Hey, this means that they can finally change the dumb rule about the Nashta Pup scoring if it's the only ship left on the table! That was purely an artifact of FFG's tournament software not being capable of assigning a win in a 100-100 game. Since they will have to deal with that now anyway...
Intentional Draws Announcement
Fantastic everybody. The whining gets results. Now all the pressure goes back onto TOs to try and police collusion. Instead of people taking IDs they'll collude.
Prime example
#5 plays #6
A draw and they're both in.
If one tables the other, then the loser is probably out. Players agree that whoever wins will win by as little as realistically possible. Unless a TO pays a bunch of attention to every match it will be hard to police.
Which is a very highly unlikely scenario. If the winner doesn't personally know the loser, why would he risk any possibility of a collusion allegation to help some rando? Just finish crushing him. You have to have two people, both paired, with just the right MOVs, who are both friendly to each other, and both willing to cheat for this to occur. Hell, if they are willing to go that far, they are probably willing to just make up a score.
On the other hand, legalized collusion in the form of an Intentional Draw would happen nearly every time it was beneficial, whether the players are friendly or not.
Yup. "Hey, let's do something that benefits us both" is a much easier conversation to have than "Could you do me a favor and not run up the score, please?"
I think it is hilariously naive that this conversation would not happen, or would at least not be considered by both parties.
Collusion allegation? You mean one person accuses the other in the final round of swiss and the person who did it fully denies it if called out? TO can't DQ on an allegation, because otherwise there would be an accusation party at the end of every tournament. So nothing happens save maybe a warning, they play it out and whatever happens happens. Worst case, the offerer loses and was no worse off than if he never said anything. Best case, his opponent accepts and both move on and no one knows any better.
Welcome to why you are better off with IDs, much as it may leave a sour taste.
Sure, is there a level of trust that has to be present? Of course, a little. But if the only thing a person has to be concerned with is whether you will report them, that is a pretty minimal amount of trust indeed.
There are some teams/groups out there that wouldn't even need to say anything out loud to know what to expect...
That all said, I think the scenario is less likely since MOV is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee in X-Wing with the removal of the Draw/point for a draw. Which is why I liked the article and felt it was a very diplomatic solution. It removes the issue for the most part, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy that collusion will never ever, ever happen. Ever. Which is, of course, extremely foolish to think, but ignorance is bliss as they say.
I think it is hilariously naive that this conversation would not happen, or would at least not be considered by both parties.
Collusion allegation? You mean one person accuses the other in the final round of swiss and the person who did it fully denies it if called out? TO can't DQ on an allegation, because otherwise there would be an accusation party at the end of every tournament. So nothing happens save maybe a warning, they play it out and whatever happens happens. Worst case, the offerer loses and was no worse off than if he never said anything. Best case, his opponent accepts and both move on and no one knows any better.
Welcome to why you are better off with IDs, much as it may leave a sour taste.
Sure, is there a level of trust that has to be present? Of course, a little. But if the only thing a person has to be concerned with is whether you will report them, that is a pretty minimal amount of trust indeed.
There are some teams/groups out there that wouldn't even need to say anything out loud to know what to expect...
That all said, I think the scenario is less likely since MOV is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee in X-Wing with the removal of the Draw/point for a draw. Which is why I liked the article and felt it was a very diplomatic solution. It removes the issue for the most part, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy that collusion will never ever, ever happen. Ever. Which is, of course, extremely foolish to think, but ignorance is bliss as they say.
And my friends say I'm cynical...
I think it is hilariously naive that this conversation would not happen, or would at least not be considered by both parties.
Collusion allegation? You mean one person accuses the other in the final round of swiss and the person who did it fully denies it if called out? TO can't DQ on an allegation, because otherwise there would be an accusation party at the end of every tournament. So nothing happens save maybe a warning, they play it out and whatever happens happens. Worst case, the offerer loses and was no worse off than if he never said anything. Best case, his opponent accepts and both move on and no one knows any better.
Welcome to why you are better off with IDs, much as it may leave a sour taste.
Sure, is there a level of trust that has to be present? Of course, a little. But if the only thing a person has to be concerned with is whether you will report them, that is a pretty minimal amount of trust indeed.
There are some teams/groups out there that wouldn't even need to say anything out loud to know what to expect...
That all said, I think the scenario is less likely since MOV is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee in X-Wing with the removal of the Draw/point for a draw. Which is why I liked the article and felt it was a very diplomatic solution. It removes the issue for the most part, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy that collusion will never ever, ever happen. Ever. Which is, of course, extremely foolish to think, but ignorance is bliss as they say.
And my friends say I'm cynical...
There's a difference between being cynical and being realistic.=)
Every system out there is exploited one way or another. Why would a tournament be any different?
Hey, this means that they can finally change the dumb rule about the Nashta Pup scoring if it's the only ship left on the table! That was purely an artifact of FFG's tournament software not being capable of assigning a win in a 100-100 game. Since they will have to deal with that now anyway...
