19 minutes ago, MegaSilver said:

Fyi the Destiny peeps (namely the Hyperloops which are their Krayts but serious) have pointed out an error in the collusion rules (technically asking your opponents record could count as colluding?). So, Matt Holland said they are going to look into clarifying it more to avoid that unintended rule.

Edit: And now a Gencon Judge told them that they could get DQ'd for asking? Ok, not sure where its going now.

Edit 2: Looks like Gencon judge wants it changed, but won't be in time for Gencon, so they are sticking with it. But they will only DQ you if the judge believes you are asking them to decide if you're going to concede.

You sir have earned a crying emote for that sad news

1 hour ago, Kieransi said:

uh, sorry, I had three question marks in the post, which one are you saying no to, the final salvo or player 3 winning?

No to the final table wouldn't be able to final salvo, and good question to what happens if they do it. You obviously can't collude against no one (the number of people remaining in the tournament if we're in the finals), but that's not what the floor rules say. So... good question on how any of it works.

Wait, are we still panicking about the floor rules? So far as I see it, the collusion part is whatever.

Either: A. you know you can make the cut if you lose, and you don't want to play so concede.

B. you don't want to play anyway, so concede.

OR

C. you're running out of time, and the judge knows it. There's a non-0 chance they would be okay with a final salvo. Most judges are still people, and they can just say "whatever, salvo it out."

Collusion rules existed previously, and they were enforced then just as much as they will be now.

OTOH, I think the rest of it is really useful so judges actually have a strikes system to use with those people consistently pushing the limits of the rules just to where they think they can get away with it, but hey, this thread is a lot of those people.

3 hours ago, MegaSilver said:

Fyi the Destiny peeps (namely the Hyperloops which are their Krayts but serious)

krayts are v v v serious

Of course I would never do that, but: If I'm playing against a friend, it's not that I need him to tell me his score. He will have told another person and I've overheard it. Also, whatsapp exists.

It's funny, every time I play a team mate we mention in the beginning that one should win 200-0, and then we end up with the closest scores (101-100 or something like that) and ruin each other's MOV for the day. I guess even mentioning the idea sets us up for collusion.

I'm also surprised that floor rules drop 24h before Paris SOS. Why not on Monday?

So the other thing... now that collusion is officially enforceable can/should we change tournament scoring?

Like I know that one of the big reasons X-Wing doesn't use an armada-style MOV-based system and got rid of ties was because both systems are too easily influenced by collusion. Can we have those things now, and would doing so improve the game?

9 hours ago, MegaSilver said:

Fyi the Destiny peeps (namely the Hyperloops which are their Krayts but serious) have pointed out an error in the collusion rules (technically asking your opponents record could count as colluding?).

Uh, it definitely doesn't say that. It's not the rules fault if the people who read it just make stuff up.

It expressly says:

"For the purpose of determining collusion, a “discussion” is when the involved players negotiate and agree upon an outcome of some sort."

12 hours ago, Brunas said:

I think final salvoing to see who concedes would technically be collusion still, and oddly, checking to see whether or not you can blindly concede also probably involves your opponent checking to see if they can blindly concede, which would also be collusion (maybe?)

I love the fact that we are trying to find ways to not play the game while staying within the rules of the game...

17 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I thought it would unlock these 'titles' that some older posters have under their username.

Apparently it doesn't anymore, at least not at up to 6000. No reason to post anymore!

I want to thank all 10 people for their contribution by the way! Here's to another 10!

back in the day, 1000 posts let you make your own little title, i barely missed the cut to be grandfathered in

2 hours ago, JReim said:

I love the fact that we are trying to find ways to not play the game while staying within the rules of the game...

There are times where "playing the game" is pointless, un-fun or less desirable than alternatives for both parties involved and having a way out that doesn't label both players as cheaters is important. I think it's possible to disentangle those situations where other tournament participants would be affected by a mutual decision of two players not to play and those where it wouldn't. Ideally, the tournament structure itself would be designed to avoid these "pointless" situations as much as possible in the first place though.

Sure would have been nice if the Paris system open had wave 4 available/legal.

THANKS FRANCE.

TWO REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

• Happy Friday

• What are the best most fun alternate formats that get local communities excited to actually play X-Wing?
  • Draft Leagues
  • YASB Random Tournaments - Random Roll for Faction + Random YASB List. Great way to learn random stuff ( *TA175 )
  • Ship of The Week - Everyone who can must fly at least 1 of a specific ship. Thanks @Chumbalaya

