So, what would the effect be of offering a bye in the first elimination round to the top 2 seeds?

Con: You exclude 2 players from the elimination rounds.

Pro: Pretty much everyone has something to play for in the final round of Swiss.

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

LOL. I love how this is a big deal. Just win your matches and this won't affect you.

Maybe the same holds true for the top 8? Maybe they should have earned their way (all the way) into the cut rather than sneak in the back door thru some poorly worded and ridiculous FFG rule? Maybe 'just win their matches' and deserve to be there? Yeah, how about that?

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

Drops only affect SoS if the person dropping would have won their remaining games, driving up the averages used.

Well, as I understand how it works, or used to, players that drop are given losses for all remaining games, so even if they'd have won just one game, it can matter, especially considering each loss makes it more likely a player will face someone they can beat.

Dropping typically only tells us a player is eliminated and isn't a reliable predictor of their final record.

When SoS was a thing, there were a ton of complaints from people that lost out because an opponent dropped. It's an especially bad predictor the longer the tournament is. I know a player who had three opponents drop at a particularly long regional and it tanked his SoS.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Vorpal and think Swiss into Single Elimination is just a bad format for competitive play. I like IDs in that context, but it's a pretty bad context to begin with.

There is another thread that suggests that IDs be limited to the most competitive tournaments. I think it should just change entirely:

Casual events with prize support are pure Swiss, play until one person is undefeated.

Competitive and Premier events are double elimination.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

Drops only affect SoS if the person dropping would have won their remaining games, driving up the averages used.

Well, as I understand how it works, or used to, players that drop are given losses for all remaining games, so even if they'd have won just one game, it can matter, especially considering each loss makes it more likely a player will face someone they can beat.

Dropping typically only tells us a player is eliminated and isn't a reliable predictor of their final record.

When SoS was a thing, there were a ton of complaints from people that lost out because an opponent dropped. It's an especially bad predictor the longer the tournament is. I know a player who had three opponents drop at a particularly long regional and it tanked his SoS.

The Tournament Regulations never instruct you to enter a loss for all rounds after a drop. A player 2-1 player that drops for the fourth round is a 2-1 player at the end of the day, not a 2-4 player. If you had played that opponent they should contribute to your SoS the same as a 4-2 player would.

Where dropping can end up hurting other player's SoS is when someone takes two losses right away and drops. Because of the way that swiss works those first two games may have been the toughest opponents they will face all day and may have easily ended up with a few wins for the day.

How to calculate SoS from the Tournament Regulations:

"A player’s strength of schedule is calculated

by dividing each opponent’s total tournament points by the number of

rounds that opponent has played, adding the results of each opponent

played, and then dividing that total by the number of opponents the player

has played."

Thanks for the clarification. One more question then. Wouldn't SoS be hurt anytime a player drops when they have a worse record than they were likely to finish with? For example, say in a six round tourney a player goes 1-2 but was a very good player and could have ended 3-3 or even 4-2.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

Please stop propagating the factually incorrect statement that if everyone took ID every round there would be no cut.

Tiebreakers

If two or more players have the same number of tournament points, tiebreakers are used to determine each player’s standing within that group.

Tiebreakers are used in the following order until all players within that group have been given a standing.

• Head-to-head: Any player that has played and defeated all other players in the group is ranked above the other players in the group.

• Margin of Victory: The player with the highest Margin of Victory is ranked above all other players with the same number of tournament points. The player with the second highest Margin of Victory is ranked second among those players. The player with the third highest Margin of Victory is ranked third among those players, and so on.

• Strength of Schedule: A player’s strength of schedule is calculated by dividing each opponent’s total tournament points by the number of rounds that opponent has played, adding the results of each opponent played, and then dividing that total by the number of opponents the player has played. The player with the highest strength of schedule is ranked above all other players in the group not yet ranked. The player with the second-highest strength of schedule is ranked second among all players in the group not yet ranked, and so on.

• Random: If any players are still tied after all other tiebreakers have been applied, then those players are ranked in a random order below any players already ranked in the group.

Read the rules people.

Thanks

Kris

How do you think FFG would feel if they had a Regional with all ID results decided by random selection? The same metaphorical black eye would be delivered even if the prize support section of the statement was incorrect.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

Would be really funny if this was just a joke to get people to drop it and move on.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

Would be really funny if this was just a joke to get people to drop it and move on.