It also solves software having issues handling the Draws due to point values.
Yay silver linings! 
snip
Given the number of people who've said words to the effect 'i dont agree with ID but as long as it's legal I'll take it' then I'd say banning them is the only option.
Because either those 'don't hate the playa hate the game' individuals will try to win legally (as they themselves claim), or they'll start cheating- in which case the 'IDs aren't cheating so why everyone so mad?' argument dissolves.
Personally I'm inclined to the former... Some people might just cheat without ID, but it won't be nearly as many as people who'd just take ID.
weird thing yesterday was the fist game I've played since I started that ended with a draw.
both ships simultaneous fire to kill. (**** you r5-p8)
Honestly i hope "Initiative Bid" and "Draw Tiebreaker" will be opposites. This could give a little more nuace to the "Initiative Bid".
Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...
Or, you just just play and win.
Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...
Or, you just just play and win.
So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?
Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...
Or, you just just play and win.
Lol, this is like saying you are wrong and unfair if you play a list you dont like but will ge you a win.
You only play 3 u boats for the wins? No soup for you!
So....if enough people have a hissy fit, FFG will change their policy on things? That's what I get from this and the whole damage deck reversal.
Seems a pretty reasonable policy.
"Most of our fanbase seems to hate this. Why are we doing it again?"
I think it is hilariously naive that this conversation would not happen, or would at least not be considered by both parties.
Collusion allegation? You mean one person accuses the other in the final round of swiss and the person who did it fully denies it if called out? TO can't DQ on an allegation, because otherwise there would be an accusation party at the end of every tournament. So nothing happens save maybe a warning, they play it out and whatever happens happens. Worst case, the offerer loses and was no worse off than if he never said anything. Best case, his opponent accepts and both move on and no one knows any better.
Welcome to why you are better off with IDs, much as it may leave a sour taste.
Sure, is there a level of trust that has to be present? Of course, a little. But if the only thing a person has to be concerned with is whether you will report them, that is a pretty minimal amount of trust indeed.
There are some teams/groups out there that wouldn't even need to say anything out loud to know what to expect...
That all said, I think the scenario is less likely since MOV is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee in X-Wing with the removal of the Draw/point for a draw. Which is why I liked the article and felt it was a very diplomatic solution. It removes the issue for the most part, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy that collusion will never ever, ever happen. Ever. Which is, of course, extremely foolish to think, but ignorance is bliss as they say.
And my friends say I'm cynical...
No I said you are cylindrical.
I think it is hilariously naive that this conversation would not happen, or would at least not be considered by both parties.Fantastic everybody. The whining gets results. Now all the pressure goes back onto TOs to try and police collusion. Instead of people taking IDs they'll collude.
Prime example
#5 plays #6
A draw and they're both in.
If one tables the other, then the loser is probably out. Players agree that whoever wins will win by as little as realistically possible. Unless a TO pays a bunch of attention to every match it will be hard to police.
Which is a very highly unlikely scenario. If the winner doesn't personally know the loser, why would he risk any possibility of a collusion allegation to help some rando? Just finish crushing him. You have to have two people, both paired, with just the right MOVs, who are both friendly to each other, and both willing to cheat for this to occur. Hell, if they are willing to go that far, they are probably willing to just make up a score.
On the other hand, legalized collusion in the form of an Intentional Draw would happen nearly every time it was beneficial, whether the players are friendly or not.
Yup. "Hey, let's do something that benefits us both" is a much easier conversation to have than "Could you do me a favor and not run up the score, please?"
Collusion allegation? You mean one person accuses the other in the final round of swiss and the person who did it fully denies it if called out? TO can't DQ on an allegation, because otherwise there would be an accusation party at the end of every tournament. So nothing happens save maybe a warning, they play it out and whatever happens happens. Worst case, the offerer loses and was no worse off than if he never said anything. Best case, his opponent accepts and both move on and no one knows any better.
Welcome to why you are better off with IDs, much as it may leave a sour taste.
Sure, is there a level of trust that has to be present? Of course, a little. But if the only thing a person has to be concerned with is whether you will report them, that is a pretty minimal amount of trust indeed.
There are some teams/groups out there that wouldn't even need to say anything out loud to know what to expect...
That all said, I think the scenario is less likely since MOV is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee in X-Wing with the removal of the Draw/point for a draw. Which is why I liked the article and felt it was a very diplomatic solution. It removes the issue for the most part, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy that collusion will never ever, ever happen. Ever. Which is, of course, extremely foolish to think, but ignorance is bliss as they say.
Youre right, people will always try to game the systems to gain an unfair advantage. Better make it legal for them to do it...
So....if enough people have a hissy fit, FFG will change their policy on things? That's what I get from this and the whole damage deck reversal.
Or maybe sometimes a lot of people are right.
I am curious what the repercussions would be to replacing MOV with points destroyed for the primary tie breaker? If a win is a win, this might be useful or necessary to disincentivize (that is too a word, stupid spelcheq!) taking out the easiest points and then running away till time.
