Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.

If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring".

Drawing like that would be dumb. Easy way for two smart people to draw (assuming both play some kind of Imp Aces as this is by far the most common list at the top nowadays): They largely play a normal game making sure they are both down to one ship of equal PS, drag these last ships as needed through asteroids to get them down to 1 hp, then have a face to face showdown at range 1, killing both and drawing. How do you police that?

You don't police it. You watch as one of the idiots rakes an asteroid with two hull on his last ship, rolls a crit, and flips a direct hit.

Or, you could police it like any other kind of collusion. Someone sees it, points it out, and the TO DQs the offending players.

What reason, and more important what proof of collusion would you have? These guys are flying aggressively, shooting each other and blowing up their ships. They just happen to draw at the end.

Are you suggesting that the two players would, without communicating in advance, play a flawlessly executed game that, through mutual intent, ends in a draw?

There would be no way to police that. But, that wouldn't be collusion because the would not actually be working together, only pursuing the same outcome.

However, intentionally hitting asteroids in order to perform poorly is never done to benefit one's own self, but rather to benefit one's opponent. A TO would be justified in punishing that kind of behavior.

What reason, and more important what proof of collusion would you have? These guys are flying aggressively, shooting each other and blowing up their ships. They just happen to draw at the end.

Are you suggesting that the two players would, without communicating in advance, play a flawlessly executed game that, through mutual intent, ends in a draw?

There would be no way to police that. But, that wouldn't be collusion because the would not actually be working together, only pursuing the same outcome.

However, intentionally hitting asteroids in order to perform poorly is never done to benefit one's own self, but rather to benefit one's opponent. A TO would be justified in punishing that kind of behavior.

Just as relevant, as a practical matter it doesn't need to be impossible to execute a fake match. There's a point at which players are spending so much time and effort trying to create a realistic draw that they might as well be playing a real match.

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.

Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.

People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."

Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.

IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.

If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring". More simply, FFG could replace the current ID rule with a rule that says 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points.

And, in fact, they have ruled this at the Spanish National tournament last year. The Top 4 players simply flew around to secure their place in elimination. While I don't think the TO took action at the time, the winner was stripped of his bye.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly. Same if they castled fr 75 minutes. If anything, they are just wasting the TOs time having to come over and log draws at the end of 75 minutes.

You cannot prevent people from doing this. The issue is proving that they did it because of points versus just executing a strategy and waiting for an opportunity. Could they have winked at each other and known that they could draw in? Sure. But proving that is a tough road, and I would hate to see a TO DQ someone (likely two solid players) just because it looks suspicious.

I could get behind the 0 points for a draw in X-Wing, since there were already instances where the two players castled for 75 minutes and neither was willing to fight in non-cut related scenarios. I think that would solve IDs entirely for X-Wing as well as another issue in the game as it stands (albeit a relatively minor one).

I am still in favor of IDs in the other games though, and I think a few of them make sense to have draws not be worth zero, unless you are going to allow a concessions to avoid the draw. I played a game like that before, and it was nice to expect that if you had a favorable board that your opponent would likely be gracious and admit defeat. But it did lead to some tense scenarios where both players thought they could win and both took essentially a loss. Which was usually pretty negative, with both players making a case for why they would win and getting angry if the other person disagreed.

I do not like the idea of eliminating Mod wins though. If you did, I would expect a resurgence of "I killed just enough and had ships that I could fly around avoiding damage for 30 minutes" strategies, ala Fat Han pre-half points. I do like the idea of "you win or you lose" but that is a tough thing to say in X-Wing unless one person legitimately has no ships left.

What reason, and more important what proof of collusion would you have? These guys are flying aggressively, shooting each other and blowing up their ships. They just happen to draw at the end.

Are you suggesting that the two players would, without communicating in advance, play a flawlessly executed game that, through mutual intent, ends in a draw?

