I honestly don't see the problem with two draw states - a Standard Draw and a Modified Draw. A Standard Draw scores 0/0 - the same as if no match was played (because in reality, there was no match). A Modified Draw would be in cases of timed games where there was no clear winner (exactly the same points scored - be it 0, 1, or all from a simultaneous kill). In these cases, 1 point is awarded to each competitor. The single point awards what they did accomplish, but certainly doesn't equal a win. In cases where the players colluded to draw (castling or non-engagement) the TO reserves the right to award a Standard Draw to the players (as again, no match was played).

Vorpal, what do you think of creating a rule where zero ships are destroyed is counted as a double loss rather than a draw?

I'd be okay with a rule that said 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points and earn 0 MOV. It removes the incentive to fly around for 75 minutes, and I can't really see a negative impact on players who aren't trying to game the system.

Just for what it's worth, I managed a league season this year (total rookie at it, with a noticeable level of griping as a result, but anyway), and one of the first scheduled matches was reported to have lasted the full 75 minutes, with plenty of shooting and aggression, and literally 0 points destroyed by either side when time was called.

Is such a game deserving of 0 tournament points for both players, in the furtherance of disincentivizing "fake" matches, rather than rewarding both combatants with the 1 tournament point they are currently said to have earned? (I'm posing that as a real question, not rhetorical. I'd like to know folks' views.)

Yes. Shadowpilot and VanderLegion have already made similar comments, but just to be clear: I think the existence of that rule would make clear that players should plan to engage their opponents, and (to the extent that there are legitimate 0-0 draws happening in X-wing) the risk of being caught with 0 tournament points would push players looking for tournament points to avoid that result.

As I said elsewhere, it seems there should be distinct tournament point values for Intentional Draws vs. Timed Draws. Let IDs be worth 0 points (or even 1 for the initiative winner, and 0 for the initiative loser), and TDs be worth the even 1 tournament point as it currently stands. Thus the "draw" state can only occur at two points in time: a) before the match begins, or b) after the players have spent 75 minutes at the game table, not out taking a break.

I suppose this raises the question of, what are the TO's options when two players just sit there infinitely castling in an attempt to earn the 1 point draw in a "fake" way? Is DQ the only remedy at the TO's disposal? Or can he warn the players that if they don't engage, he will (for example) award a modified win to the initiative holder?

That question is extremely problematic, though. Let's accept for the sake of argument that the current tournament structure creates (for a small number of tables) an incentive to draw rather than imposing a loss on one player. The only real argument for ID is that those players no longer have to hide fake matches--and therefore that TOs no longer have to make judgments on which matches are real and which are fake.

But if we have two kinds of draw, and IDs are worth fewer points than a "real" draw, then the ID rule is literally serving no purpose at all. Tables where players have an incentive to draw will of course not take an ID when they could get points from a fake match instead, and TOs will be exactly back in the position that ID is intended to relieve.

Not getting a full kill on any small base ships isn't necessarily a bad thing. Both players engage heavily, retreat their wounded, then continue doing their best to fly for the kill. If you had a mirror match between rebel regen lists, such an outcome could very well attest to the excellent flying and list building skills of both players. I wouldn't want a 0-0 tie to be treated differently than an 88-88 tie, if both players are truly seeking to win.

Sure, if this is really a strategic simulation. However, in a game, you can create rules that promote aggressiveness and/or help/prevent more desired and player friendly results.

Vorpal, what do you think of creating a rule where zero ships are destroyed is counted as a double loss rather than a draw?

I'd be okay with a rule that said 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points and earn 0 MOV. It removes the incentive to fly around for 75 minutes, and I can't really see a negative impact on players who aren't trying to game the system.

Just for what it's worth, I managed a league season this year (total rookie at it, with a noticeable level of griping as a result, but anyway), and one of the first scheduled matches was reported to have lasted the full 75 minutes, with plenty of shooting and aggression, and literally 0 points destroyed by either side when time was called.

Is such a game deserving of 0 tournament points for both players, in the furtherance of disincentivizing "fake" matches, rather than rewarding both combatants with the 1 tournament point they are currently said to have earned? (I'm posing that as a real question, not rhetorical. I'd like to know folks' views.)

Yes. Shadowpilot and VanderLegion have already made similar comments, but just to be clear: I think the existence of that rule would make clear that players should plan to engage their opponents, and (to the extent that there are legitimate 0-0 draws happening in X-wing) the risk of being caught with 0 tournament points would push players looking for tournament points to avoid that result.

As I said elsewhere, it seems there should be distinct tournament point values for Intentional Draws vs. Timed Draws. Let IDs be worth 0 points (or even 1 for the initiative winner, and 0 for the initiative loser), and TDs be worth the even 1 tournament point as it currently stands. Thus the "draw" state can only occur at two points in time: a) before the match begins, or b) after the players have spent 75 minutes at the game table, not out taking a break.