What a scandal that would be.

If you do not like IDs you need to talk about the Swiss system. I am no fan of IDs but have learned to live with them after 20 or so years of MtG.

Draws in Magic are very unlikly as well and for the most part are because of time. So this game is compareable to Magic in that manner.

I would prefer a double elimination system over the Swiss system but that would not grant every player the same rounds. But this system would focus only on winning or losing. No more draws.

Im so tired of people referencing MTG

MTG is a pay to win game where draws are extremely common and impossible to enforce.

In XWing actual draws are extremely rare.

(Yes I know MTG takes skill, however the difference between a CCG and a miniature collection game is completely completely different)

You obv have no idea about MtG.

It is neither pay to win (unless you count X-Wing pay to win as well), nor are draws extremely common (unless you count IDs at the competitive level).

You need a tournament structure that rewards wins more than punishes losses.

Graduated cut from FFG's own fundamental tournament document fixes many of these problems by rewarding the top players with byes in elimination instead of draws in swiss and is actually recommended for large events.

If you want to TO a tournament, but don't want to break the rules, you can run your tournament with this structure and ID won't be an issue.

Early wins do tend to put you on a tougher track in Swiss. It's my primary argument against SoS as a tiebreaker since it penalizes early losses more than late ones.

It's true that they penalize early wins more than late ones, but I think this is a good thing and why SoS should be the main tiebreaker. I shouldn't be coming second in a swiss event by submarining round one and then tabling people all day while the guy at the top of the standings all day who loses the last round gets leapfrogged because he played tougher competition who he couldn't table each round.

Have you examined the SoS from Roanoake?

Drops have a very adverse effect on SoS. And with the 7 (or so I read somewhere) drops that means a fair number of the field (potentially, depending on how many of the drops played one another) had their SoS damaged by those drops. I don't know who, nor where they were in the standings, but some of the players certainly were affected.

Drops only affect SoS if the person dropping would have won their remaining games, driving up the averages used.

Well, as I understand how it works, or used to, players that drop are given losses for all remaining games, so even if they'd have won just one game, it can matter, especially considering each loss makes it more likely a player will face someone they can beat.

Dropping typically only tells us a player is eliminated and isn't a reliable predictor of their final record.

When SoS was a thing, there were a ton of complaints from people that lost out because an opponent dropped. It's an especially bad predictor the longer the tournament is. I know a player who had three opponents drop at a particularly long regional and it tanked his SoS.

The Tournament Regulations never instruct you to enter a loss for all rounds after a drop. A player 2-1 player that drops for the fourth round is a 2-1 player at the end of the day, not a 2-4 player. If you had played that opponent they should contribute to your SoS the same as a 4-2 player would.

Where dropping can end up hurting other player's SoS is when someone takes two losses right away and drops. Because of the way that swiss works those first two games may have been the toughest opponents they will face all day and may have easily ended up with a few wins for the day.

How to calculate SoS from the Tournament Regulations:

"A player’s strength of schedule is calculated

by dividing each opponent’s total tournament points by the number of

rounds that opponent has played, adding the results of each opponent

played, and then dividing that total by the number of opponents the player

has played."

Thanks for the clarification. One more question then. Wouldn't SoS be hurt anytime a player drops when they have a worse record than they were likely to finish with? For example, say in a six round tourney a player goes 1-2 but was a very good player and could have ended 3-3 or even 4-2.

Maybe we should ban people for dropping. Makes sense to me if you guys want to force people to play. Fyi, I can not find my sarcasm font.

I dislike the rule, dislike its point value, dislike FFGOP's tone deaf response tonight ("we need it so things are fair for all!!" -- um, what??)... but I have a hard time seeing it becoming a regular thing where people still on the bubble get locked out. Am I missing something in the math?

You are missing something in the math, and you will in fact see it happening all the time.

It's pretty straightforward to figure out that, any time the entirety of players with a given number of tournament points is contained in the Top 8 in the next-to-last Swiss round, they will all have the opportunity to take a draw that would secure their Top 8 spot.

