So I spent my past weekend at the Wisconsin regional, where one of the players who made the top 8 cut said that he could not participate on Sunday (it was a two day event), so he was dropping from the cut. In the past when this has occurred, the position has been back filled by the next player.

However, the TO there was stating that since he dropped after the cut was announced, there was nothing he could do about it and that there would only be 7 players in the cut, with whomever that guy's R1 opponent getting a bye.

I talked with the TO about why this was the case, and he brought up some very specific issues with manipulation that had previously occurred in Magic, and with the lack of any specific ruling from FFG as to the proper procedure, he was going to apply the Magic ruling. Without being very versed in Magic and the issues he was alluding to, I left it at that - it's not like I was the 9th seed that would have been playing anyways.

Does anyone know if there has been an official ruling on how to handle this?

I don't know of any ruling about it, and I'd imagine that FFG would likely leave it at the discretion of the TO.

In the past I've always seen any prizes that players that made the cut be given to the player that was dropping but then allow the 9th seed player from swiss fill that spot. Seems more fair than giving a player a bye during elimination rounds.

Ultimately, I agree that it is the TO's discretion.

Oh that is a bit painful. As 9th I asked about anyone dropping before I left on Saturday, but at that time nobody had.

Just to be clear, the venue was great and it's a fantastic store. I've played in the regional there this year and last, and I hope/recommend they get it next year too! But FFG should have a clear policy on this and as an enthusiastic player I'd recommend letting people play. :-)

As another part of the conundrum, we were one player short of having a top 16 playoff. Enough people were registered and paid, but not all showed. In such cases I think the TO should have the discretion to keep a top 16 playoff, especially since most events are two days now.

Just some constructive feedback for organized play. Keep up the great tournament scene FFG and BGB!!!

First off, I am not a fan of two day regionals. Either start earlier or do a limit of 64 players as that is all FFG gives prize support for anyway. As to your specific case, as a TO, i would have informed 9th place if I knew how to easily and let them play.

I do understand why he did what he did, though...

There is no valid reason to not move the 9th placed player into the cut.

What manipulation could you be worried about occuring? Boosting a buddy that just so happens to have finished 9th into the cut? How is that even something to worry about? It's a zero sum exchange that can only occur if the buddy just so happens to finish in exactly 9th place. That's just poor reasoning on the TOs part.

At Gencon and Worlds FFG will absolutely tell those immediately outside the cut to report the next day incase people no-show, because why have a bye within your elimination rounds if you don't have to.

If you're running a two day Regional you have to consider the possibility of players not being able to show up for day two. If your concern is that FFG hasn't provided a guideline for this situation why wouldn't you ask FFG prior to the event?

Also presuming that the player now getting a bye within the cut wasn't the highest seeded player remaining, that's even more messed up. I'm at a loss to explain that TOs approach.

Oh that is a bit painful. As 9th I asked about anyone dropping before I left on Saturday, but at that time nobody had.

Just to be clear, the venue was great and it's a fantastic store. I've played in the regional there this year and last, and I hope/recommend they get it next year too! But FFG should have a clear policy on this and as an enthusiastic player I'd recommend letting people play. :-)

As another part of the conundrum, we were one player short of having a top 16 playoff. Enough people were registered and paid, but not all showed. In such cases I think the TO should have the discretion to keep a top 16 playoff, especially since most events are two days now.

Just some constructive feedback for organized play. Keep up the great tournament scene FFG and BGB!!!

Being one player short is being one player short. A TO shouldn't be deciding to run a sanctioned event in clear contradiction to the official guidelines.

A TO shouldn't be deciding to run a sanctioned event in clear contradiction to the official guidelines.

Does it say anything in the regional package about what to do in the case someone drops from the top 8 before it starts?

especially since most events are two days now.

Huh ? No they're not. And thank the gods for that. Two days is too long. Start early in the day.

At Gencon and Worlds FFG will absolutely tell those immediately outside the cut to report the next day incase people no-show, because why have a bye within your elimination rounds if you don't have to.

You're absolutely correct. I forgot about that. That itself should be enough evidence that FFG supports having a full cut.

That itself should be enough evidence that FFG supports having a full cut.

I'm sure they do, and were it me that's what I would do. But unless something is spelled out in the tournament packet, then it's up to the TO. What FFG does should be considered in the decision making process, but that's not the same thing as written instructions.

A TO shouldn't be deciding to run a sanctioned event in clear contradiction to the official guidelines.