I suppose this raises the question of, what are the TO's options when two players just sit there infinitely castling in an attempt to earn the 1 point draw in a "fake" way? Is DQ the only remedy at the TO's disposal? Or can he warn the players that if they don't engage, he will (for example) award a modified win to the initiative holder?

That question is extremely problematic, though. Let's accept for the sake of argument that the current tournament structure creates (for a small number of tables) an incentive to draw rather than imposing a loss on one player. The only real argument for ID is that those players no longer have to hide fake matches--and therefore that TOs no longer have to make judgments on which matches are real and which are fake.

But if we have two kinds of draw, and IDs are worth fewer points than a "real" draw, then the ID rule is literally serving no purpose at all. Tables where players have an incentive to draw will of course not take an ID when they could get points from a fake match instead, and TOs will be exactly back in the position that ID is intended to relieve.

If only the player with initiative was to get the point, why would they both engage in stalling the game? That makes no sense unless they both want the person with initiative to get the point. So if players are intentionally stalling, then that is collusion.

Would it be possible for the top 2 players to ID the last 2 rounds and still get in? 3 wins, 2 ties.....

They could have made the cut with 4 Wins and 2 Draw (total 22 points).

In a 6 swiss round with 44-45 players, as long as you make 21+ points, you are 100% sure to make the top 8 cut. So as soon as you have 4 wins you just need to ID once to be sure to make the cut.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

Yes, but that's also why I think mods should also be extended to 30 point difference and award mod losses in a 0-1-2-3-4 point format. But that's a whole other thing

I promise not to do that to you on vassal BTW

Vorpal, what do you think of creating a rule where zero ships are destroyed is counted as a double loss rather than a draw?

I'd be okay with a rule that said 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points and earn 0 MOV. It removes the incentive to fly around for 75 minutes, and I can't really see a negative impact on players who aren't trying to game the system.

Just for what it's worth, I managed a league season this year (total rookie at it, with a noticeable level of griping as a result, but anyway), and one of the first scheduled matches was reported to have lasted the full 75 minutes, with plenty of shooting and aggression, and literally 0 points destroyed by either side when time was called.

Is such a game deserving of 0 tournament points for both players, in the furtherance of disincentivizing "fake" matches, rather than rewarding both combatants with the 1 tournament point they are currently said to have earned? (I'm posing that as a real question, not rhetorical. I'd like to know folks' views.)

Yes. Shadowpilot and VanderLegion have already made similar comments, but just to be clear: I think the existence of that rule would make clear that players should plan to engage their opponents, and (to the extent that there are legitimate 0-0 draws happening in X-wing) the risk of being caught with 0 tournament points would push players looking for tournament points to avoid that result.

As I said elsewhere, it seems there should be distinct tournament point values for Intentional Draws vs. Timed Draws. Let IDs be worth 0 points (or even 1 for the initiative winner, and 0 for the initiative loser), and TDs be worth the even 1 tournament point as it currently stands. Thus the "draw" state can only occur at two points in time: a) before the match begins, or b) after the players have spent 75 minutes at the game table, not out taking a break.

I suppose this raises the question of, what are the TO's options when two players just sit there infinitely castling in an attempt to earn the 1 point draw in a "fake" way? Is DQ the only remedy at the TO's disposal? Or can he warn the players that if they don't engage, he will (for example) award a modified win to the initiative holder?

That question is extremely problematic, though. Let's accept for the sake of argument that the current tournament structure creates (for a small number of tables) an incentive to draw rather than imposing a loss on one player. The only real argument for ID is that those players no longer have to hide fake matches--and therefore that TOs no longer have to make judgments on which matches are real and which are fake.

But if we have two kinds of draw, and IDs are worth fewer points than a "real" draw, then the ID rule is literally serving no purpose at all. Tables where players have an incentive to draw will of course not take an ID when they could get points from a fake match instead, and TOs will be exactly back in the position that ID is intended to relieve.

I agree that we don't need 2 types of draws, but if you go with the draws are worth 0 points (or win goes to initiative, either way), you could still keep the ID rule and in cases like the top table at roanoke where there are 2 undefeated players going into the final round of swiss that are guaranteed to make the cut even with a 0-200 loss, they could still take the ID if they want. That doesn't bother me at all, since it has absolutely no effect on who else can make the cut.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

On the one hand, slow play is slow play, but on the other, I shouldn't be obligated to fly my 1-hull-remaining ship right into your guns.

To the first point: I agree that it looks suspicious. But the words "almost certainly" are what I mean. I live in the US (I assume you do as well), where "innocent until proven guilty" is something we live by. I as a TO cannot prove that is what they are doing, and each case has to be handled separately, so I cannot jump to that conclusion and still be considered an unbiased arbiter.

