the OP page to see if the mentioned article materialises.

Kris

Host and Producer for The Sentry Box's Monday Night Gaming Twitch Stream and Owner of DiceHate Productions Ltd

Next event everyone should just take IDs every round so that everyone ends up with the same record and the same points. You could get through 4-5 tournaments in a day if everyone just did that. It can't be collusion if everyone knows it is how to ensure you win.

What's more important? Playing 5 games of Xwing and not losing a single game or playing 5 tournaments of Xwing and not losing a single game? You don't have to choose now. You can do both. IDs for all! Never lose a match ever again.

WHY IS THIS NEEDED AS AN OPTION? I cannot see it.

The biggest problem with this statement (if it's actually true) is that FOUR SEPARATE tables of 8 competitors do not all decide to draw and call for a TO without there being talk between tables prior to the call to a TO.

Period.

There was collusion between the tables to decide to ALL do the same thing and then a TO was called simply to verify. The Tournament Regulations as recently changed to allow IDs was specific that the two players at a single table would call a TO at the very hint of one of them bringing up the possibility of taking a draw intentionally. The fact that four tables and 8 players ALL at the SAME TIME came up with the idea to take a draw is too coincidental. There was obviously under the breath talk between tables that it would benefit them ALL to ALL do it.

this doesn't even make sense. out of the four matches in the top 8, no matter what any other of those tables did, the table that took the draw would be guaranteed to be in the cut. there is no reason for anyone at these tables to care about what the other tables are doing. for example,

table 1 decides to play, so one player ends the game with 30 points and the other with 25.

table 2 decides to draw, so they each have 21 points at the end of swiss.

table 3 decides to play, so one players ends the game with 25 points and the other with 20.

table 4 decides to draw, so they each have 21 points at the end of swiss.

only the loser of the game at table 3 is at risk of being kicked out of the top 8. it doesn't matter whether one table took the draw or decided to play, the results would the same for the other three tables no matter what.

The biggest problem with this statement (if it's actually true) is that FOUR SEPARATE tables of 8 competitors do not all decide to draw and call for a TO without there being talk between tables prior to the call to a TO.

Period.

That is in your, unsubstantiated opinion. Your opinions are not a fact, you have to realise and accept that.

It's even more than that - it takes no collusion at all if all four tables are already playing what is fundamentally the (at the time) top 8, and each table independently realises that they are safe so kind as they draw, so each table goes for the same choice.

And suddenly everyone else below them find out that the entire top 8 did this, so there's no chance of breaking in. If even a single table had chosen to play for keeps, then there would have been a 'spot' available from whoever lost that fateful match.

And that's why no-one at those top tables risked it.

the great majority of comments I read here is from ppl against ID, and the corporate speech is "some players are not happy".

Apparently being able to rig the final 8 positions is promoting the fair play experience. Nice to know.

My sentiments exactly.

"We did something bad and even though 99% of you are intelligent enough and ethical enough to tell us why it is wrong, we are still right and those of you not good enough to win don't deserve the chance in the last round to beat the best. Fly casual!"

Nice! Pat yourself on the back. I'm sure you're a combination of mother Teresa and Albert Einstein.

the great majority of comments I read here is from ppl against ID, and the corporate speech is "some players are not happy".

These "some players" including both of their World Champions.

But sure, FFG, there's no issue here.

But I would have a major issue with any PRO team intentionally deciding to draw a game with their opponent. Secretly or not. In front of a neutral governing party or not.

Not sure how stuff works on the other side of the Pond, but in European football, intentional draws are quite common. They don't involve any negotiation with the opposing team (match fixing is illegal), both teams are aware that draw is the most beneficial result so they don't really try to win. I watch football regularly and IMO there is nothing more boring to watch than the last game of a group stage where both teams involved qualify on a draw, but not on a loss.

Of course, it's much harder to avoid and police in football (where unintentional draws occur often) than x-wing (where they don't)

I love the fact that ffg stood by their choice with the ID decision. You want to not worry about the ID factor you and your opponent don't have to agree to one. Or just win all the games you play.

The top 8 didn't win ALL their games, and we all know they didn't win their last round of swiss...so what you meant to say is winning early is more important than winning later rounds of swiss.

How convenient...so when the best players have to play the other best players...they don't have to actual play....yeah, that makes a ton of sense

They still have to play in the top 8, and I would much rather play and lose in the top 8 then play for no reason and not even make top 8 when I could just be in the top 8. Winning early is more important then winning late. You come from a different bracket area within the system. you lose round 1, your round 2 opponent is going to be some one more then likely with the same record as you. And continue that trend for future rounds. So if I am 4-1 after 5 rounds, and you are 3-2, you did not play better opponents then me.You should not be rewarded for losing early. You should be rewarded for winning. That is the point of winning.

I love the fact that ffg stood by their choice with the ID decision. You want to not worry about the ID factor you and your opponent don't have to agree to one. Or just win all the games you play.

The top 8 didn't win ALL their games, and we all know they didn't win their last round of swiss...so what you meant to say is winning early is more important than winning later rounds of swiss.

