The complete top8 taking draws last round is just a rare situation, have played tons of mtg tournaments with last round IDs always on the table and have never experienced a full top IDing because the situation is abnormal. Usually what happens is that 2 or 3 tables at max get the ID and the other tables have to play to get the spots still undecided.

I dont think its a bad rule, i dont think the problem is IDing. For all the people claiming that ID kills competitive play just ask for a different format rather for the removal of something that happens that is beneficial for both parties y a competitive enviroment.

I also like PGS point of view, as i also play to win and try to do my best to WAAC. The difference is the assumption that WAAC goes against the rules and the politeness of a player.

If the best players of a tournmanet get the situation to ID to ensure the top cut i prefer to have them on the top rather than the one submarining. Even if PHeaver lost the second round and prefers other players to play instead of drawing to have the opportunity to reach the cut.

I just like to play good lists, i copy them if i think they are good, i test them and try to get maximum value every time. I am not a ***** and i prefer other competitive players rather than those that cry because you brought a broken list.

You are misusing the phrase "win at all costs." You should be saying TMBTW (try my best to win). There is nothing wrong with TMBTW. WAAC means you will win at ALL costs, including losing your morals, ethics, and trust. It means you are willing to cheat to win. You are willing to distract the other person or seedplay to get an advantage. All of that is covered under WAAC. If you truly play to win at all costs, then you don't belong in this community and we don't want you. If, however, you simply made a mistake and meant to say TMBTW, then I have no issue with you. But people need to stop trying to defend WAAC because it's not a position worth defending.

If that is your definition, I don't see what WAAC has to do with the issue of IDs....

The players who ID'ed did nothing wrong, ethically or otherwise.

Locking two people who would of made the top 8 out by taking the ID is not ethical, using the rules to gain an unfair advantage like that never can be.

If all 8 would of been in anyway there would be no outcry but that's not the case two of the Roanoke 8 would not of made the cut.

Indeed, a lot people even claimed that ID is fine, because no TO would allow IDs if that kind of collusion would kick someone else out, yet just a week or so later we see exactly this happen, and not just once.

No one with one lick of sense about what an ID rule would do and when it would be most applicable would have made that statement. Certain not after FFG allowed IDs at the Hoth Open.

Though you still have a plethora of posters clinging to the idea that that any ID worth taking is somehow illegal despite the very existence of the rule and multiple FFG statements basically boiling down to, "Yes, this is a thing now".

No one should have ever been silky enough to think that A. It wouldn't come up as basic math of the event structure would tell you that or B. That FFG added it to the rules but would never allow it to be utilized in a practical manner.

For the sake of pointing out the totally obvious - FFG added a rule that you had to sleeve alternate art cards. Because people might be able to tell the card by the color. Which matters for X-Wing not one bit. Why? Because they ****** up and added a rule from their LCGs. So don't presume to tell me they don't add rules that make no **** sense.

(For clarity, I 100% think they intended this rule to be used this way, I just think your argument is built on a house of cards)

I keep seeing the suggestion made that the "ideal" Swiss-to-Cut Swiss rounds would stop when there's a perfect sort into the cut. (So, for instance, if the Swiss at Roanoke had stopped after Round 5.)

Doesn't that make a 16-person tourney end for most players after two rounds? A 32-person tourney end most players after three rounds?

That seems ... not ideal to me.

#ImTheorist

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

I’ll actually go further into meta-gaming a tournament format here. You can, if you feel confident that you will be able to grab an ID or win the rest of your games, deliberately lose your first match. This gives you much easier competition, allowing you to rake in the wins afterward. You still qualify, but don’t have to face any undefeated players until elimination. Of course if you and your opponent have the same plan, it’s a race to say “I concede” faster — but whatever wins the tournament, right? Practice saying it fast prior to tournament day. This tactic for weakening your pairings synergizes perfectly with the IDR here, in the final round, or any round in between to secure an elimination seat with minimal effort.

I really like their sense of humor ;-)

#ImTheorist

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

Drawing in the first round? Lol

That's making a decision with very little information(you don't know results of future rounds). A draw in the final round is made with a lot of information(you know the results of past rounds). I would never take an ID in round one just for that reason. But I'd take it 99.9% of the time in the final round if it resulted in making the cut. I'm there to play and have fun. But I'm still approaching things with the intent of winning the event.