"Innocent until proven guilty" (including "beyond a reasonable doubt") is a concept in US criminal law, not a general concept in US law.

Civil law, for example, requires only preponderance of the evidence, and a majority of a jury.

Obviously, this question doesn't even rise to the level of civil law. (Although, IMO, it eventually could if someone really bored and rich wanted to press it. There are even elements of possibly criminal charges met in the Roanoke Incident.)

In addition, US law has something called a "bench trial," in which the judge -- you know, the unbiased arbiter -- must "jump to conclusions" on the basis of evidence. In jury trials -- jurors also being expected to unbiased initially -- jurors also "jump to conclusions" on the basis of evidence.

The idea that an unbiased arbiter -- a judge, say, or a juror, or a TO -- is not permitted to reach a conclusion based on available evidence is, ironically, correct ... but only because they are actually required to reach a conclusion based on available evidence.

A TO that does not examine available evidence and reach -- I'm sorry, "jump to" -- a conclusion is a TO that has abdicated his responsibility, and is thus an incompetent and terrible TO.

OK, feel I again have to clarify a few points about the statement I read.

Firstly, FFG did not send me an email with an Official Statement to read. I was forwarded a message from a forum member who had been forwarded the message.

Obviously I was suspicious but had 10 minutes to go before we went live. I reached out to see if I could get some verification on the validity of the message before I read it on air as I was well aware of the implications and didn't want to report something that was not true.

I received a response to my esquires that made me believe that it was an official response to an email. So, I shared it.

You have to remember that we do not have the email that this was in response to, I have no idea how the email to FFG was worded our what specifics were asked, I only say the response.

If you chose to go all in on your assumptions from the statement I read than I feel that is a mistake.

Lets all chill out and wait for an article from FFG all about ID's.

Kris

I did receive an official response today to my email from Monday which read:

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We understand the frustration and concerns of the X-Wing community. Trust me when I say that we are listening, reading, and discussing lots of comments and that we value every bit of feedback from every single one of our players. I’ll make sure your comments and ideas get passed along.

Best,

Jimmy Le

Organized Play Coordinator

[email protected]

Asmodee North America

It's not a final answer, but enough of an answer to suggest they don't yet have a final answer.

I did receive an official response today to my email from Monday which read:

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We understand the frustration and concerns of the X-Wing community. Trust me when I say that we are listening, reading, and discussing lots of comments and that we value every bit of feedback from every single one of our players. I’ll make sure your comments and ideas get passed along.

Best,

Jimmy Le

Organized Play Coordinator

[email protected]

Asmodee North America

It's not a final answer, but enough of an answer to suggest they don't yet have a final answer.

Similar to, but not exactly the same as, the one I received. To whomever asked if they were form letters, the answer is no.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

On the one hand, slow play is slow play, but on the other, I shouldn't be obligated to fly my 1-hull-remaining ship right into your guns.

Running away with the 1 hull ship is fine as far as the rules go. Slow playing picking maneuvers etc is not (shouldn't take 5 minutes to pick 2 dials).

@KrisSherriff

Thanks for doing your diligence and reporting it with all the necessary caveats.

I think if you had been completely pranked, then somewhere we would have gotten pretty definitive word trickling out that the letter was a hoax and FFG completely disavows it.

That hasn't happened. So I personally feel satisfied that it is a credible statement from FFG.

I'm just surprised they haven't distributed it yet after almost two days through more official channels.

@KrisSherriff

Thanks for doing your diligence and reporting it with all the necessary caveats.

I think if you had been completely pranked, then somewhere we would have gotten pretty definitive word trickling out that the letter was a hoax and FFG completely disavows it.

That hasn't happened. So I personally feel satisfied that it is a credible statement from FFG.

I'm just surprised they haven't distributed it yet after almost two days through more official channels.

Well here's hoping they've changed their minds if that was real. It's possible they were just testing the waters. Or maybe they sent that and then got told by a higher authority that they needed to look into it more. Who knows...

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

On the one hand, slow play is slow play, but on the other, I shouldn't be obligated to fly my 1-hull-remaining ship right into your guns.

the running wasnt so annoying... the taking 4 minutes to change 2 dials was

To the first point: I agree that it looks suspicious. But the words "almost certainly" are what I mean. I live in the US (I assume you do as well), where "innocent until proven guilty" is something we live by. I as a TO cannot prove that is what they are doing, and each case has to be handled separately, so I cannot jump to that conclusion and still be considered an unbiased arbiter.

"Innocent until proven guilty" (including "beyond a reasonable doubt") is a concept in US criminal law, not a general concept in US law.

Civil law, for example, requires only preponderance of the evidence, and a majority of a jury.

Obviously, this question doesn't even rise to the level of civil law. (Although, IMO, it eventually could if someone really bored and rich wanted to press it. There are even elements of possibly criminal charges met in the Roanoke Incident.)