• What are the most useful 15-30 min X-Wing Practice Scenarios?
  • Intended for players to "switch" to learn both sides of the scenario.
  • Some Examples:
    • Scenario 1
      • Ace on Half Pts vs 3 Arc-170s
        • Choose your preferred Ace of legend
        • Try to "catchup" before time is called
    • Scenario 2
      • Ace on Full vs 3 Other Ships
        • Try to get "half pts" on something without giving up Half Pts on your ship. Reset.
    • Scenario 3
      • Ace 1v1 Matchups
        • Pick any two aces. Alternate between moving last and moving first.
        • 15 minutes, first player to chip away half pts wins. Reset.
    • Scenario 4
      • Run to time with an Ace against a "full" list.
      • Completes as many rounds as possible in the time limit without taking damage. Reset
    • Scenario 5
      • Box Formation Rebel List vs List of Choice
      • Play through 1st engage, whoever loses the least amount of MOV and has better options "next turn" wins. Reset.
    • Scenario 6
      • Turret Matchup
      • Force the opposing Turret to rotate its arc once. Reset.
    • Scenario 7
      • Run an Upsilon, VCX, Lancer. Any Big Base without Reposition Forward Arc only.
      • Play through 3 combat rounds. Goal is to take 3 consecutive shots on a target(s) using the big bases forward arc only.

Any other scenario ideas? Are there any playable scenarios that are actually useful?

3 hours ago, JReim said:

I love the fact that we are trying to find ways to not play the game while staying within the rules of the game...

Haha, in this case I'm more worried about running official FFG events. The "spirit" of the rule appears to be "you can make them play", but I'm fully aware that I can't make them play, so I'm not really sure how to resolve things. Sounds like we're getting some collusion clarification though, so we'll see what comes of it.

3 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

There are times where "playing the game" is pointless, un-fun or less desirable than alternatives for both parties involved and having a way out that doesn't label both players as cheaters is important. I think it's possible to disentangle those situations where other tournament participants would be affected by a mutual decision of two players not to play and those where it wouldn't. Ideally, the tournament structure itself would be designed to avoid these "pointless" situations as much as possible in the first place though.

I was just pointing out the irony of the whole thing, but yes there are certainly times when not playing is the better option (which is sad really, because we are all here talking about this because we like to play the game).

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Haha, in this case I'm more worried about running official FFG events. The "spirit" of the rule appears to be "you can make them play", but I'm fully aware that I can't make them play, so I'm not really sure how to resolve things. Sounds like we're getting some collusion clarification though, so we'll see what comes of it.

What I'm most sad about is now Uncle Mark can't use his heart attack clause card, because that would be collusion... I'm glad that I was able to concede to him (when he asked) prior to floor rules, because he's definitely not a cheater

We also now have to be cautious about making jokes about concessions, and this saddens me as well...

8 minutes ago, JReim said:

What I'm most sad about is now Uncle Mark can't use his heart attack clause card, because that would be collusion... I'm glad that I was able to concede to him (when he asked) prior to floor rules, because he's definitely not a cheater

We also now have to be cautious about making jokes about concessions, and this saddens me as well...

I don't think we actually do - I mean, judges aren't emotionless robots void of decision making. Like someone said earlier, we've been riding the line on nonsense this long, continuing to ride it for silly purposes doesn't seem crazy.

For example, if I ask my opponent if they'd like to concede after they accidentally hit a rock, I wouldn't expect a judge to get on my case.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

I don't think we actually do - I mean, judges aren't emotionless robots void of decision making. Like someone said earlier, we've been riding the line on nonsense this long, continuing to ride it for silly purposes doesn't seem crazy.

For example, if I ask my opponent if they'd like to concede after they accidentally hit a rock, I wouldn't expect a judge to get on my case.

I hope that you're right... I also hope that when I walk up to the table and do the Foss power stance while declaring that I will allow my opponent to concede or be crushed mercilessly, that they understand just how bad I am at this game...

16 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

It is largely up to a Judge’s interpretation on whether or
not a particular conversation between players is a discussion leading to collusion."

This is the important bit here though, right?

I mean, unreasonable people are unreasonable and rules don't make a difference there. C'est la vie.

33 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I mean, judges aren't emotionless robots void of decision making

Oh, I expect there are a few...

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

For example, if I ask my opponent if they'd like to concede after they accidentally hit a rock, I wouldn't expect a judge to get on my case.

Is it collusion or bullying to ask my opponent to concede after they've destroyed the sacred game state by bumping a ship with their hand?

Is it poor sportmanship to play Ride of the Valkyries turn one as I start revealing the dials to my swarm?

6 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Is it poor sportmanship to play Ride of the Valkyries turn one as I start revealing the dials to my swarm?

I do this exact thing! Well, except I use the Benny Hill music. Same effect though, I'm sure.

6 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Is it poor sportmanship to play Ride of the Valkyries turn one as I start revealing the dials to my swarm?

Only if you curse unnecessarily while flipping the dials..

30 minutes ago, JReim said:

Only if you curse unnecessarily while flipping the dials..

All ******* cursing is God **** necessary as ****

40 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

I do this exact thing! Well, except I use the Benny Hill music. Same effect though, I'm sure.

That tune is called Yakity Sax by Boot Randolph. Just thought you may want to know. :-)