There would be no way to police that. But, that wouldn't be collusion because the would not actually be working together, only pursuing the same outcome.

However, intentionally hitting asteroids in order to perform poorly is never done to benefit one's own self, but rather to benefit one's opponent. A TO would be justified in punishing that kind of behavior.

Just as relevant, as a practical matter it doesn't need to be impossible to execute a fake match. There's a point at which players are spending so much time and effort trying to create a realistic draw that they might as well be playing a real match.

The whole history of modern sports is proof that, with enough on the line you attract people who will do anything to win.l,whether it's bending the rules or downright breaking them.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

Honestly I don't think IDs need to be such the big deal that they are right now. Coming from years of playing Magic, where IDs are an extremely common occurrence (in a game where drawing is just as unlikely as in X-Wing), it is just something I always assumed was a given for competitive play in any game.

People will game the system if it isn't acceptable to just ID, flying in circles as so many have pointed out. If the top 8 of Roanoke had all just flown in circles for the 75 minutes, it would have had the same effect, but no one would be talking about it. It just saves time if you can go up to a TO and say "we'd like to ID."

Here, take this as an example. In Magic there are certain combinations of cards that, when all are in play, will result in an infinite combo of some sort through interactions. Now, instead of sitting there and repeating the combo a million times (which is physically impractical), the player may demonstrate the combo once, and then state that he is repeating it X number of times.

IDs are just two players stating that they are flying in circles for 75 minutes.

If the ID rule wasn't in place, a TO would have a fairly ironclad basis to call those players up for "collusion to manipulate scoring". More simply, FFG could replace the current ID rule with a rule that says 0-0 draws are worth 0 tournament points.

And, in fact, they have ruled this at the Spanish National tournament last year. The Top 4 players simply flew around to secure their place in elimination. While I don't think the TO took action at the time, the winner was stripped of his bye.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly. Same if they castled fr 75 minutes. If anything, they are just wasting the TOs time having to come over and log draws at the end of 75 minutes.

You cannot prevent people from doing this. The issue is proving that they did it because of points versus just executing a strategy and waiting for an opportunity. Could they have winked at each other and known that they could draw in? Sure. But proving that is a tough road, and I would hate to see a TO DQ someone (likely two solid players) just because it looks suspicious.

Either way, I'm having trouble figuring out why making it standard with the ID rule is a better alternative to what are likely a few relative cases.

I'd also prefer that TOs err on the side that forces the players to action rather than a rule that allows at least one -- probably more -- game(s) to be completely avoided per event.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

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'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

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.

Of course, if I hear someone say "hey we both need a draw so lets fly around or castle until time" then yea, I could DQ them. But short of something like that, I have no leg to stand on. I can't even take the word of the players nearby, since the players in question will almost certainly deny it.

To the second point: My arguments are all made assuming that is a step FFG does not want to do or they do not see as viable. Of course you are right, but until that happens I can't/won't comment on it. FWIW I do agree, but I am hesitant to do so and would be critical of another system, mostly because Swiss+Cut has been around for so long now. Whether that is fair or not is another discussion entirely.

Only 18 pages? Come on peeps we can do more.

I'd certainly be happy to see 0pt draws but I wonder, would getting rid of modified wins be step too far?

What purpose do modified wins serve?

Well I was thinking to differiate close games without going before going to MoV but having it asked so simply... I'm not actually sure now!

MoV already illustrates by definition the margin of the victory.. Hmm. I'm having a hard time coming up with a solid reason why such a simple scoring system wouldn't work.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

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.

Of course, if I hear someone say "hey we both need a draw so lets fly around or castle until time" then yea, I could DQ them. But short of something like that, I have no leg to stand on. I can't even take the word of the players nearby, since the players in question will almost certainly deny it.