How convenient...so when the best players have to play the other best players...they don't have to actual play....yeah, that makes a ton of sense

They still have to play in the top 8, and I would much rather play and lose in the top 8 then play for no reason and not even make top 8 when I could just be in the top 8. Winning early is more important then winning late. You come from a different bracket area within the system. you lose round 1, your round 2 opponent is going to be some one more then likely with the same record as you. And continue that trend for future rounds. So if I am 4-1 after 5 rounds, and you are 3-2, you did not play better opponents then me.You should not be rewarded for losing early. You should be rewarded for winning. That is the point of winning.

The SoS of several of the 3-2 players at roanoke compared to a number of the 4-1 players puts lie to the argument that the people with the extra loss faced easier opponents.

And this still goes back to one simple thing. I as a player you do not like the ID decision, then don't offer your opponent a draw in the last round, or accept one if your opponent offers you one. Play the round out and either win and make the top 8 or know that losing you dont make top 8.

Well. It looks like this year will see my first and last regional, and only because I've already paid.

I'll still play little local events, but Organised Play is now off my events calendar.

And this still goes back to one simple thing. I as a player you do not like the ID decision, then don't offer your opponent a draw in the last round, or accept one if your opponent offers you one. Play the round out and either win and make the top 8 or know that losing you might not make top 8.

Fixed that for you. It's not like everyone who loses instead of taking the ID is guaranteed to miss the cut.

And this still goes back to one simple thing. I as a player you do not like the ID decision, then don't offer your opponent a draw in the last round, or accept one if your opponent offers you one. Play the round out and either win and make the top 8 or know that losing you might not make top 8.

Fixed that for you. It's not like everyone who loses instead of taking the ID is guaranteed to miss the cut.

Maybe so, but taking the ID guarantees you do make the top 8. You don't have to worry about your MOV being good enough or not enough. You can relax the last round and get food and just enjoy 75 minutes of not being on your feet

I love the fact that ffg stood by their choice with the ID decision. You want to not worry about the ID factor you and your opponent don't have to agree to one. Or just win all the games you play.

The top 8 didn't win ALL their games, and we all know they didn't win their last round of swiss...so what you meant to say is winning early is more important than winning later rounds of swiss.

How convenient...so when the best players have to play the other best players...they don't have to actual play....yeah, that makes a ton of sense

They still have to play in the top 8, and I would much rather play and lose in the top 8 then play for no reason and not even make top 8 when I could just be in the top 8. Winning early is more important then winning late. You come from a different bracket area within the system. you lose round 1, your round 2 opponent is going to be some one more then likely with the same record as you. And continue that trend for future rounds. So if I am 4-1 after 5 rounds, and you are 3-2, you did not play better opponents then me.You should not be rewarded for losing early. You should be rewarded for winning. That is the point of winning.

The SoS of several of the 3-2 players at roanoke compared to a number of the 4-1 players puts lie to the argument that the people with the extra loss faced easier opponents.

And as a 4-1 player you would risk it? You would pass up a guaranteed spot for top 8? You would play it out and risk not making top 8 when all you had to do was draw and get in. I seriously want to know why a person would play it out if they didnt need to.

It's a horribly bad decision...

In any sports event with a tournament structure i know, Intentional draws, even if played out are considered as fraud! It is always encouraged to play put your matches and to win them!

In Germany they are still talking about the "Schande von Gijón" (the shame of Gijón) where the german and austrian Soccer teams concluded that with a 1:0 victory tor Germany they would both be able to make the cut and gonto elimination rounds in world cup 1982. So they played 1:0 in a really shameful display of poor sportsmanship! During the match, fans of the algerian team that had won its final match were waving with money bills behind the goal!

As a consequence the FIFA changed the tournament mode so the last group stage games would be played at the same time. So even the organization most known for its corruption dislikes this behaviour!

Now this was an intentional victory, but intentional draws are not far from that, and FFG is now officially allowing that?? I can't believe it!

I love the fact that ffg stood by their choice with the ID decision. You want to not worry about the ID factor you and your opponent don't have to agree to one. Or just win all the games you play.

The top 8 didn't win ALL their games, and we all know they didn't win their last round of swiss...so what you meant to say is winning early is more important than winning later rounds of swiss.

How convenient...so when the best players have to play the other best players...they don't have to actual play....yeah, that makes a ton of sense

They still have to play in the top 8, and I would much rather play and lose in the top 8 then play for no reason and not even make top 8 when I could just be in the top 8. Winning early is more important then winning late. You come from a different bracket area within the system. you lose round 1, your round 2 opponent is going to be some one more then likely with the same record as you. And continue that trend for future rounds. So if I am 4-1 after 5 rounds, and you are 3-2, you did not play better opponents then me.You should not be rewarded for losing early. You should be rewarded for winning. That is the point of winning.

The SoS of several of the 3-2 players at roanoke compared to a number of the 4-1 players puts lie to the argument that the people with the extra loss faced easier opponents.

And as a 4-1 player you would risk it? You would pass up a guaranteed spot for top 8? You would play it out and risk not making top 8 when all you had to do was draw and get in. I seriously want to know why a person would play it out if they didnt need to.