I appreciate your analysis, but you're still "missing" (i.e. failing to address) the one element of the math that remains unclear to me:

"...any time the entirety of players with a given number of tournament points is contained in the Top 8 in the next-to-last Swiss round..."

Yes, but how probable is it that this "any time" becomes the case? You have not addressed that. (No fault of yours, because I only just now am recognizing that that is the missing element I don't have a handle on, whereas in my earlier quoted post above, I was just asking a question from a place of not knowing what I didn't know.) How often will a Swiss tournament of a sufficiently large size result in the Top 8 being the exclusive holders of X-1 (or better) win totals? We can say "any time" about things that have a 0.0001% probability of occurring, and devise special rules for handling such occurrences, but if such a thing is truly that exceedingly rare, then it's not worth the angst.

I mean, for all I know (Swiss pairing methodology and outcomes remain a bit nebulous to me), it is HIGHLY probable that this would be a regular thing. On the other hand, the Roanoke Event could truly be that "perfect storm" people keep referring to.

If Roanoke #8 had less than 20 TPs to be in the same field as #9-below, or if Roanoke #9 had had 20 TPs to be in the same field as #3-8, then the domino effect of IDs would not have happened below, say, Table #2.

So if that is the vastly more likely outcome, and Roanoke was truly just a perfect storm, then the angst is at least a little bit misplaced. But I don't hold that view strongly, because I truly don't know the probabilities. So I guess I'm asking...

Double draw in would take an obscene number of people,

You can do it in everything except the tournaments that are large relative to their cut size.

In sizes comparable to most store tournaments (for instance used herein, 6 rounds of Swiss), once you get above a certain number (for 6, it's 64 players), that's when it's no longer possible to guarantee a Top 8 spot if you go 4-0-2.

Below that, a 4-0-2 will make the Top 8 without fail.

1 point versus 5 is pretty huge, even a modified win at 3 points is enough to surpass a double draw.

At the end of a Swiss tournament of 64 players, you will have (without draws) 1 person at 6-0, 6 players at 5-1, and 1 player at 4-2 constituting the Top 8.

That 4-2 player literally cannot surpass 20 points. Therefore, if you were 4-0 in Round 4, sitting at 20 points, you can take a draw for 21 points and you will have guaranteed your spot in the Top 8.

Taking it a bit more in depth, the round in which you did so had 4 players at 4-0 (you were matched with a 4-0 because there's an even number of players) and 16 players at 3-1.

Assuming that the other 2 4-0's did not draw, the results are 1 person at 5-0 (25 points), you and your opponent at 4-0-1 (21 points), and then 9 people at 4-1 (20 points) [8 of the 3-1s win, plus the 4-0 who lost].

The top person will be paired with you or your opponent; let's say he's paired with your opponent, and then let's have them draw again because 1st place is already locked in if he gets any points this round.

Let's also say that you don't succeed in offering a draw to the 4-1 you're paired with (marking him with a *). Let's also say you lose that game. There are, not counting your opponent, 4 people from 4-1 who went to 5-1 (the other 4 had to go to 4-2, after all).

The final top 8 records are:

5-0-1 (26 points)

5-1* (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

4-0-2 (22 points)

4-1-1 (21 points)

You make it. By ID'ing 2 rounds out, you've secured a spot. Without other people taking a draw to get to 21 points, you cannot be edged out of the Top 8.

Almost always the undefeateds going into the last round (of which there should only be 2) will draw. But then again, it largely won't matter to anyone else.

And any time all of the X-1's are currently making the cut, they can ID the last round and avoid missing the cut with certainty.

Occasionally at certain player counts near the top end of each Swiss round breakdown (so 50+ but less than 64) you might see situations where the top 4 can ID in. This might cause a couple people to have what would have been a "meaningful" game for Top 8 reasons (under very defined circumstances involving MOV) to suddenly be playing for 9th place instead of 8th.

Which is the hilarious part. All the people who hate ID seem to think unless you Top 8 it doesn't matter, and they are saying that people who ID are only concerned with being in the Top 8 and that's a bad thing.

If you're aiming for #1 in Swiss then no, you can't ID to get that spot until a much smaller number. But if you don't care about the seeding of the Top 8 for elimination rounds, then as long as you make it all that matters is that you did make it.

