Ok, we're gonna be a ND (no draw) game in a few months...

Any suggestion on how to implement this?

I'll kick it off:

"In any natural draw case the victory goes to the player with the lowest squad point and in case of both players with same squad points, it goes to the player with initiative. In this case the MoV is considered 0."

This can be used with Modified Win for a 3-100 / 0-100 result.
Or in case the Modified Rule goes away, for a 5-100/0-100 result.

I particularly like it with the ModWin rule, as an added pressure on the winner to get for a full win.

Never tell me the odds.

I like how SoS interacts with swiss pairings, but I also like how MoV encourages aggressive and tactical play on the table.

I wonder if instead of giving primacy to one over the other you combine the two into a single tiebreaker?

Hmm

But what if the draw is between players with different points? Like a 5-0 player vs a 4-1 player...
I don't think past performance should be used to untie a draw because:
1- some lists are notorious low MoV winners.
2- might be a match between players with different points.
3- should be a situation taking into account THAT match only.

also its a nice way to add a bit more into the initiative...

Hmm

But what if the draw is between players with different points? Like a 5-0 player vs a 4-1 player...

I don't think past performance should be used to untie a draw because:

1- some lists are notorious low MoV winners.

2- might be a match between players with different points.

3- should be a situation taking into account THAT match only.

also its a nice way to add a bit more into the initiative...

Hmm

But what if the draw is between players with different points? Like a 5-0 player vs a 4-1 player...

I don't think past performance should be used to untie a draw because:

1- some lists are notorious low MoV winners.

2- might be a match between players with different points.

3- should be a situation taking into account THAT match only.

also its a nice way to add a bit more into the initiative...

Sorry, I think I was confusing two related issues.

I would decide match winners by tying it to who had the choice if Initiative. The player who had choice of Initiative loses a drawn game as he gave himself an advantage but couldn't turn it into a win.

But I'd make that gohand in hand with a rejig of what tiebreakers are used in the standings.

The thing is that in general, initiative is a bad thing, that is why most people give it away.
Moving first is in general a bad thing (unless in the rare case of blocking a low PS ship).
Shooting later is generally compensated by the simultaneous attack rule.

In a draw situation, if one has lower squad point, I think that should count as a win first.
This guy matched 98 points vs. the other guy's 100pts...
If they have the same squad, giving the win for the init guy is a good and quick idea to improve the initiative status.

"The player who had choice of Initiative loses a drawn game as he gave himself an advantage but couldn't turn it into a win."

But this is a good choice as well.

This question is easy, the person who lost earlier in the day loses. if both players are at the same record and lost in the same round or have not lost, initiative wins. This way the person who has been playing statistically better players gets rewarded for it, and if the players are on equal footing they know the stakes when choosing to keep/give initiative.

This question is easy, the person who lost earlier in the day loses. if both players are at the same record and lost in the same round or have not lost, initiative wins. This way the person who has been playing statistically better players gets rewarded for it, and if the players are on equal footing they know the stakes when choosing to keep/give initiative.

Personally I think basing it on past game results is a terrivle idea, but if anything I'd go the other way. If the "better" player cant manage anything more than a draw state, that tells me the other player was doing better for the match (since in theory the "better" player should be able to win), so the player with the worse record should get the win.

But theres no way it should be based on anything but whay happened in the specific match in wuestion

MoV with the simple removal of draws would be fine.

Remove draws by tying them to Initiative.

Close to the current system, just with an unusual circumstance removed and tied to a pre-existing mechanic.

Simple is good, yes?

The thing is that in general, initiative is a bad thing, that is why most people give it away.

Moving first is in general a bad thing (unless in the rare case of blocking a low PS ship).

Shooting later is generally compensated by the simultaneous attack rule.

In a draw situation, if one has lower squad point, I think that should count as a win first.

This guy matched 98 points vs. the other guy's 100pts...

If they have the same squad, giving the win for the init guy is a good and quick idea to improve the initiative status.

"The player who had choice of Initiative loses a drawn game as he gave himself an advantage but couldn't turn it into a win."

But this is a good choice as well.

That's not always true. Often moving first is key because you can bump the other player. Or with abilities like Whisper you'll want to fire and cloak.