I'm not arguing whether people should take the ID if they have the option. As long as the rule is there, people will use it and I don't blame them. for it, I'm not mad at them if they do. I'm arguing whether it should be allowed in the first place.

I'me newby from december and i'lĺ go to my first regional on may. It'seems possible with this disappointed rule to begin play only at home with friends to fly casual and not casual fly, isn't it? On this way, I haven't to waste hundred of euros in three months and play with proxies... possibly it's something to think to everyone wants to fly casual. I don't know if FFG will be agreed with this thinking

AND I like the away goals rule in home and away matchups.

Your a bad man..... a very very bad man.......

The biggest problem with this statement (if it's actually true) is that FOUR SEPARATE tables of 8 competitors do not all decide to draw and call for a TO without there being talk between tables prior to the call to a TO.

Period.

That is in your, unsubstantiated opinion. Your opinions are not a fact, you have to realise and accept that.

It's even more than that - it takes no collusion at all if all four tables are already playing what is fundamentally the (at the time) top 8, and each table independently realises that they are safe so kind as they draw, so each table goes for the same choice.

And suddenly everyone else below them find out that the entire top 8 did this, so there's no chance of breaking in. If even a single table had chosen to play for keeps, then there would have been a 'spot' available from whoever lost that fateful match.

And that's why no-one at those top tables risked it.

I love the fact that ffg stood by their choice with the ID decision. You want to not worry about the ID factor you and your opponent don't have to agree to one. Or just win all the games you play.

The top 8 didn't win ALL their games, and we all know they didn't win their last round of swiss...so what you meant to say is winning early is more important than winning later rounds of swiss.

How convenient...so when the best players have to play the other best players...they don't have to actual play....yeah, that makes a ton of sense

They still have to play in the top 8, and I would much rather play and lose in the top 8 then play for no reason and not even make top 8 when I could just be in the top 8. Winning early is more important then winning late. You come from a different bracket area within the system. you lose round 1, your round 2 opponent is going to be some one more then likely with the same record as you. And continue that trend for future rounds. So if I am 4-1 after 5 rounds, and you are 3-2, you did not play better opponents then me.You should not be rewarded for losing early. You should be rewarded for winning. That is the point of winning.

The SoS of several of the 3-2 players at roanoke compared to a number of the 4-1 players puts lie to the argument that the people with the extra loss faced easier opponents.

And as a 4-1 player you would risk it? You would pass up a guaranteed spot for top 8? You would play it out and risk not making top 8 when all you had to do was draw and get in. I seriously want to know why a person would play it out if they didnt need to.

In Australia, we have a saying:

"We're not playin' for f******n' sheep stations mate!"

And also

"Have a go ya Mug!"

But I would have a major issue with any PRO team intentionally deciding to draw a game with their opponent. Secretly or not. In front of a neutral governing party or not.

Not sure how stuff works on the other side of the Pond, but in European football, intentional draws are quite common. They don't involve any negotiation with the opposing team (match fixing is illegal), both teams are aware that draw is the most beneficial result so they don't really try to win. I watch football regularly and IMO there is nothing more boring to watch than the last game of a group stage where both teams involved qualify on a draw, but not on a loss.

Of course, it's much harder to avoid and police in football (where unintentional draws occur often) than x-wing (where they don't)

THIS.

IT should also be pointed out, when was the last time you saw a one hundred point spread/MOV in a football(soccer) game? This is also why MtG or Netrunner style ID is completely inappropriate.

We understand that intentional draws are a foreign or disliked concept for some players and fans of Organized Play, but it is our belief that they are a necessary inclusion to promote a fair play experience for all tournament players.

I don't buy it. This article of theirs better be convincing.

But I would have a major issue with any PRO team intentionally deciding to draw a game with their opponent. Secretly or not. In front of a neutral governing party or not.

Not sure how stuff works on the other side of the Pond, but in European football, intentional draws are quite common. They don't involve any negotiation with the opposing team (match fixing is illegal), both teams are aware that draw is the most beneficial result so they don't really try to win. I watch football regularly and IMO there is nothing more boring to watch than the last game of a group stage where both teams involved qualify on a draw, but not on a loss.

Of course, it's much harder to avoid and police in football (where unintentional draws occur often) than x-wing (where they don't)

I am from Europe but i have hardly ever seen matches like this. It's rather the opposite where a team or teams that have already qualified try to win in order to not fall under the suspicion of a manipulation.

For those saying this only effects highly competitive play read this article it shows that even a local store tournament could be ruined for new players by this. http://www.tabletopgeneral.com/2016/04/

FFG has a Organized Play division which focuses entirely on competitive scene. But as Alex said on the S&V podcast they are in charge of more than just X-wing. They have to also focus on Netrunner, Armada, Conquest, Imperial Assault and all the tournament kits that go into those games.

I think many player make the mistake of assuming that there is a dedicated X-wing organized play branch and that is false. Now should FFG make an dedicated X-wing organized play sub-division? Might not be necessary at the time, even if X-wing has become the biggest tabletop miniature game.