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.

No, obviously stalling is wrong. But the idea that we need chess clocks and that if one person were to come out askew of them they deserve to lose, yes, I am generally against.

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.

No, obviously stalling is wrong. But the idea that we need chess clocks and that if one person were to come out askew of them they deserve to lose, yes, I am generally against.

I agree... slow play is absolute bull... BUT a chessclock is a little excessive.

I know Im fast. I usually know what moves I am going to choose before shooting starts. So even at 4-5 ships I have all dials chosen in 30 seconds-a minute.

i dont mind an adequate time to change dials (swam players frustrate the hell out of me, but thats beside the point) but come on

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.

No, obviously stalling is wrong. But the idea that we need chess clocks and that if one person were to come out askew of them they deserve to lose, yes, I am generally against.

Maybe competitive events are not for you and you enjoy casual events more. I was strictly speaking for competitive games on highest levels. It removes a lot of issues, speed ups the game, makes the game more challenging. Sounds like a net gain for the competitive scene to me. But I am really interested to disadvantages of this idea, might as well start a new topic for that tomorrow to catch problems with it, because it sounds like a splendid idea to implement in the local scene.

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.

No, obviously stalling is wrong. But the idea that we need chess clocks and that if one person were to come out askew of them they deserve to lose, yes, I am generally against.

Maybe competitive events are not for you and you enjoy casual events more. I was strictly speaking for competitive games on highest levels. It removes a lot of issues, speed ups the game, makes the game more challenging. Sounds like a net gain for the competitive scene to me. But I am really interested to disadvantages of this idea, might as well start a new topic for that tomorrow to catch problems with it, because it sounds like a splendid idea to implement in the local scene.

The fact that I was just indirectly called a casual is hilarious to me. I can assure you I am an extremely competitive person, but the idea that you have to make decisions at a certain pace to be a competitive player is extremely jarring. What are we testing at that point? Play skill or Play speed?

If you think they are the same thing, then I don't know what to say.

I can assure you, I would quit playing X-Wing if they decided Chess clocks "made the game more interesting". And that is coming from someone who prides himself on making quick decisions and doing well at tournaments. I am obviously less successful at X-Wing than other games, but the fact remains.

Everyone IDing an entire tournament would be a great protest. It would come down to random sorting, which is also a terrible way to determine a top 8. A tournament structure where multiple players making a decision not tied to my table or play can lock me out of a top 8 is just as bad, if not worse, than a tournament structure where I randomly get to participate in a top 8. At least the second one saves me a lot of time and is equally fair to all players present regardless of byes, match ups, draws, dice...

It's pretty clear there are more than one problems with this tournament structure.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

Also known as 'competition'. You've come to play and compete. Part of doing that is the risk that you might lose. If you can't accept, then what the hell are you doing there?

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.

No, obviously stalling is wrong. But the idea that we need chess clocks and that if one person were to come out askew of them they deserve to lose, yes, I am generally against.

Maybe competitive events are not for you and you enjoy casual events more. I was strictly speaking for competitive games on highest levels. It removes a lot of issues, speed ups the game, makes the game more challenging. Sounds like a net gain for the competitive scene to me. But I am really interested to disadvantages of this idea, might as well start a new topic for that tomorrow to catch problems with it, because it sounds like a splendid idea to implement in the local scene.

Do you play this game much? Have you thought about how hard it would be to make a chess clock work in this game? Try it in a game, see how often you interrupt one another and can cleanly say "you're over your time". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if they institute chess clocks in this game, it will kill the competitive scene almost instantly. Personally, I'd probably give up competitive X-Wing play if they brought in the chess clock concept.

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

This is called a wild card system and is implemented where real actual money is on the line (not $5 worth of plastic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_card_(sports)

So football for example sends 4 teams plus 2 wildcards per conference, the first round of playoffs is referred to as the wild card round where the top 2 teams in each conference are exempt from the round.

Out of all of the ideas I've heard on this topic, a wild card format with no IDs allowed is one of the better ones.

Now if you Gradauted Cut straight into the Elimination Cut (Ie. - less over-all Swiss rounds, with the top players getting a first round of cut Bye) that would be more interesting, and do away with IDs, since players a motivated to finish the Swiss well to earn the right to a Bye in the Elimination rounds.

I'll say this again.

You want to force people to play a round where a loss could result in them being eliminated so they do not have to play in a round where a loss would eliminate them.

This is called a wild card system and is implemented where real actual money is on the line (not $5 worth of plastic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_card_(sports)

So football for example sends 4 teams plus 2 wildcards per conference, the first round of playoffs is referred to as the wild card round where the top 2 teams in each conference are exempt from the round.

Out of all of the ideas I've heard on this topic, a wild card format with no IDs allowed is one of the better ones.

I know how the nfl playoffs work. X-wing is not the nfl. Swiss rounds are different than how a nfl season works. So not really sure why'd we compare them.