Fly Casual.......that's a slogan, or a catch phrase. I fly casual every time. But I define it as being a good sport towards my opponent. Not throwing a fit when I roll twelve blanks in a row.

I keep seeing the suggestion made that the "ideal" Swiss-to-Cut Swiss rounds would stop when there's a perfect sort into the cut. (So, for instance, if the Swiss at Roanoke had stopped after Round 5.)

Doesn't that make a 16-person tourney end for most players after two rounds? A 32-person tourney end most players after three rounds?

That seems ... not ideal to me.

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

Rd.3 8 games 2 (3-0) players 6 (2-1) players 6 (1-2) players 2 (0-3)

Rd.4 8 games 1 (4-0) players 4 (3-1) players 6 (2-2) players 4 (1-3) players 1 (0-4) players

As you can see after 4 rounds (not taking into account any draws) you will have a clear winner without a cut. If there is a cut then it would be to top 4 and the MOV of the 4 (3-1) players would decide the 3 to make it in. If there were 32 players it would take another round to have one undefeated player (again, barring any draws).

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

So ... after Round 2, you have four undefeated players. If you're cutting to Top Four, and Swiss is supposed to only get to the cut ... you have the cut after two rounds. Four undefeated players. (For 32 players, this would happen after three rounds for a Top Four.)

They go into eliminations, everyone else goes home.

If that's your goal for Swiss: play until you have the cut.

(In case it's not clear, I'm not arguing that's how it should be. What I'm arguing is that "Roanoke was a problem because it continued after there was enough information for a cut" is only a reasonable argument is "quitting two rounds into a 16-person tournament" is a reasonable thing to do. I don't think it is.)

#ImTheorist

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

Drawing in the first round? Lol

That's making a decision with very little information(you don't know results of future rounds). A draw in the final round is made with a lot of information(you know the results of past rounds). I would never take an ID in round one just for that reason. But I'd take it 99.9% of the time in the final round if it resulted in making the cut. I'm there to play and have fun. But I'm still approaching things with the intent of winning the event.

Fly Casual.......that's a slogan, or a catch phrase. I fly casual every time. But I define it as being a good sport towards my opponent. Not throwing a fit when I roll twelve blanks in a row.

Mathematical a lose early and a draw in the second indeed gives you interesting pairings and might give you better chances to win the tournament than just planning for an ID in the last round. You never know if you actually get enough wins in the to take that ID in the last round. Most people will not be in that position to be more precise.

Remember: Your goal is not to finish first in the swiss round, your goal is to make the cut and with an early ID and wins you can take away the ability to ID for the top players and end in a position where the hardest opponents kick themselves out of the tournament, while you make the cut while facing a lot easier to beat people. Which increases your chances in the single-elimination stage as well. If you are not able to win enough games that early ID will naturally not help you, but it will not hurt you either, because would have never reached a position to take the last round ID.

Naturally you should not take an early ID if you would win very likely that would be a waste of a free win. Outside of that, you are playing the odds and tournament structure, especially using match making for later rounds to your advantage. You basically avoid to ever get a loss from heaver (or any other overwhelming strong player) because you will never get paired with him based on your tournament strategy. Great, right?

I keep seeing the suggestion made that the "ideal" Swiss-to-Cut Swiss rounds would stop when there's a perfect sort into the cut. (So, for instance, if the Swiss at Roanoke had stopped after Round 5.)

Doesn't that make a 16-person tourney end for most players after two rounds? A 32-person tourney end most players after three rounds?

That seems ... not ideal to me.

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

Rd.3 8 games 2 (3-0) players 6 (2-1) players 6 (1-2) players 2 (0-3)

Rd.4 8 games 1 (4-0) players 4 (3-1) players 6 (2-2) players 4 (1-3) players 1 (0-4) players

As you can see after 4 rounds (not taking into account any draws) you will have a clear winner without a cut. If there is a cut then it would be to top 4 and the MOV of the 4 (3-1) players would decide the 3 to make it in. If there were 32 players it would take another round to have one undefeated player (again, barring any draws).