I played and followed magic for a decade. Never saw it happen and only heard of it happening a few times.

At the end of a Swiss tournament of 64 players, you will have (without draws) 1 person at 6-0, 6 players at 5-1, and 1 player at 4-2 constituting the Top 8.

That 4-2 player literally cannot surpass 20 points. Therefore, if you were 4-0 in Round 4, sitting at 20 points, you can take a draw for 21 points and you will have guaranteed your spot in the Top 8.

Taking it a bit more in depth, the round in which you did so had 4 players at 4-0 (you were matched with a 4-0 because there's an even number of players) and 16 players at 3-1.

Assuming that the other 2 4-0's did not draw, the results are 1 person at 5-0 (25 points), you and your opponent at 4-0-1 (21 points), and then 9 people at 4-1 (20 points) [8 of the 3-1s win, plus the 4-0 who lost].

The top person will be paired with you or your opponent; let's say he's paired with your opponent, and then let's have them draw again because 1st place is already locked in if he gets any points this round.

Let's also say that you don't succeed in offering a draw to the 4-1 you're paired with (marking him with a *). Let's also say you lose that game. There are, not counting your opponent, 4 people from 4-1 who went to 5-1 (the other 4 had to go to 4-2, after all).

The final top 8 records are:

5-0-1 (26 points)

5-1* (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

5-1 (25 points)

4-0-2 (22 points)

4-1-1 (21 points)

You make it. By ID'ing 2 rounds out, you've secured a spot. Without other people taking a draw to get to 21 points, you cannot be edged out of the Top 8.

THIS.

Wow. Like I said, Swiss structure is a bit nebulous to me.

I bow to your mathfu.

If you do not like IDs you need to talk about the Swiss system. I am no fan of IDs but have learned to live with them after 20 or so years of MtG.

Draws in Magic are very unlikly as well and for the most part are because of time. So this game is compareable to Magic in that manner.

I would prefer a double elimination system over the Swiss system but that would not grant every player the same rounds. But this system would focus only on winning or losing. No more draws.

Im so tired of people referencing MTG

MTG is a pay to win game where draws are extremely common and impossible to enforce.

In XWing actual draws are extremely rare.

(Yes I know MTG takes skill, however the difference between a CCG and a miniature collection game is completely completely different)

You obv have no idea about MtG.

It is neither pay to win (unless you count X-Wing pay to win as well), nor are draws extremely common (unless you count IDs at the competitive level).

I've been playing MTG since 1995. It is very much P2W for the most part. There are a lot of mythic rares that are stronger than average cards for example. Modern is just a joke when it comes to P2W and dual lands, etc.. Additionally, draws are not that difficult to do if you really want to do them. You can take your time pretty easily, you can focus on defense and not offense, you can sideboard in passive cards... it's definitely easier to get a draw in MTG than Xwing. I wouldn't say draws are "extremely common" though.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

What I was getting at, in absence of actual proof, was that I assume the conclusion that makes the most sense is the one even if it doesn't match my own position. In this case, I find it very unlikely that Wade was unaware of the draw at Hoth, not unlike the people that were claiming that that draw (and the ones at Roanoke) was against the intent of the ID rule. It just required too many failures at too many levels.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

What I was getting at, in absence of actual proof, was that I assume the conclusion that makes the most sense is the one even if it doesn't match my own position. In this case, I find it very unlikely that Wade was unaware of the draw at Hoth, not unlike the people that were claiming that that draw (and the ones at Roanoke) was against the intent of the ID rule. It just required too many failures at too many levels.

I didn't say he was unaware of the draw itself. I said FFGOP was probably unaware of the issue it causes.

Radio TCX posted a podcast today where they interview FFGOP's Wade Piche.

At around the 25 minute mark they start talking about the Hoth Open. There is no mention of the ID.

He did say the goal at Hoth was for 6-0 with all modified wins to make day two. And that 6 rounds is optimal in a single day.

After that they just talked about prizes. That everyone likes the cards the most of all prizes, that he reads the forums and looks to see what people say about OP and what OP items they want, and that "great surprises" are incoming.

I don't know when it was recorded, but at that time FFGOP was seemingly clueless to the ID issue. I hope they've all been reading the forums since.

@FFGOP: remove the victory points from Intentional Draws.

