If I have a Z-95 with feedback array as my last ship in play and my opponent has Whisper with the works, with both of us on 1 hull and I use feedback array to destroy both my final ship and my opponent's final ship... Who wins?

As both ships are destroyed at the same time I would hazard a guess that the player with initiative wins?

In a tournament you invoke the FINAL SALVO rules.

Basically, there are no draws any more, and if you both score the exact same (either by destroying the same amount of one anothers' lists, or by simultaneously dying entirely) you roll off for it.

If any ships are left, you sum their unmodified red values on each side, and roll that many red dice, most hits/crits wins, reroll until you get a victor.

If no ships are left, you sum the unmodified red dice of the entire fleets and roll off using those.

FINAL SALVO!

(You have to yell it every time so everyone knows how much fun you're having.)

If I have a Z-95 with feedback array as my last ship in play and my opponent has Whisper with the works, with both of us on 1 hull and I use feedback array to destroy both my final ship and my opponent's final ship... Who wins?

As both ships are destroyed at the same time I would hazard a guess that the player with initiative wins?

It's a DRAW.

Oh wait, the HATERS decided there must be a winner, even if there doesn't need to be, and because of that they made a new system to determine who randomly wins a game when neither side actually ended up with an advantage. As the others have already named it it is the Final Salvo!

If there are ships left on the board then both sides add up all of the primary weapon dice for their ships and roll them all at once; the player with the most booms/kabooms is declared the winner. If both roll the same you just rinse and repeat. If all ships have been destroyed (as in the example) then you look at your STARTING squadron and add up all of the primary attack dice for each ship and follow the same roll then compare.

If I have a Z-95 with feedback array as my last ship in play and my opponent has Whisper with the works, with both of us on 1 hull and I use feedback array to destroy both my final ship and my opponent's final ship... Who wins?

As both ships are destroyed at the same time I would hazard a guess that the player with initiative wins?

Oh wait, the HATERS decided there must be a winner, even if there doesn't need to be, and because of that they made a new system to determine who randomly wins a game when neither side actually ended up with an advantage. As the others have already named it it is the Final Salvo!

Nothing related to hating. Draw in any kind of competitive game are always bad because this open the door to collusion. I'm very happy they decided to remove them.

...

Nothing related to hating. Draw in any kind of competitive game are always bad because this open the door to collusion. I'm very happy they decided to remove them.

Except it is hating. Draws can happen it's just that some people can't seem to accept that especially as it goes against the idea that if you're not first at anything then you might as well be last which seems to fill many competitors.

I believe what muribindi is saying is that in the higher tiers of competitive play, players have been known to take intentional draws so that both of hem make the cut, rather than one of them making it and the other not. This kind of collusion is only possible if a draw is possible, so by eliminating draws entirely it "forces" players to play through a game and determine the winner in a fair demonstration of skill.

You are correct in that some players can't take a draw (I am one such player) but that wasn't the reason for getting rid of the draws. It was more about fair play.

Thank you all for the responses to my original post.

Final note in case it wasn't clear:

Final Salvo is a tournament rule.

In the base rules, all games are played to the end of the last turn, and if neither side has any ships left, it's a draw regardless of whether they lost their last ships at the same time.

Final note in case it wasn't clear:

Final Salvo is a tournament rule.

In the base rules, all games are played to the end of the last turn, and if neither side has any ships left, it's a draw regardless of whether they lost their last ships at the same time.

But that can't be. This game no longer is allowed to have draws. I know it's crazy but the OP was asking for a winner even when there isn't really any clear winner.

...

Nothing related to hating. Draw in any kind of competitive game are always bad because this open the door to collusion. I'm very happy they decided to remove them.

Except it is hating. Draws can happen it's just that some people can't seem to accept that especially as it goes against the idea that if you're not first at anything then you might as well be last which seems to fill many competitors.

You are out of your mind. Many sports use a shootout system to determine winner in case of draw, is that hating, too? The only hater here is you.

...

Nothing related to hating. Draw in any kind of competitive game are always bad because this open the door to collusion. I'm very happy they decided to remove them.

Except it is hating. Draws can happen it's just that some people can't seem to accept that especially as it goes against the idea that if you're not first at anything then you might as well be last which seems to fill many competitors.

You are out of your mind. Many sports use a shootout system to determine winner in case of draw, is that hating, too? The only hater here is you.

Actually, yes. It's just another example of people being unable to accept that there are days and times when two sides are evenly matched.

...

Nothing related to hating. Draw in any kind of competitive game are always bad because this open the door to collusion. I'm very happy they decided to remove them.

Except it is hating. Draws can happen it's just that some people can't seem to accept that especially as it goes against the idea that if you're not first at anything then you might as well be last which seems to fill many competitors.