This is called a wild card system and is implemented where real actual money is on the line (not $5 worth of plastic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_card_(sports)

So football for example sends 4 teams plus 2 wildcards per conference, the first round of playoffs is referred to as the wild card round where the top 2 teams in each conference are exempt from the round.

Out of all of the ideas I've heard on this topic, a wild card format with no IDs allowed is one of the better ones.

I guess you don't really know why the NFL is using their current playoff system do you.

Once upon a time each conference had three divisions. If you won your division you were in the playoffs. Then they also picked two wildcard teams from each conference. It the first week of the playoff the wildcard teams would play EACH OTHER to determine who would advance to face the division champions. The thing the NFL, and TV networks, didn't like is that because of the way things were there was a divisional winner who was not promised a home playoff game. Never mind if that team really deserved a home game but to make it happen the NFL broke the conferences into 4 divisions and then made the two of those with the poorer records play wild card teams. Of course you can see just how much some of those divisional champions really deserved to be in the playoffs at all when many were crushed by wildcards with much better records.

It's also funny that this get brought up in talks of IDs because there certainly are times the top rated teams can just pack it in the last week or even two. Now they still play those games because of all the money being thrown at them but they don't alway pack any punch to them. If actually given a chance I suspect there times with a NFL team would ID, or even just concede, prior to the playoffs if their goal is to win the Superbowl and if they weren't going to lose millions for not playing those games.

You've heard about comparing apples and oranges will that is probably easier to do than comparing X-Wing to the NFL.

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,

The pitch from our world champions and other high-profile players to this would not be zero points to both, but dealing with it the same way we would deal with it in official single elimination games.

Besides a custom league hosted by you is not bound to FFG ruling anyway, so you can set rules for such leagues as you see fit. ;-)

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,

The pitch from our world champions and other high-profile players to this would not be zero points to both, but dealing with it the same way we would deal with it in official single elimination games.

Besides a custom league hosted by you is not bound to FFG ruling anyway, so you can set rules for such leagues as you see fit. ;-)

Correct. Paul Heaver's view is that draws simply shouldn't exist. He points out that situations like the game described above are so rare that they are always memorable. So all that needs to be worked out is how to make a draw not happen when the score is tied. As mentioned, Paul's view is that it should be decided on initiative, like the single elimination rounds are. Though there are plenty of other ways you could decide a game, the important factor is that it is decided and not ending in a draw.

Then to deal with the issue of players in swiss that are in a position that the outcome of the game has no impact on them, you can do a couple things. One option is to make the seeding matter more, like someone suggested that the initiative in the elimination rounds is decided by your seed instead of squadron points. The other option is that both players take an Intentional Loss. Or, you could do both of those rules of course.

To sum up, stop draws happening and make seeding more important and/or change intentional draw to intentional loss.

EDIT: Also worth mentioning that Paul wants to get rid of modified wins as well. A win is a win and a loss is a loss. With the removal of draws, you can just to one point for a win and zero points for a loss. Simple.

I watched Paul Heaver offer the simplest, easiest solution on Twitch TV, earlier today: No draws, no modified wins, no IDs. You win or you lose.

Imagine a scoring system where a win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth 0 points. Let tiebreakers sort out the pecking order.

Too simple? No way. Very logical and it makes perfect sense.

I try to abide by the KISS principle where possible.

Would not mind this at all. I am not a fan of IDs anyway but as long as there are draws in the game they are a thing. So if we get rid of draws and at the same time get rid of modified wins it would pretty much fix everything in one single swoop.

I got a bogus "FFG statement" today from an eBay seller that I've bought a lot of Imperial Assault and X-Wing stuff from. When asked why he doesn't see that anymore he said:

"FFG was bought out by Asmodee and they have changed FFG's sales policies and now completely forbid the fulfillment of any online sales.
Thanks for checking in!"

Kessel Run proposed the idea of using "points destroyed" instead of MOV as a tie-breaker. I think that makes sense as preserving your own ships becomes less useful and destroying your opponent becomes more beneficial.

The major issue at play is that Swiss Rounds followed by a cut to top X is a square peg-round hole situation nearly all the time. Hammer all you want.

The Roanoke regional is actually an example of where it worked perfectly. (give me a second...) Exactly 8 players had more wins than all of the other competitors. Boom. There's your cut. But that will not happen very often.

FFG will need to amend the tournament software to create a soft cap for the number of rounds and a variable cut.

A lot of other games use this as a tie breaker and some even as the main points system and it works alright

This is interesting from the upcoming New York regional organisers "Brothers Grim Games"

This is interesting from the upcoming New York regional organisers "Brothers Grim Games"

In light of recent events inside the X-Wing community, we at the Brothers Grim Regional will be handling intentional draws following these guidelines;

If your match will not deny a participant the opportunity in making the top cut, Intentional Draws will be allowed without question. In any other case, we strongly encourage the match be played to determine a winner in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Intentional Draws cannot be decided without the presence of a tournament official nor after the start of time in the match.

Players will be afforded time prior to the start of the match in order to inquire about an intentional draw, at which point, an official must be called over.