It's really not as clean cut as you make out.

That's not always true. Often moving first is key because you can bump the other player. Or with abilities like Whisper you'll want to fire and cloak.

It's really not as clean cut as you make out.

Blockers are usually low PS, and Whisper is usually used with a high PS + VI.

Init is generally a bad thing at the higher tier of plays.

"well, we'll just have to roshambo for it"

That's not always true. Often moving first is key because you can bump the other player. Or with abilities like Whisper you'll want to fire and cloak.

It's really not as clean cut as you make out.

Blockers are usually low PS, and Whisper is usually used with a high PS + VI.

Init is generally a bad thing at the higher tier of plays.

Again, you're making it seem really simple when it's not.

Bumping is a strategy not just for low PS pilots, it can decide a lot of mirror matches. You'd almost certainly want to go first in Triple Jump vs Jump, for instance, so you can charge in and bump. Same for Crack Swarm mirrors. And just because Whisper has high PS doesn't mean it doesn't have people on the same PS as him (eg. Soontir). And when it's Whisper vs Soontir you've got to decide if you're going to try and engage Soontir with Whisper or not, because if you are then you are planning to be behind Soontir and want to see him move (so give Initiative) but if you're not and Whisper is engaging another lower-PS target then it's more important to shoot first in case Soontir is chasing Whisper.

I'd say you're more likely to give initiative than keep it, but it's COMPLETELY matchup dependent and there a lot of very good reasons for keeping initiative.

Draws of any type should result in a double loss, with no tournament points awarded to either player. If you don't fulfill the conditions to win a game, you lose. It's as simple as that.

That's not always true. Often moving first is key because you can bump the other player. Or with abilities like Whisper you'll want to fire and cloak.

It's really not as clean cut as you make out.

Blockers are usually low PS, and Whisper is usually used with a high PS + VI.

Init is generally a bad thing at the higher tier of plays.

Look at the VI whisper vs han matchup, in this case you want initiative with whisper.

Inititiative is not a bad thing, it depends on the matchup.

In a Tie swarm vs Tie swarm matchup with equal low PS ships, you want initiative to block. In the triple scout mirror match you want initiative to not be blocked get your focus, fire first and hopefully score a crit to activate boba fett (see the Hoth Open Champion 97 pts init bid).

But using init to settle draws is a good solution. It's just another incentive to take initiative to take into account when squad building.

I'd say you're more likely to give initiative than keep it, but it's COMPLETELY matchup dependent and there a lot of very good reasons for keeping initiative.

Agreed, that's why I said:

"The thing is that in general, initiative is a bad thing, that is why most people give it away."

Yeah, I don't like the idea of making draws dependent on who has initiative. I don't really see the connection between the two. Sometimes having the initiative in X-wing is good, and sometimes it's bad, depending on your squad and your opponent's squad.

Giving the draw win to the person with initiative would make sense if having the initiative was always a disadvantage, but it's not.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of making draws dependent on who has initiative. I don't really see the connection between the two. Sometimes having the initiative in X-wing is good, and sometimes it's bad, depending on your squad and your opponent's squad.

Giving the draw win to the person with initiative would make sense if having the initiative was always a disadvantage, but it's not.

I think the suggestion is that the Win goes to the person who didn't get to choose Initiative.

So one player has the choice of Initiative to gain an advantage on the table, but if they don't convert that advantage then they're going to lose a tie.

Draws of any type should result in a double loss, with no tournament points awarded to either player. If you don't fulfill the conditions to win a game, you lose. It's as simple as that.

Did you not read the article where FFG explained why they wouldn't be doing that?

Draws of any type should result in a double loss, with no tournament points awarded to either player. If you don't fulfill the conditions to win a game, you lose. It's as simple as that.

Did you not read the article where FFG explained why they wouldn't be doing that?

Yeah, I don't like the idea of making draws dependent on who has initiative. I don't really see the connection between the two. Sometimes having the initiative in X-wing is good, and sometimes it's bad, depending on your squad and your opponent's squad.

Giving the draw win to the person with initiative would make sense if having the initiative was always a disadvantage, but it's not.

I think the suggestion is that the Win goes to the person who didn't get to choose Initiative.