That is not how American legal standards of proof work. The most commonly used legal standard in the United States is the preponderance standard - which proving something to be 'almost certain' obviously satisfies. If I sue you and say that you owe me $1,000,000,000,000.00 dollars for some random civil cause of action, I would, in most cases, only have to prove that to be true by a preponderance of the evidence. Criminal actions are typically where the heightened standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, comes into play.

Cheating, a breach of a social/rule contract with other participants, would, if there was a situation upon which a legal action could be based, would only require a preponderance of the evidence to prove wrongdoing.

A TO could definitely reach a conclusion that two players flying in circles or flying most of their ships off of the board are more likely than not colluding in an impermissible manner after observing their game.

I'd certainly be happy to see 0pt draws but I wonder, would getting rid of modified wins be step too far?

What purpose do modified wins serve?

Well I was thinking to differiate close games without going before going to MoV but having it asked so simply... I'm not actually sure now!

MoV already illustrates by definition the margin of the victory.. Hmm. I'm having a hard time coming up with a solid reason why such a simple scoring system wouldn't work.

I got a response to my email. Nothing is decided yet:

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time and writing to us. We are well aware of the concerns that the community has. We really value the input and feedback from the community. Please believe me when I say that we are reading all of it, and having extended discussions about it, even when there is tons of it to parse through (which there is). I’ll pass your message on to the rest of the team.

Jimmy Le
Organized Play Coordinator

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.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

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.

As Rapture says, even in a formal legal context the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases. Setting that aside, I agree it's a bad general principle to put TOs in the position of making judgment calls with a direct, substantial impact on the tournament--which is what would happen if the #3 and #4 players in the cut were DQed for collusion.

But more importantly, I haven't seen anyone claim that fake matches were a widespread problem in X-wing. It's a pretty important criterion when introducing any new policy to a system that it not create problems with a greater magnitude than the ones it solves--and even if some fake matches were going undetected and therefore uncounted, it seems unlikely that there were 1-2 fake matches in every Formal and Premiere event. And that's what we're going to get with ID.

To the second point: My arguments are all made assuming that is a step FFG does not want to do or they do not see as viable. Of course you are right, but until that happens I can't/won't comment on it. FWIW I do agree, but I am hesitant to do so and would be critical of another system, mostly because Swiss+Cut has been around for so long now. Whether that is fair or not is another discussion entirely.

At this point, I think they'd be fools not to at least consider it. That is to say, I don't expect to find out that you're wrong, but I do hope so.

I got a response to my email. Nothing is decided yet:

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time and writing to us. We are well aware of the concerns that the community has. We really value the input and feedback from the community. Please believe me when I say that we are reading all of it, and having extended discussions about it, even when there is tons of it to parse through (which there is). I’ll pass your message on to the rest of the team.

Jimmy Le

Organized Play Coordinator

I've been working on an email for a couple of days. Did you contact the general Organized Play e-mail ([email protected] or [email protected]), or did you reach out to someone at OP directly?

I got a response to my email. Nothing is decided yet:

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time and writing to us. We are well aware of the concerns that the community has. We really value the input and feedback from the community. Please believe me when I say that we are reading all of it, and having extended discussions about it, even when there is tons of it to parse through (which there is). I’ll pass your message on to the rest of the team.

Jimmy Le

Organized Play Coordinator

I've been working through an email for a couple of days. Did you contact the general Organized Play e-mail ([email protected] or [email protected]), or did you reach out to someone at OP directly?

I sent it to [email protected], and received a response from his personal AsmodeeNA.com email.

At least there has been some sort of reply, I wonder if anyone else gets a reply it will be copy/paste the same

I got a response to my email. Nothing is decided yet:

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time and writing to us. We are well aware of the concerns that the community has. We really value the input and feedback from the community. Please believe me when I say that we are reading all of it, and having extended discussions about it, even when there is tons of it to parse through (which there is). I’ll pass your message on to the rest of the team.

Jimmy Le

Organized Play Coordinator

I've been working through an email for a couple of days. Did you contact the general Organized Play e-mail ([email protected] or [email protected]), or did you reach out to someone at OP directly?