You are out of your mind. Many sports use a shootout system to determine winner in case of draw, is that hating, too? The only hater here is you.

Actually, yes. It's just another example of people being unable to accept that there are days and times when two sides are evenly matched.

Not so, one player will be luckier than the other and the final salvo helps distinguish which is which

But more seriously, a real draw in any non-final round of a big tournament usually ruins both players' chances at making the top cut if it doesn't knock them out of the running already, because now they both have to win all of their remaining matches in order to get into the cut (assuming the typical N rounds of Swiss pairings and all the players with N-1 wins make it in) which makes a draw about as good as a loss in most cases.

Well a draw should knock you from making the top of the cut but if they were scored fairly they should be much better than a loss.

Well a draw should knock you from making the top of the cut but if they were scored fairly they should be much better than a loss.

I disagree with the first part of your statement. The purpose of swiss pairings filter the best players that day into a top cut, and if two top players are so evenly matched that they draw I don't believe it's fair for both to be knocked out because of it. While I agree that draws should have been scored better, there's another problem that was resolved by eliminating them completely: collusion (and any accusations of it) is no longer an issue.

You claim that the people that like the new rules are "haters" (because we apparently dislike the idea of there not being a winner) but to be honest if I'm in the final match and it ends on a draw I'd much rather throw some more dice for the final salvo (win or lose) and then go have a late dinner and a few drinks with my friends than play yet another round of X-Wing after an already very long day. You're right that draws sometimes do happen (though unintentional ones are pretty rare in X-Wing), but I fail to see how rolling dice as a tiebreaker is "unaccepting that both sides are evenly matched" in a dice-rolling game. If the two players are of exactly equal skill and one list isn't a counter of the other, then luck will be the decisive factor in the end anyway. A final salvo isn't really that much different than having last turn called and rolling the dice one last time to survive that last shot (or kill that damaged ship) in order to win. If we were discussing chess or some other game with no random mechanics then I might agree with your point.

You are out of your mind. Many sports use a shootout system to determine winner in case of draw, is that hating, too? The only hater here is you.

Actually, yes. It's just another example of people being unable to accept that there are days and times when two sides are evenly matched.

Tournaments are specifically designed as a method to obtain a winner within an allotted amount of time and it's totally unreasonable to ask the players, public or staff to wait it out while these two guys play their round again because of a draw. If the draw happens in the top it's unfair to knock those players out, and it's unfair to the players that won to keep them both in. If you don't like that tournaments always have a winner by definition then maybe you're just against tournaments in general and all the uncontrollable factors that go into someone winning one?

Tournaments are specifically designed as a method to obtain a winner within an allotted amount of time and it's totally unreasonable to ask the players, public or staff to wait it out while these two guys play their round again because of a draw. If the draw happens in the top it's unfair to knock those players out, and it's unfair to the players that won to keep them both in. If you don't like that tournaments always have a winner by definition then maybe you're just against tournaments in general and all the uncontrollable factors that go into someone winning one?

Tournaments are not a designed method in which a winner and a loser must be chosen. A swiss round tournament is a place where someone can go play four, 75 minute rounds of X-Wing, and based on those games, maybe some prizes are given out.

Is a Final Salvo better than initiative in a knock-out match after the cut? Definitely. It's a decent solution when there must be a winner. But pre-cut, there's never a situation where there needs to be a winner. And saying that someone or the other 'won' (which they didn't) while their opponent 'lost' (which they didn't) based on a coin-toss might be valuable when someone needs to advance, but it's clunky and simply wrong when you don't need someone to advance.

Simply put: play the game for 75 minutes, record the result. You don't need to have a winner or a loser in any swiss round, and anyone claiming that this is to prevent #1 and #2 in a tournament to both miss the cut or worrying about intentional draws so both make the cut are focusing more on the people at the top tables than the tournament itself.

Tournaments are not a designed method in which a winner and a loser must be chosen. A swiss round tournament is a place where someone can go play four, 75 minute rounds of X-Wing, and based on those games, maybe some prizes are given out.

Is a Final Salvo better than initiative in a knock-out match after the cut? Definitely. It's a decent solution when there must be a winner. But pre-cut, there's never a situation where there needs to be a winner. And saying that someone or the other 'won' (which they didn't) while their opponent 'lost' (which they didn't) based on a coin-toss might be valuable when someone needs to advance, but it's clunky and simply wrong when you don't need someone to advance.

Simply put: play the game for 75 minutes, record the result. You don't need to have a winner or a loser in any swiss round, and anyone claiming that this is to prevent #1 and #2 in a tournament to both miss the cut or worrying about intentional draws so both make the cut are focusing more on the people at the top tables than the tournament itself.