In addition, US law has something called a "bench trial," in which the judge -- you know, the unbiased arbiter -- must "jump to conclusions" on the basis of evidence. In jury trials -- jurors also being expected to unbiased initially -- jurors also "jump to conclusions" on the basis of evidence.

The idea that an unbiased arbiter -- a judge, say, or a juror, or a TO -- is not permitted to reach a conclusion based on available evidence is, ironically, correct ... but only because they are actually required to reach a conclusion based on available evidence.

A TO that does not examine available evidence and reach -- I'm sorry, "jump to" -- a conclusion is a TO that has abdicated his responsibility, and is thus an incompetent and terrible TO.

The available evidence being what exactly? That two people need a draw and appear to be having a game that is likely to go to time and result in one? How can I conclude, with any certainty, that it was collusion and not just a favorable outcome?

Because those two things are very different unless I assume that everyone who draws is trying to manipulate the system.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

I am a fan of chess clocks and if you still can not catch him without him stalling the clock than in all honestly, you really did not deserve the win.

But "Fly Casual" players get annoyed by a player running. I have actually lost a couple of games or got a Mod.Win isntead of a win just for pressure on me by those "Fly Casual" players to engage and stop refusing to battle the 20 minutes left in the round when i have not even slow played.

So people dont like the run away strategy, dont like IDs and dont want competitive players. It sounds like people dont want tournaments with actual competitors which actually i dont think is possible.

I am still in favour of IDing, if you dont want it i keep saying the answer is changing the system structure not the rule itself. By making a 0-0 to time draw awards 0 points you only tell the people to draw at 100-100 to everything destroyed or some ships destroyed and you also hurt those players that dont focus fire and just remove some shields or deal some damage.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

I am a fan of chess clocks and if you still can not catch him without him stalling the clock than in all honestly, you really did not deserve the win.

Okay, so it's not cool for people to ID, but it is okay for someone to lose because he takes longer to make decisions in a complex game than another person. Got it.

Wait, what?.

To the first point: I agree that it looks suspicious. But the words "almost certainly" are what I mean. I live in the US (I assume you do as well), where "innocent until proven guilty" is something we live by.

Thin political ice when executions are justified by proven guilty by association and thousands of killed civilians are declared legitimate targets by defining that living in the same house makes them guilty. All sanctioned by secret courts, in secret trails based on secret evidence. And besides not fitting for the situation either, because there are plenty of cases when "proving guilt" means just "seems plausible that he did it" especially in civil law. So better not try to bring in politics and dysfunktional law systems, shall we?

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

I am a fan of chess clocks and if you still can not catch him without him stalling the clock than in all honestly, you really did not deserve the win.

Okay, so it's not cool for people to ID, but it is okay for someone to lose because he takes longer to make decisions in a complex game than another person. Got it.

Wait, what?.

guys. I lost because I couldnt catch his Jake. Not upset about not being able to kill Jake... and only a little upset about him running.

Part that made me angry was HIM taking forever to change 2 dials.

And dont give me the explanation that he was trying to plan moves and that took so long. Its 2 dials. It doesnt take 4 minutes to decide how to change 2 dials. i dont care what the circumstances are.

the only issue I see with a strict win loss system is it could turn into; whoever does half damage or kills a ship first then runs away for 60 minutes.

IN essence this happens now. At regionals last year I played a guy (who played SLOW anyway) who had 1 point left on Jake and ran the entire last 20 minutes. well ran and took forever. I mean, like took 3-5 minutes to decide what to do with 2 dials.

I ended up losing by about 15 points...

I am a fan of chess clocks and if you still can not catch him without him stalling the clock than in all honestly, you really did not deserve the win.

Okay, so it's not cool for people to ID, but it is okay for someone to lose because he takes longer to make decisions in a complex game than another person. Got it.

Wait, what?.

So you think I can stall the game as long as I wish to make optimal decisions? Playing on time just means another level of competition to the game, if you think faster than your opponent, you obviously play better; At least if the quality of moves is the same, goes without saying, but so would the first premise, so I better mention it.

edit:

And they use the clock for very good reasons in chess and go, just to name the most prominent competitive strategy games in the world. ;-)

To the first point: I agree that it looks suspicious. But the words "almost certainly" are what I mean. I live in the US (I assume you do as well), where "innocent until proven guilty" is something we live by.

Thin political ice when executions are justified by proven guilty by association and thousands of killed civilians are declared legitimate targets by defining that living in the same house makes them guilty. All sanctioned by secret courts, in secret trails based on secret evidence. And besides not fitting for the situation either, because there are plenty of cases when "proving guilt" means just "seems plausible that he did it" especially in civil law. So better not try to bring in politics and dysfunktional law systems, shall we?

I don't see how quoting a general philosophy is bringing politics into it, but okay, deal. Given your example, you may want to go first though.