I sent it to [email protected], and received a response from his personal AsmodeeNA.com email.

I wrote to the admodeena one and haven't had a reply, but it was only a couple days ago. EDIT: I just had a reply. It is similar to the quoted message above, but not exactly the same (they are not spamming out replies).

So back to the discussion, are we saying intentional draws should count as 0 points and games played to completion, if they would end in a draw after scoring, the player with initiative wins?

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.

I'm surprised any action was taken at all. This is exactly why IDs make sense. A TO cannot take action, as this is a perfectly valid thing to do. The players are not breaking any rules by flying around uselessly.

In the absence of a rule and precedent for allowing intentional draws, two players who reach a 0-0 draw in a 75-minute match are almost certainly colluding to manipulate the standings. The TO can apply sanctions up to DQ for violations of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

I don't think that's necessarily a good way to handle a situation like this, but it's not correct to say they're not breaking any rules.

You cannot prevent people from doing this.

Of course you can: restructure tournaments so there are no games where players have a motive to do something other than win.

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.

As Rapture says, even in a formal legal context the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases. Setting that aside, I agree it's a bad general principle to put TOs in the position of making judgment calls with a direct, substantial impact on the tournament--which is what would happen if the #3 and #4 players in the cut were DQed for collusion.

But more importantly, I haven't seen anyone claim that fake matches were a widespread problem in X-wing. It's a pretty important criterion when introducing any new policy to a system that it not create problems with a greater magnitude of the ones they solve--and even if some fake matches were going undetected and therefore uncounted, it seems unlikely that there were 1-2 fake matches in every Formal and Premiere event. And that's what we're going to get with ID.

To the second point: My arguments are all made assuming that is a step FFG does not want to do or they do not see as viable. Of course you are right, but until that happens I can't/won't comment on it. FWIW I do agree, but I am hesitant to do so and would be critical of another system, mostly because Swiss+Cut has been around for so long now. Whether that is fair or not is another discussion entirely.

At this point, I think they'd be fools not to at least consider it. That is to say, I don't expect to find out that you're wrong, but I do hope so.

I agree with you on every point, excepting the widespread thing. I cannot comment on a statistic, but every tournament I have ever played (and I've been playing in them for over 20+ years now) in has had at least one match that the players decided before they sat down, whether it was legal or not. To be clear, I am not speaking for myself, although I have been party when it suited me and was legal. I would not be at all surprised if it was already happening regularly and no one noticed. IDs just made it a big coming out party.

The tricky part about it when it is not legal is you have to trust your opponent to not screw you over, which does limit it some. IDs make it easier because you can openly discuss it, no argument there.

Of course that is my opinion, I cannot prove any of it. Just saying that I do know it goes on. I have been sitting next to someone who basically said "I'll give you 50 points of MOV" at Worlds a couple years ago. Just one example of many I am sure.

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.)

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?

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.)

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?

My personal view, is that you need to be careful to have a solution just to address something that happens once in a thousand games (don't know how often that actually happens). But even in that case, the player with initiative should win.

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.)

I've seen it happen before once or twice, but I wonder if those players would have been more aggressive if that rule had been in place. On the other hand, I've never seen two people just fly around for the purpose of taking a draw result yet we have a rule, that -- as was pointed out above -- is going to make that rare event very commonplace.

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.)

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?

Personally, if you go 75 minutes, even if you're both actually trying as opposed to trying to engineer a draw, and no one manages to destroy a single small ship or get half points on a large one, then I have no problem with both of those players getting 0 tournament points. They didn't destroy *anything*, what did they do to deserve points? I'm more sympathetic to the simultaneous fire killing each others last ships, but even then, while you destroyed stuff, you didn't *win*. In either case, I'm fine with it either being 0-0 or the win going to the player with initiative like elimination rounds.

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.