So one player has the choice of Initiative to gain an advantage on the table, but if they don't convert that advantage then they're going to lose a tie.

That would seem to discourage points bids on anything but the most init-dependant lists.

What's wrong with it simply pairing with init? Plenty of sports have pick of direction of play or order of gaming left up to a coin toss; there's little harm in tying another effect to init.

If you give it away, your playing for keeps.

If you lose the roll off for it, you're no worse than a coin flip - and it's one you know about from the start of play.

Seems fair to me.

Draws of any type should result in a double loss, with no tournament points awarded to either player. If you don't fulfill the conditions to win a game, you lose. It's as simple as that.

Did you not read the article where FFG explained why they wouldn't be doing that?

I did, but I disagree with them on it. They gave two reasons why they believe the double loss is bad:

1.) It "diminishes their efforts and leaves the experience hollow."

This is silly. When one loses a game, they reach that loss with "great effort," yet they still lost the game. It's like handing out participation trophies in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

2.) It encourages players to cheat.

Apparently when one is about to draw, one is more likely to cheat than when one is simply at risk of losing a game... which under a double loss rule, however, means it's exactly the same thing. If one would cheat when faced with the prospect of losing, that same player would cheat when they're down in the game and staring down the barrel of a regular loss. It's nonsensical.

The article then goes on to explain that, as long as draws result in a value above a loss, why intentional draws must be allowed. Unless FFG OP came come up with some inventive new way to treat losses in a Swiss tournament structure, then, by their own logic, they must remove the value above a loss from draws, if they truly do wish to remove intentional draws from tournament play.

These have already been discussed a lot, but I guess it's fine to go around it again. Both options on the other thread are below. Some people in that thread were talking about a 0-20 solution as well.

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

Proposed Solution 2

Win = 1 Point

Loss = 0 Points

Mutual Concession = 0 Points and 0 MOV for both players

"well, we'll just have to roshambo for it"

Personally I'm more of a "Hunter, Ranger, Bear" fan.

Draws of any type should result in a double loss, with no tournament points awarded to either player. If you don't fulfill the conditions to win a game, you lose. It's as simple as that.

Did you not read the article where FFG explained why they wouldn't be doing that?

I did, but I disagree with them on it. They gave two reasons why they believe the double loss is bad:

1.) It "diminishes their efforts and leaves the experience hollow."

This is silly. When one loses a game, they reach that loss with "great effort," yet they still lost the game. It's like handing out participation trophies in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

2.) It encourages players to cheat.

Apparently when one is about to draw, one is more likely to cheat than when one is simply at risk of losing a game... which under a double loss rule, however, means it's exactly the same thing. If one would cheat when faced with the prospect of losing, that same player would cheat when they're down in the game and staring down the barrel of a regular loss. It's nonsensical.

The article then goes on to explain that, as long as draws result in a value above a loss, why intentional draws must be allowed. Unless FFG OP came come up with some inventive new way to treat losses in a Swiss tournament structure, then, by their own logic, they must remove the value above a loss from draws, if they truly do wish to remove intentional draws from tournament play.

The situation, draws = losses.

2 players are going at it, and when it comes down to the end of the game it's clear that they're going to end in a draw. Rather than both of them accepting a loss, they decide (collusion!) to flip a coin to determine the game. They do, and they loser concedes the match (since he has absolutely nothing to lose, since a draw = a loss), and the winner gets a normal win.

Their point is that when draws = losses, it creates situations that encourage collusion, which is cheating. And I agree with them.

I think it wouldn't be a wise idea to tie initiative with your ability to win or lose a game.

You probably can build and fly a list that simply will deny all it's points for 75 minutes and then take the victory.

Soontir Fel (27)
Push the Limit (3)
Autothrusters (2)
Stealth Device (3)
Royal Guard TIE (0)

Darth Vader (29)
Lone Wolf (2)
Sensor Jammer (0)
Engine Upgrade (4)
TIE/x1 (0)

Total: 70

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Seems super-unfun to me.

Also such kind of ruling would encourage slow play, which is something nobody should support.

Honestly I can't think of a simple way to fix this "we'll remove draws completely from the game" issue. Even though ID's may have been unpopular for some, they never had or would have had that much impact on the game as this new ruling will have.