Well now I'm thrilled that I've already dropped nearly $300 preregistering for some X-Wing tournaments this spring and summer.

So if I'm almost in the top 8 before the last round I may as well pack up and go home? After all, it's legal for those other guys to lock in their prizes at game Y-1. Regardless of the fact that a tournament with X players is meant to go Y rounds? Great. Thanks FFGOP.

No. As I doubt there will be exactly 6/14 players needed for the block.

Fine, call it the top Z instead of top 8. Nothing says that this can't, and won't, happen again.

You need a very specific circumstances for this to happen. In some of the larger tournaments, you may get a few more, but not likely to be the whole cut.

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

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

This can me avoided if TOs don't post round standings, nothing in the rules says they have to post round standings after each round

Winning is more important than competing, these are regionals for the top miniatures game.

Glad to see you've stuck true to form there PGS....

PGS doesnt need any help digging a hole for himself hey lol

This can me avoided if TOs don't post round standings, nothing in the rules says they have to post round standings after each round

This can me avoided if TOs don't post round standings, nothing in the rules says they have to post round standings after each round

The problem with that is that its not uncommon for mistakes to happen when setting up thenrounds (sometimes a mistake by the TO, sometimes by the olayers filling out their scores for the game wrong). Which you wont catch if you dont post standings

To win a tournament, you still have to do a LOT of winning, whether or not IDs are legal, and whether they are worth 1 tournament point or 0. Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen levels of winning.

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

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

Do you even understand the circumstances needed for the top tables to lock up the cut with intentional draws? I mean, one more or one less 5-1 in VA, and this wouldn't be the big bruhaha that it is.

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

"We did something bad and even though 99% of you are intelligent enough and ethical enough to tell us why it is wrong, we are still right and those of you not good enough to win don't deserve the chance in the last round to beat the best. Fly casual!"

Winning is more important than competing, these are regionals for the top miniatures game.

Glad to see you've stuck true to form there PGS....

All that matters is winning, being polite to your opponent, and following the rules.

What's funny about fly casuals is how much more angry they get during a game than I do.

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

Do you even understand the circumstances needed for the top tables to lock up the cut with intentional draws? I mean, one more or one less 5-1 in VA, and this wouldn't be the big bruhaha that it is.

This is an interesting way to make sure they have enough room at worlds this year.

remember!!!?!?!?! they were saying they were not sure how to handle the growing crowds at worlds....either make it more exclusive or rent out more space for it...

well, instead of either of those options...someone went for plan C and nuked the entire structure from orbit.

very interesting indeed..... they wont have to worry about fire codes and overcrowding if nobody shows up. then they can sell 12 dollar burgers to themselves.and share high fives . youknow...for the good of everyone and fairness and all that.

very interesting decision indeed.

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

Do you even understand the circumstances needed for the top tables to lock up the cut with intentional draws? I mean, one more or one less 5-1 in VA, and this wouldn't be the big bruhaha that it is.

As I understand it from people who were there, the critical mistake came in the number of rounds played, six when there should have only been 5. Which would have made this whole discussion moot.

Part of that is just barely getting enough to bump the the number of rounds. And then getting a good number of drops. To be frank, that was a fairly low attendance Regional. The others are going to be a lot tougher to get similar situations.

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

Do you even understand the circumstances needed for the top tables to lock up the cut with intentional draws? I mean, one more or one less 5-1 in VA, and this wouldn't be the big bruhaha that it is.

As I understand it from people who were there, the critical mistake came in the number of rounds played, six when there should have only been 5. Which would have made this whole discussion moot.

Part of that is just barely getting enough to bump the the number of rounds. And then getting a good number of drops. To be frank, that was a fairly low attendance Regional. The others are going to be a lot tougher to get similar situations.

Yep, number of rounds is set before the the first round starts and would have been correct except for drops.

It is important to note that what happened in VA is not going to be the standard. It will normally be just the top table, who will get in no matter what.

And what exactly prevents it from becoming the norm?

Math.

Let me guess, you never did well in math at junior high, did you?

Do you even understand the circumstances needed for the top tables to lock up the cut with intentional draws? I mean, one more or one less 5-1 in VA, and this wouldn't be the big bruhaha that it is.

As I understand it from people who were there, the critical mistake came in the number of rounds played, six when there should have only been 5. Which would have made this whole discussion moot.

Where the problem lies is not if this is a statistically rare result, but whether this is a statistically possible result.

Now, the bigger your sample gets, the less rare this statistical outcome will become.

As far as I am concerned the mere notion this statistical result, no matter how possible it is to occur, is endorsed, promoted and rewarded from FFG is outrageous.

1 time this occurs and there are a lot of people saying the sky is falling but it doesnt seem the norm to ID most people want to play the game not just draw especially the small tourneys with no cut. So far in my experience the xwing community is good and would not duplicate roanake people did, they come to play games have fun and play casual. Instead of being negative promote playing instead of ID

Why do people keep mentioning drops? Drops come from people who aren't on the top end of the brackets anyways, and thus shouldn't affect the final (or penultimate) Swiss standings.

As for those saying that there should have been 1 fewer round, that might be true for standard Swiss pairings, but not, apparently for what FFG is apparently trying to do with the tournament struture, which is to ensure that everyone with only 1 loss after X rounds (as defined by the structure) makes the cut, as well as 0+ 2-loss players.

Yes, because this is much more possible than the LCGs, it shouldn't be part of the X-wing rules. But, it also isn't the apocalyptic disaster many are painting it to be.

Boo! Just eliminate draws! It can still be competitive!

This is going to require a whole new hitler...

I'll wait for an announcement on the FFG page before I consider anything "official".

I'll wait for an announcement on the FFG page before I consider anything "official".

+1

If this response is real, calling it somewhat tone-deaf is an understatement akin to calling the Death Star a moderately imprudent investment. It's like calling Hayden Christensen a slightly unconvincing performer. It's like... it's like saying the Yuuzhan Vong pose a small challenge to the reader's suspension of disbelief.

If this is real, I'm going to really lose my temper. So for the moment, I'm going to assume it's some sort of elaborate prank in very poor taste, rather than an actual response from OP.

If OP wants intentional draws, round counts need to be properly calculated, especially with store championship byes taken into account.

Or change the tournament structure to reward playing all your games.

Advanced structure should have a larger cut instead of an extra round of swiss (preferably with counts like 10, 12, 18, 20). Having a play-in elimination round rewards top players by giving them a bye then as opposed to a draw during swiss).

Standardize graduated cut and IDs cannot affect standings so dramatically.

Screw competitive play now. Who wants to come play Heroes of the Aturi Cluster with me?