Does it say anything in the regional package about what to do in the case someone drops from the top 8 before it starts?

But let's assume it doesn't, because if it did why would the TO not just say as such? So with that assumption either choice the TO makes is not in clear contradiction of the event rules, whereas running the event at a higher then actually attending attendance level would be.

Now we're just down to which is the better option, since we are assuming that niether is mandated. I can not come up with the manipulation that the TO seeking to prevent, nor the benefit to the event by giving a player a bye (I'd say it's a detriment), and I especially can't see how it shouldn't be the highest seeded player getting the bye if one had to be given. Add to that the precedence set by FFG, which should just be in the rules, I can't conclude anything but the TO decision being the objectively worse option.

There is no valid reason to not move the 9th placed player into the cut.

What manipulation could you be worried about occuring? Boosting a buddy that just so happens to have finished 9th into the cut? How is that even something to worry about? It's a zero sum exchange that can only occur if the buddy just so happens to finish in exactly 9th place. That's just poor reasoning on the TOs part.

If you are in 8th with rock to 1st's paper, and your buddy in 9th has scissors, you might offer to drop for a share of the top-4 prizes.

A TO shouldn't be deciding to run a sanctioned event in clear contradiction to the official guidelines.

Does it say anything in the regional package about what to do in the case someone drops from the top 8 before it starts?

I think what you are quoting from is Scottie arguing that a TO shouldn't bump up to a top 16 cut when they fall short of the numbers needed for a top 16 cut.

I hate mtg, and I wish these people would not bring in rules that belong to mtg.

There is no valid reason to not move the 9th placed player into the cut.

What manipulation could you be worried about occuring? Boosting a buddy that just so happens to have finished 9th into the cut? How is that even something to worry about? It's a zero sum exchange that can only occur if the buddy just so happens to finish in exactly 9th place. That's just poor reasoning on the TOs part.

If you are in 8th with rock to 1st's paper, and your buddy in 9th has scissors, you might offer to drop for a share of the top-4 prizes.

There are too many variables in that situation for it to be a reasonable fear.

Also you can reverse that situation to cause the manipulation to be occuring as a result of the drop without replacement.

1 and 8 are buddies and 1 has a better match up with every other list in the cut, but not with 8. 8 offers to drop and not even show for a stake in the prizes.

Neither situation is a reasonable one to actually worry about, though the example I just gave is the one in which the far fetched manipulation is gaureenteed to be fruitful, as you are eliminating a game from being played. In your situation there is every chance 1 overcomes the bad match up regardless.

I can't conclude anything but the TO decision being the objectively worse option.

I'd agree, but apparently it's an issue of some sort in MtG, and tournaments for that are not something I know much about. Which the TO apparently does, so I'm going to assume he had a reason for his decision. Although I would agree it would make more sense to backfill the 8th slot with #9.

The TO showed me the language for keeping a top 8 given that people need to be in person to count. I thought the TO was legit and properly interpreted the rules. Fair and square.

My suggestion to FFG organized play would be to specifically allow a top 16 if the event met the registration threshold, but was only short maybe 1-3 people.

No hard feelings here. I think the TO applied the rules as written and X-Wing is still awesome! :-)

The TO showed me the language for keeping a top 8 given that people need to be in person to count. I thought the TO was legit and properly interpreted the rules. Fair and square.

My suggestion to FFG organized play would be to specifically allow a top 16 if the event met the registration threshold, but was only short maybe 1-3 people.

No hard feelings here. I think the TO applied the rules as written and X-Wing is still awesome! :-)

In sorry but I can't stand that game, so it really irks me

I see no reason why he couldn't have bumped the 9th place to 8.

I really doubt players are going to drop to give their buddy in 9th a chance

And what are they going to do?

Split the dice?

You get the attack I'll get the defense?

I think if buddy wants to incorporate mtg rules into ffg tournament, then he should stick to mtg.

In case you can't tell, I really hate mtg

Let's be clear here - I was the one who made that call, and here's why:

- the FFG tournament rules are silent on what to do.

- FFG OP has told me, in person, that decisions such as when or why to DQ a player are at the store's discretion.

- Like it or lump it, MtG has 20+ years of figuring out tournament structures and how to handle corner cases. FFG has not incorporated any of this into their tournament rules.

- Therefore, if FFG is leaving it to my discretion - my *informed* discretion - I will rely on what the more informed body of tournament experience has learned.