Good. I'm for the change. The ability to game the system by either IDing or playing for a draw was bad for the game. It will be interesting to see what they do for a natural draw. If it is based on initiative as some have suggested, I think we'll see some more initiative bid lists coming out soon.
And my friends say I'm cynical...
No I said you are cylindrical.
Clearly this argument is going in circles. 
So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
Edited by RaptureJust because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
WELL, you can go ahead and do that. We got the rule to change through our protests. But for now, it is the rule and you would be a fool to not use it if it ensures your win.
Edited by TimathiusJust because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
Isn't the whole concept of'fair' in a game defined in relation to the game's rules?
How can something that is in the spirit of said rules be classified as 'unfair'?
Just because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
Isn't the whole concept of'fair' in a game defined in relation to the game's rules?
How can something that is in the spirit of said rules be classified as 'unfair'?
FFG just released a new set of core rules for X-Wing. Nothing changes with the exception of two items. The first is that IDs are now expressly identified as collusion. The second states that:
Immediately after deployment, check the identity of each player. If one player is Rapture and the other player is LordBlades, then the game immediately ends with Rapture being awarded a win and LordBlades being awarded a loss.
Answer this - is that, an official rule, fair?
Respectfully, this is not a difficult concept. Rules can be unfair.
Just because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?
So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?
It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...
Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
Isn't the whole concept of'fair' in a game defined in relation to the game's rules?
How can something that is in the spirit of said rules be classified as 'unfair'?
FFG just released a new set of core rules for X-Wing. Nothing changes with the exception of two items. The first is that IDs are now expressly identified as collusion. The second states that:
Immediately after deployment, check the identity of each player. If one player is Rapture and the other player is LordBlades, then the game immediately ends with Rapture being awarded a win and LordBlades being awarded a loss.
Answer this - is that, an official rule, fair?
Respectfully, this is not a difficult concept. Rules can be unfair.
We may be using different editions of the rules as I can't find that "autowin" rule between you and LordBlades, can you give me a page number for it?
Everything in Print is fair as it applies equally to all players
Edited by Garian DagarkinSo, just to be clear, your entire argument is based on someone not putting themselves in the best possible position to win.... in a tournament.... a REGIONAL no less... using LEGAL rules... just because they don't personally agree with the rules?Just because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?It is wrong and unfair, but if it gets me to the round...Yeah, I've been consistent in my views since well before the Roanoke Incident: I don't like draws, but I will use IDs if it secures me and my opponent a spot in the cut. I will continue to do so until they remove the rule in August.Also, if paul heaver was just saying be was opposed to intentional draws being a thing nust due to public opinion, he probably wouldnt have taken one...
Or, you just just play and win.
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
WELL, you can go ahead and do that. We got the rule to change through our protests. But for now, it is the rule and you would be a fool to not use it if it ensures your win.
Wanting to play your games, even if losing means you miss a cut does not make one a fool. It means that individual has a different reason for entering the tournament or a different idea on what it means to compete than you.
Just because it is a rule doesn't make it fair. Do you need examples, or can you think of one on your own?
So now obeying both the letter and the spirit (as explained in the ID article) of the rules set forth by FFG is 'wrong and unfair'?
Besides, I was pointing out the fact that people are happy to stand against this rule but even happier to take advantage of it until it is removed from the game.
Isn't the whole concept of'fair' in a game defined in relation to the game's rules?
How can something that is in the spirit of said rules be classified as 'unfair'?
FFG just released a new set of core rules for X-Wing. Nothing changes with the exception of two items. The first is that IDs are now expressly identified as collusion. The second states that:
Immediately after deployment, check the identity of each player. If one player is Rapture and the other player is LordBlades, then the game immediately ends with Rapture being awarded a win and LordBlades being awarded a loss.
Answer this - is that, an official rule, fair?
Respectfully, this is not a difficult concept. Rules can be unfair.
We may be using different editions of the rules as I can't find that "autowin" rule between you and LordBlades, can you give me a page number for it?
Everything in Print is fair as it applies equally to all players
Based on that travesty of reading comprehension, I wouldn't be surprised if you missed something. However, read the conversation that you are inserting yourself into and you should pick up that LordBlades presented the idea that all official rules are fair and I provided him with an example that I believe most people, including, LordBlades, cannot say is fair.
You have just presented the same idea that all rules in print are fair. I think that is a stupid thing to say. So, I will give you your own example:
***THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL***
FFG just released a new set of core rules for X-Wing. Nothing changes with the exception of two items. The first is that IDs are now expressly identified as collusion. The second states that:
Immediately after the game ends, but before determining Margin of Victory, check the nationality of each player. If one player is from Canada, then the non-Canadian player adds 100 points to his/her Margin of Victory.
***THE HYPOTHETICAL IS OVER***
Answer this - is that hypothetical, if it was an official rule, fair?