Funny how clean it works when you remove draws

I keep seeing the suggestion made that the "ideal" Swiss-to-Cut Swiss rounds would stop when there's a perfect sort into the cut. (So, for instance, if the Swiss at Roanoke had stopped after Round 5.)

Doesn't that make a 16-person tourney end for most players after two rounds? A 32-person tourney end most players after three rounds?

That seems ... not ideal to me.

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

Rd.3 8 games 2 (3-0) players 6 (2-1) players 6 (1-2) players 2 (0-3)

Rd.4 8 games 1 (4-0) players 4 (3-1) players 6 (2-2) players 4 (1-3) players 1 (0-4) players

As you can see after 4 rounds (not taking into account any draws) you will have a clear winner without a cut. If there is a cut then it would be to top 4 and the MOV of the 4 (3-1) players would decide the 3 to make it in. If there were 32 players it would take another round to have one undefeated player (again, barring any draws).

But that is silly as you end up with the winners playing each other and the thing looks even more like a single elimination tourney with a cut into single elimination. The whole point of having the swiss rounds is that people can play more games.

#ImTheorist

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

Drawing in the first round? Lol

That's making a decision with very little information(you don't know results of future rounds). A draw in the final round is made with a lot of information(you know the results of past rounds). I would never take an ID in round one just for that reason. But I'd take it 99.9% of the time in the final round if it resulted in making the cut. I'm there to play and have fun. But I'm still approaching things with the intent of winning the event.

Fly Casual.......that's a slogan, or a catch phrase. I fly casual every time. But I define it as being a good sport towards my opponent. Not throwing a fit when I roll twelve blanks in a row.

Lets say at Worlds random pairings, Paul Heaver draws Nathan Eide (or insert any two well known, tourney successful players) as his opponent in the first round. You don't think maybe they might consider just locking in a draw and moving on?

“INTENTIONAL WIN” IS A BETTER NAME FOR IT

The obvious needs pointed out here; it is not the intent of two players using the IDR in the last round of play to draw. They are using it to secure the practical equivalent of a double-win. Calling it a draw is lying about what it is. This is a rule that allows two players in the last round of qualifying to agree that they both effectively win. WIN = DRAW = WIN = DRAW, here.

By the sportsmanship rules, it’s illegal to do anything that fixes tournament results. I would encourage TOs across the world to deny an ID between two players that would secure them an elimination seat. The ID is collusion to fix scoring in that scenario, and should not be permitted. FFGOP can say otherwise, but they also say that the TO has full discretion as to whether IDs are allowed or not. It’s not up to FFG to stop IDs from ripping this community apart. It’s up to you TOs out there.

This is why it is unfair and should be removed.

I keep seeing the suggestion made that the "ideal" Swiss-to-Cut Swiss rounds would stop when there's a perfect sort into the cut. (So, for instance, if the Swiss at Roanoke had stopped after Round 5.)

Doesn't that make a 16-person tourney end for most players after two rounds? A 32-person tourney end most players after three rounds?

That seems ... not ideal to me.

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

Rd.3 8 games 2 (3-0) players 6 (2-1) players 6 (1-2) players 2 (0-3)

Rd.4 8 games 1 (4-0) players 4 (3-1) players 6 (2-2) players 4 (1-3) players 1 (0-4) players

As you can see after 4 rounds (not taking into account any draws) you will have a clear winner without a cut. If there is a cut then it would be to top 4 and the MOV of the 4 (3-1) players would decide the 3 to make it in. If there were 32 players it would take another round to have one undefeated player (again, barring any draws).

But that is silly as you end up with the winners playing each other and the thing looks even more like a single elimination tourney with a cut into single elimination. The whole point of having the swiss rounds is that people can play more games.

Square Peg.

Round Hole.

Do we want lots of rounds where everyone can play or do we want a clear and simple way to declare a winner? I'm not sure we can have both.

No.

Rd.1 8 games 8 (1-0) players 8 (0-1) players

Rd.2 8 games 4 (2-0) players 8 (1-1) players 4 (0-2) players

So ... after Round 2, you have four undefeated players. If you're cutting to Top Four, and Swiss is supposed to only get to the cut ... you have the cut after two rounds. Four undefeated players. (For 32 players, this would happen after three rounds for a Top Four.)