Or, alternatively, especially based on the recent FFG communication, the draw wasn't a big deal because it was used as it was intended. In fact, the Hoth draw doesn't seem to have gotten much wide discussion until this week (there was discussion on reddit) and certainly didn't hold the same level of controversy.

I think it's pretty much impossible that Wade didn't know about the ID at Hoth considering 1) he was there, and 2) one of the players involved in the Hoth draw was until recently from the TC, so the TCX hosts and Wade probably know him on a more personal level.

I don't trust the supposed FFG communication until I actually see an official response.

What I was getting at, in absence of actual proof, was that I assume the conclusion that makes the most sense is the one even if it doesn't match my own position. In this case, I find it very unlikely that Wade was unaware of the draw at Hoth, not unlike the people that were claiming that that draw (and the ones at Roanoke) was against the intent of the ID rule. It just required too many failures at too many levels.

The Hoth draw wasn't as big as the Roanoke one, but it definitely got air time. From memory, the winner of the Hoth wouldn't have been in the Final 8 if an intentional draw had happened in the final swiss round. Which I find funny, because (some) people are saying that those unable to take an ID are scrubs basically. However, in this instance, someone that would have been outside the Final 8 had IDs been taken to their full potential, won the tournament.

Yes, but how probable is it that this "any time" becomes the case? You have not addressed that. (No fault of yours, because I only just now am recognizing that that is the missing element I don't have a handle on, whereas in my earlier quoted post above, I was just asking a question from a place of not knowing what I didn't know.) How often will a Swiss tournament of a sufficiently large size result in the Top 8 being the exclusive holders of X-1 (or better) win totals? We can say "any time" about things that have a 0.0001% probability of occurring, and devise special rules for handling such occurrences, but if such a thing is truly that exceedingly rare, then it's not worth the angst.

I mean, for all I know (Swiss pairing methodology and outcomes remain a bit nebulous to me), it is HIGHLY probable that this would be a regular thing. On the other hand, the Roanoke Event could truly be that "perfect storm" people keep referring to.

If Roanoke #8 had less than 20 TPs to be in the same field as #9-below, or if Roanoke #9 had had 20 TPs to be in the same field as #3-8, then the domino effect of IDs would not have happened below, say, Table #2.

So if that is the vastly more likely outcome, and Roanoke was truly just a perfect storm, then the angst is at least a little bit misplaced. But I don't hold that view strongly, because I truly don't know the probabilities. So I guess I'm asking...

The current Advanced Structure regulations make it impossible to avoid; quite often, they allow a couple X-2 records in.

For 5 rounds of Swiss/Top 8, it will always happen (25-40 players: at 25, there will be 5 4-1s, and at 40 there will be 5-6. X-1 always makes the cut, so you would always draw to avoid going to X-2).

For 6 rounds of Swiss/Top 8, it will always happen (41-76: at 41, there will be 4 5-1s, and at 76 there will be either 6 or 7 [in the case that there's 7, there's only 1 undefeated])

The Basic Structure does better to dissuade IDs by restricting the cut size.

17-24: 4 Swiss/Top 4: IDs won't be taken. There are 4 to 7 3-1s with these numbers, so they don't all make the cut. You can't ID at 2-1 when not all the 3-1s will even make it.

25-40: 5 Swiss/Top 4: IDs won't be taken. There are 5 to 6 4-1s.

41-44: 5 Swiss/Top 8: IDs will be taken, because 6 4-1s exist alongside 1-2 5-0s.

It takes only a modicum of preplanning to see how high you need to score to make a cut. But because up until now you played every round regardless, everyone just thought, "win as much as I can," and very few people devoted any thought to how many tournament points would clinch a spot.

Now there's a way to achieve tournament success without winning as much as you can.

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games.

"Seems legit" -- FFGOP

THIS.

Wow. Like I said, Swiss structure is a bit nebulous to me.

I bow to your mathfu.

Just plug some numbers in, like the number of players and the number of rounds, and you'll be bulls-eye'ing womp rats in a T-16. Or something like that.

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.

Totally agree. Don't back down FFG!

So in a regional, with a bye, you make the cut having only played and won 3 games.

"Seems legit" -- FFGOP

I have a very hard time wrapping the bye up into all this.