- I announced to all who asked what that process would be. Specifically:

If someone who thinks they would make top-8 drops before the cut is announced, then they will be dropped and whomever was in 9th is now in 8th and makes the cut, and the playoffs are then paired accordingly. However, once the cut is announced, top-8 prizes will be awarded and the top-8 pairings are set. A top-8 player who drops at that point may keep their top-8 prizes and the playoff will proceed with 7 players, the opponent they had been paired against receiving a win because his opponent has conceded. This creates a clear, bright line of how to handle the awarding of prizes the the integrity of the tournament.

Let's pretend that we allowed someone to collect top-8 prizes, drop, and 9th gets bumped up (without prizes) and the op-8 is repaired. How do you feel about this scenario: 1 & 7 are buddies. 1 has a bad matchup against 8. 7 collects their top-8 prizes and drops, moving 9 into the top-8; top-8 is repaired such that 1 plays 9 and 2 plays 8. 7 can both collect their prizes and help their buddy, having cake and eating it. Commence the howling.

However, if you only calculate top-8 once, then the 1 & 7 buddies need to be *really* sure how the top-8 pairings will fall. Moreover, 7 has a really clear choice: drop to help their buddy, but forfeit their prizes; keep their prizes, and make their buddy earn it. This maintains the integrity of the event.

I agree that it sucks for 9. But it always sucks for 9. I believe the answer is to have a day-2 cut for everyone that is 4-2 (or 5-2 if we went 7 rounds on Saturday), play a couple more rounds of Swiss on Sunday, then do a top-8 cut. This way there would be no tie-break sadness for 9. Although, in the specific event we are talking about, it was a clean cut. 9 had fewer match points than 8.

Again, the FFG tournament rules left the handling of this situation to the store's discretion. That made it my call. I made it.

Thanks,

-G

Again, the FFG tournament rules left the handling of this situation to the store's discretion. That made it my call. I made it.

You're right it's your call and you made the one you feel is best. That's really the end of the discussion as far as this case goes.

What I see here is (yet another) fundamental flaw in the Swiss-to-elimination tournament structure.

I would have made a different decision if I'd been the organizer, but he or she is absolutely correct: there's no guidance on this issue from Organized Play, so it's entirely up to the organizer's discretion. If placed in the same situation, I think I would have placed more weight on ensuring there are actually 4 games in the quarterfinal. But that's exactly the point: it's a personal call for the TO, based on his or her experience and judgment. No second-guessing is necessary, or even really appropriate.

No second-guessing is necessary, or even really appropriate.

And in my not so humble opinion, the source of any information or precedence the TO uses is not really relevant, or really is subject to discussion.

The TO makes the final call, just because they used a different game system to help guide their decision, especially when that system actually has guidance for the same situation doesn't really change anything.

What I see here is (yet another) fundamental flaw in the Swiss-to-elimination tournament structure.

I would have made a different decision if I'd been the organizer, but he or she is absolutely correct: there's no guidance on this issue from Organized Play, so it's entirely up to the organizer's discretion. If placed in the same situation, I think I would have placed more weight on ensuring there are actually 4 games in the quarterfinal. But that's exactly the point: it's a personal call for the TO, based on his or her experience and judgment. No second-guessing is necessary, or even really appropriate.

I've been asked about this before and like others have said, there is no guidance from FFG on what to do in this situation. My stance, and I feel most people agree, is that it is better to have everyone in the cut playing a game. I would give the prize to the player dropping, and after they drop, pull in the next swiss ranked player to fill the spot (eg for a top 8, start at 9 and go down the list until someone is there and wants to compete).

Any time the rules and regs don't specify what a TO should do, it is up to their discretion to do what they believe is right. Even then, a TO has the ability to do something that differs if they feel the rules/regs have an error.

When it is a long day followed by a cut to elimination rounds that will happen on the second day I'm thinking that just having a top 8 is short changing a bunch of people. All of those games on the first day and then maybe seven on the second day over three rounds. My thought would be to make a bigger cut so more people could play on day 2. Maybe don't double the size of the cut but instead increase it 50% or more and give the top seeds a first round bye while the lower seeds battle to stay alive.

Take your top 8 cut and make it 12 with an extra half-round to start things off.

#1 plays winner of #8 vs #9

#4 plays winner of #5 vs. #12

#2 plays winner of #7 vs #10

#3 plays winner of #6 vs. #11

If someone drops it still takes three wins to take everything. Without drops the 5-8 seeds need an additional victory to win but it also lets in those 9-12 who wouldn't have a chance otherwise.