The use of bribery (in the form of promising prize splitting, cash, product, etc.) to determine the winner of a match or utilizing a method that is not a standard game of X-Wing (I.E. Flipping a coin or rolling a die) is expressly forbidden.

Any conduct not befitting the model of good sportsmanship or devaluing the integrity of the tournament will not be tolerated, and as such, can and will be penalized.

~ The Grim Squadron Crew

Good for them taking a clear stance.

Is it really official if they don't post a public statement on the official website.

This is interesting from the upcoming New York regional organisers "Brothers Grim Games"

In light of recent events inside the X-Wing community, we at the Brothers Grim Regional will be handling intentional draws following these guidelines;

If your match will not deny a participant the opportunity in making the top cut, Intentional Draws will be allowed without question. In any other case, we strongly encourage the match be played to determine a winner in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Intentional Draws cannot be decided without the presence of a tournament official nor after the start of time in the match.

Players will be afforded time prior to the start of the match in order to inquire about an intentional draw, at which point, an official must be called over.

The use of bribery (in the form of promising prize splitting, cash, product, etc.) to determine the winner of a match or utilizing a method that is not a standard game of X-Wing (I.E. Flipping a coin or rolling a die) is expressly forbidden.

Any conduct not befitting the model of good sportsmanship or devaluing the integrity of the tournament will not be tolerated, and as such, can and will be penalized.

~ The Grim Squadron Crew

Good for them taking a clear stance.

Of note, this morning they said the would be asking that any other type of match be played and then changed that to "encourage." So, they don't like it but it looks like they'll have to allow it.

This is interesting from the upcoming New York regional organisers "Brothers Grim Games"

In light of recent events inside the X-Wing community, we at the Brothers Grim Regional will be handling intentional draws following these guidelines;

If your match will not deny a participant the opportunity in making the top cut, Intentional Draws will be allowed without question. In any other case, we strongly encourage the match be played to determine a winner in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Intentional Draws cannot be decided without the presence of a tournament official nor after the start of time in the match.

Players will be afforded time prior to the start of the match in order to inquire about an intentional draw, at which point, an official must be called over.

The use of bribery (in the form of promising prize splitting, cash, product, etc.) to determine the winner of a match or utilizing a method that is not a standard game of X-Wing (I.E. Flipping a coin or rolling a die) is expressly forbidden.

Any conduct not befitting the model of good sportsmanship or devaluing the integrity of the tournament will not be tolerated, and as such, can and will be penalized.

~ The Grim Squadron Crew

Good for them taking a clear stance.

Of note, this morning they said the would be asking that any other type of match be played and then changed that to "encourage." So, they don't like it but it looks like they'll have to allow it.

I noticed that change. Kind of takes the teeth out, doesn't it?

Not sure how exactly to work it in but with tourney software it should work. My idea is to adjust pairings for the final round of Swiss for all tournaments with a cut.

For the final round of swiss before the cut to X, take the top 2X players and pair them up as if it's a seeded tournament. So if it's a top 8 cut, top seeded plays 16 seed and so on.

Am I crazy or does this help?

This is interesting from the upcoming New York regional organisers "Brothers Grim Games"

In light of recent events inside the X-Wing community, we at the Brothers Grim Regional will be handling intentional draws following these guidelines;

If your match will not deny a participant the opportunity in making the top cut, Intentional Draws will be allowed without question. In any other case, we strongly encourage the match be played to determine a winner in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Intentional Draws cannot be decided without the presence of a tournament official nor after the start of time in the match.

Players will be afforded time prior to the start of the match in order to inquire about an intentional draw, at which point, an official must be called over.

The use of bribery (in the form of promising prize splitting, cash, product, etc.) to determine the winner of a match or utilizing a method that is not a standard game of X-Wing (I.E. Flipping a coin or rolling a die) is expressly forbidden.

Any conduct not befitting the model of good sportsmanship or devaluing the integrity of the tournament will not be tolerated, and as such, can and will be penalized.

~ The Grim Squadron Crew

Good for them taking a clear stance.

Of note, this morning they said the would be asking that any other type of match be played and then changed that to "encourage." So, they don't like it but it looks like they'll have to allow it.

I noticed that change. Kind of takes the teeth out, doesn't it?

Seems like they got mail from FFG.

Make sure you vote on a proposed solution here. Make your voice heard.

Not sure how exactly to work it in but with tourney software it should work. My idea is to adjust pairings for the final round of Swiss for all tournaments with a cut.

For the final round of swiss before the cut to X, take the top 2X players and pair them up as if it's a seeded tournament. So if it's a top 8 cut, top seeded plays 16 seed and so on.

Am I crazy or does this help?

Possibly, unless #1 purposely tanks to their friend that's #16. You'd have to exclude anyone that would make the cut with a loss. I could even see someone with a horrendous mov let their friend win. Since a win for #13 wouldn't get them in unless #9-#12 all got tabled. Just different cans of worms.