I'm not sure how many of you caught on to my not so secretive plan of digging into the minds of everyone here on different aspects of the tournament rules. What has resulted, is what I believe are two very good options that are improvements on the current rules. This is how I've pieced together what I'm hearing...

Option A - Current

Win = 5 Points

Modified Win = 3 Points

Draw = 1 Points

Loss = 0 Points

Players can agree to both take an Intentional Draw for 1 Points and 100 MOV

Option B - Proposed Solution 1

Win = 3 Point

Modified Win = 2 Point

Modified Loss = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

Option C - Proposed Solution 2

Win = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

--

Yes, there have been a vast array of opinions, but these seem like the optimum fits for what I've heard (read) people saying.

Of these three options, which would be your preference and why (optional)? I think it would be great if the community had a united proposal on improving the tournament rules situation. If you really don't like one of these, feel free to state that, but I'm not hearing much consensus around any other options.

Poll Results through Post #74

A: 5 votes [14%]

B: 20 votes [57%]

C: 10 votes [29%]

Of those, I think I like option "B" the most.

I'd be totally down with B assuming that "clear victory" isn't necessarily tabling someone. Is "Clear Victory" win by at least 12 points or blow everything up? Winning by 80 points should be worth more than winning by 2 points on time.

I'd be totally down with B assuming that "clear victory" isn't necessarily tabling someone. Is "Clear Victory" win by at least 12 points or blow everything up? Winning by 80 points should be worth more than winning by 2 points on time.

I'll be more clear (no pun intended).

I'm with Immereth and EbonHawk and would vote for "B", and I too am wondering what is meant by "Clear Victory". As long as it has a reasonable value assigned to it I'd be down with that one.

I'm with Immereth and EbonHawk and would vote for "B", and I too am wondering what is meant by "Clear Victory". As long as it has a reasonable value assigned to it I'd be down with that one.

Have a look now.

I'd be totally down with B assuming that "clear victory" isn't necessarily tabling someone. Is "Clear Victory" win by at least 12 points or blow everything up? Winning by 80 points should be worth more than winning by 2 points on time.

I'll be more clear (no pun intended). Clear Victory is defeating a player before time runs out.

In that case I select option D:

Continue to search for our dream structure.

You can count me as an abstention if D is not an option.

I'd be totally down with B assuming that "clear victory" isn't necessarily tabling someone. Is "Clear Victory" win by at least 12 points or blow everything up? Winning by 80 points should be worth more than winning by 2 points on time.

I'll be more clear (no pun intended). Clear Victory is defeating a player before time runs out.

So, if a game goes to time then the losing player still gets 1 point. This would force players to slow-play when they are losing, so they can still get a point by letting the clock run out. If you don't do this, then you will get passed by other players that do. You need to change B) to be 12 points margin like A).

Also note -- B) does not get rid of IDs. Players can still fortress a game to a draw (or in this case get 2/1), which is the reason for the ID ruling to begin with.

I vote C).

Alright, seems I got that one wrong. I've amended Option B to be the standard 12 point modified win rule.

C

I also vote that things like this should never be decided by votes of players.

Definitely B. An ID is good if it awards 0 points. True draws are rare enough that they can be eliminated.

I'm going with C. I like things simple.

With the amendment I vote B. Closest to optimal in my opinion. There will be people that slow play to keep from losing that point if they are down but we already have that now and there really isn't anything you can do to keep someone from throwing away points. C is still better in my opinion than what we have now.

I say B, with one tiny adjustment.

Modified loss needs to be 0 points. Otherwise, the players can fabricate an ID by figuring out what they need to destroy from each other and then wait for time to both secure at least 1 point.

Of those, I think I like option "B" the most.

What he said.

With the amendment I vote B. Closest to optimal in my opinion. There will be people that slow play to keep from losing that point if they are down but we already have that now and there really isn't anything you can do to keep someone from throwing away points. C is still better in my opinion than what we have now.

Yeah, no solution is perfect. That would be too easy.

On Option C, if I have the higher score, I could play defensively and try to hold out for the win. As you say though, this sort of thing happens already.

I say B, with one tiny adjustment.

Modified loss needs to be 0 points. Otherwise, the players can fabricate an ID by figuring out what they need to destroy from each other and then wait for time to both secure at least 1 point.

That would be collusion and it can happen already to a degree.

I'm not sure how many of you caught on to my not so secretive plan of digging into the minds of everyone here on different aspects of the tournament rules. What has resulted, is what I believe are two very good options that are improvements on the current rules. This is how I've pieced together what I'm hearing...

Option A - Current

Win = 5 Points

Modified Win = 3 Points

Draw = 1 Points

Loss = 0 Points

Players can agree to both take an Intentional Draw for 0 Points and 100 MOV

Option B - Proposed Solution 1

Win = 3 Point

Modified Win = 2 Point

Modified Loss = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Modified Win, other player gets a Modified Loss.

Option C - Proposed Solution 2

Win = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

No concept of Draws, intentional or not. In the case of players tying on score on a finished game, the player with initiative gets a Win, other player gets a Loss.

No concept of Modified Wins

--

Yes, there have been a vast array of opinions, but these seem like the optimum fits for what I've heard (read) people saying.

Of these three options, which would be your preference and why (optional)? I think it would be great if the community had a united proposal on improving the tournament rules situation. If you really don't like one of these, feel free to state that, but I'm not hearing much consensus around any other options.

Poll Results through Post 12

A: 0 votes [0%]

B: 4 votes [57%]

C: 3 votes [43%]

C

None of the above.

C

I say B, with one tiny adjustment.

Modified loss needs to be 0 points. Otherwise, the players can fabricate an ID by figuring out what they need to destroy from each other and then wait for time to both secure at least 1 point.

That would be collusion and it can happen already to a degree.

Yes. So why not eliminate the possibility of collusion?

B

I don't participate in polls but I would go with A (status Quo) because I don't think B or C are any better options.

Now since this is your own tournament and not an FFG Organized play tournament then I think you as the organizer should have as much flexibility and make adjustments to the tournament rules as you like. Just be sure you state your change to the rulings for the tournament you are hosting in a way that all participants cannot miss them ti avoid any confusion. Sure "your tournament, your rules" makes perfect sense. If people don't think it is fair then they should even bother signing up and participating in it. If no one shows up then perhaps your rules were not that good. If people show up and everyone liked it then good.

B.

C is a close second.

C