They go into eliminations, everyone else goes home.

If that's your goal for Swiss: play until you have the cut.

(In case it's not clear, I'm not arguing that's how it should be. What I'm arguing is that "Roanoke was a problem because it continued after there was enough information for a cut" is only a reasonable argument is "quitting two rounds into a 16-person tournament" is a reasonable thing to do. I don't think it is.)

So the Tournament Rules say no cut at 16 players or less, so the example I gave is how the winner (and top 4 for prizes) is determined. That's for the 'Basic Tournament Structure'.

The 'Advanced Tournament Structure' lists 4 rounds/top 4 cut at 9-12 players, 4 rounds/top 8 at 13-24, 5 rounds/top 8 at 25-40 players, and the list goes on.

#ImTheoristhttp://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

Drawing in the first round? Lol

That's making a decision with very little information(you don't know results of future rounds). A draw in the final round is made with a lot of information(you know the results of past rounds). I would never take an ID in round one just for that reason. But I'd take it 99.9% of the time in the final round if it resulted in making the cut. I'm there to play and have fun. But I'm still approaching things with the intent of winning the event.

Fly Casual.......that's a slogan, or a catch phrase. I fly casual every time. But I define it as being a good sport towards my opponent. Not throwing a fit when I roll twelve blanks in a row.

Mathematical a lose early and a draw in the second indeed gives you interesting pairings and might give you better chances to win the tournament than just planning for an ID in the last round. You never know if you actually get enough wins in the to take that ID in the last round. Most people will not be in that position to be more precise.

Remember: Your goal is not to finish first in the swiss round, your goal is to make the cut and with an early ID and wins you can take away the ability to ID for the top players and end in a position where the hardest opponents kick themselves out of the tournament, while you make the cut while facing a lot easier to beat people. Which increases your chances in the single-elimination stage as well. If you are not able to win enough games that early ID will naturally not help you, but it will not hurt you either, because would have never reached a position to take the last round ID.

Naturally you should not take an early ID if you would win very likely that would be a waste of a free win. Outside of that, you are playing the odds and tournament structure, especially using match making for later rounds to your advantage. You basically avoid to ever get a loss from heaver (or any other overwhelming strong player) because you will never get paired with him based on your tournament strategy. Great, right?

Unless of course you get paired up second round and lose.

Or face an opponent round two that is really good but faced Heaver round one. Drawing round one gives you less margin of error.

Do we want lots of rounds where everyone can play or do we want a clear and simple way to declare a winner? I'm not sure we can have both.

I want the latter, plus prize support for side events.

I think we are headed towards a future where tournaments are double elimination and side events like the Hangar Bay occupy most of the players.

#ImTheorist

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wings-intentional-draw

Good article.

I think we are headed towards a future where tournaments are double elimination and side events like the Hangar Bay occupy most of the players.

We should be so lucky.

You can't expect gaming stores to run multiple events at once on a regular basis.

Sad but true. Very few stores have the wherewithal to properly run two simultaneously.

You can't expect gaming stores to run multiple events at once on a regular basis.

Why not? Especially if the side event is casual/low-key, and especially if we're talking about Formal and Premier events.

Premier events yes. Monthly events doubtful. I'm sure they would have no problem with people casually playing. But starting up an event hallway through the main event might be pointless. Especially if the side event goes longer than the main event.

You can't expect gaming stores to run multiple events at once on a regular basis.

Why not? Especially if the side event is casual/low-key, and especially if we're talking about Formal and Premier events.

I believe in buying where I play: at home. My FLGS won't do a store championship, so I don't play there, and I don't buy there.

Premier events yes. Monthly events doubtful. I'm sure they would have no problem with people casually playing. But starting up an event hallway through the main event might be pointless. Especially if the side event goes longer than the main event.

I think Swiss to single elimination, or even straight Swiss, is probably fine for league-style events, small/local tourneys, etc. Maybe even for Store Championships, especially if they're small. I really mean Regionals and national-level tournaments.