Except for the part where a draw is a loss for the two players, even in the lower rank. When you draw, in a swiss this basically knock out the two players. So by saying you should not roll, you punish the two players. When you find a winner at least you give one player the chance to continue. Or maybe you are the Hater and do not accept that someone have the win over you when it was a draw and you prefer the two of you loosing then see the other "win".

Edit: The only time a Draw is not a loss for the two, is when you are at the top 8 and you can prevent X-2 entering the top 8.

...

Except for the part where a draw is a loss for the two players, even in the lower rank. When you draw, in a swiss this basically knock out the two players. So by saying you should not roll, you punish the two players. When you find a winner at least you give one player the chance to continue. Or maybe you are the Hater and do not accept that someone have the win over you when it was a draw and you prefer the two of you loosing then see the other "win".

Edit: The only time a Draw is not a loss for the two, is when you are at the top 8 and you can prevent X-2 entering the top 8.

A Draw was effectively a loss in Swiss because it wasn't given anywhere close to the value it should have been. If a draw was 2 points instead of 1 it would have had more meaning. At the same time the games awarding a modified win could have been loosened and the trailing side of that should have been awarded 1 point to balance out the 3 that being ahead provided.

Tournaments are not a designed method in which a winner and a loser must be chosen. A swiss round tournament is a place where someone can go play four, 75 minute rounds of X-Wing, and based on those games, maybe some prizes are given out.

Is a Final Salvo better than initiative in a knock-out match after the cut? Definitely. It's a decent solution when there must be a winner. But pre-cut, there's never a situation where there needs to be a winner. And saying that someone or the other 'won' (which they didn't) while their opponent 'lost' (which they didn't) based on a coin-toss might be valuable when someone needs to advance, but it's clunky and simply wrong when you don't need someone to advance.

Simply put: play the game for 75 minutes, record the result. You don't need to have a winner or a loser in any swiss round, and anyone claiming that this is to prevent #1 and #2 in a tournament to both miss the cut or worrying about intentional draws so both make the cut are focusing more on the people at the top tables than the tournament itself.

Except for the part where a draw is a loss for the two players, even in the lower rank. When you draw, in a swiss this basically knock out the two players. So by saying you should not roll, you punish the two players. When you find a winner at least you give one player the chance to continue. Or maybe you are the Hater and do not accept that someone have the win over you when it was a draw and you prefer the two of you loosing then see the other "win".

Edit: The only time a Draw is not a loss for the two, is when you are at the top 8 and you can prevent X-2 entering the top 8.

If I proposed a tournament rule where everyone would get 1 tournament point for a win, and half of the losers (chosen at random) were also given 1 tournament point, your argument would be just as valid for defending that system. "These two people didn't win, so let's pick one at random and pretend he did."

Sorry, you didn't win if it's a draw. I'll say that again, because it seems like some people are having a hard time: If you don't win, you don't win. And we shouldn't take half of the people who don't win, flip a coin, and pretend they did.

Then petition FFG to change it for a more elitist system where only the really deserving one receive a win so they change it to no one win on a draw and to just register them both as a lost.

For now accusing other of being hater when you are one yourself will bring nothing new.

I'll say that again, because it seems like some people are having a hard time: If you don't win, you don't win.

I'll only say it once, because if you don't get it I'm not going to bother explaining it further.

Win or lose is based on whatever criteria is set in the rules, it's something that is defined by the game, and only the rules can determine what is winning and what is losing.

In these rules, there are no ties, there are no draws, there is only a winner and loser.

When a fairly specific rule is triggered, then the way to determine who wins and who loses is listed in the rules, namely the Final Salvo method.

You don't have to like the rule, you can try and get it changed if you want, but your statement is simply wrong. The only way you can not win in a X-Wing tournament game is if you lose. There is no draw, there is only possible outcome, there is never a situation under the current rules where someone can not be the winner and someone can not be the loser.

The rules form is not however the place to discuss how the rules should work, they are the place where we discuss how they do work. If you want to debate the merits of the final salvo rule the general forms is the proper place to do that.

Tournaments are not a designed method in which a winner and a loser must be chosen.

Then again...

Cambridge Dictionary

tournament

noun [ C ] UK ​ /ˈtʊə.nə.mənt/ /ˈtɔː.nə.mənt/ US ​ /ˈtɝː.nə.mənt/ /ˈtʊr.nə.mənt/

​

a competition for teams or single players in which a series of games is played, and the winners of each game play against each other until only one winner is left

FFG OP article entitled What is a Tournament?

At the end of the tournament, the player with the most points is declared the winner of the tournament.

I'd say determining a winner is pretty central to the definition of tournament...

If you just want to have some casual X-Wing fun "where someone can go play four, 75 minute rounds of X-Wing, and based on those games, maybe some prizes are given out", there's nothing wrong with that... but maybe call it an "event", "casual play", "game day" or something else along those lines.