In that now, instead of calculating weather we both benefit from drawing, I decide weather or not I stall and run against a matchup I can't beat normally. Both are ways to not play a game of X-wing for personal benefit.

You have to play to not play. Even running away for a whole game takes some degree of skill. Besides, any final salvo is a gamble (and I mean any--I've seen three dice beat seven). Moreover, it keeps players from pushing others out of the cut; everyone has a chance.

2 minutes ago, Ailowynn said:

You have to play to not play. Even running away for a whole game takes some degree of skill. Besides, any final salvo is a gamble (and I mean any--I've seen three dice beat seven). Moreover, it keeps players from pushing others out of the cut; everyone has a chance.

6% of the time it works every time!

2 minutes ago, Ailowynn said:

You have to play to not play. Even running away for a whole game takes some degree of skill. Besides, any final salvo is a gamble (and I mean any--I've seen three dice beat seven). Moreover, it keeps players from pushing others out of the cut; everyone has a chance.

...

No, just no. This completely misunderstands how draws and intentional draws worked in the tournament scoring system.

Truly though, who among us can claim to benefit from a "playing x wing"

1 minute ago, catachanninja said:

Truly though, who among us can claim to benefit from a "playing x wing"

I didn't fortress once.

It was awful.

The difference is that it's bloody hard to successfully evade your opponent for 75 minutes without messing up. So hard, in fact, that every player worldwide seems to have accepted that it's easier to actually have a go at playing the game instead.

I have seen Final Salvo used as a threat to force an opponent to make a play, but that's really little different to using the fact you're ahead on points to force the opponent to make a play.

Finally Salvo isn't even close to an Intentional Draw.

Ive heard of players choosing to Final Salvo instead of playing a matchup neither of them wanted.

2 minutes ago, Chibi-Nya said:

Ive heard of players choosing to Final Salvo instead of playing a matchup neither of them wanted.

There's still a winner and a loser and the loser can be jumped on mov. It's not a perfect system by any means but it blows Ids out of the water

"I can't beat this list. Let me just run along the board edge until they're forced to come in at a bad angle or lose to my extra two attack dice"

2 hours ago, Nyxen said:

"I can't beat this list. Let me just run along the board edge until they're forced to come in at a bad angle or lose to my extra two attack dice"

If you can't win a straight fight, find a way to make it not be a straight fight.

there's a difference between delaying an engagement until it works for you and specifically avoiding the game though.

6 hours ago, DR4CO said:

If you can't win a straight fight, find a way to make it not be a straight fight.

They did - a final salvo (which isn't wrong).

4 hours ago, Nyxen said:

there's a difference between delaying an engagement until it works for you and specifically avoiding the game though.

Really? Because they tend to look pretty much identical until the fight starts.

Why is the onus to accept a bad engagement on the guy who's got the advantage in Final Salvo? The other player has the option to force an engagement, he just has to accept that it's not going to be optimal and will give his opponent a chance to win. It's either that or take your chances in a lopsided final salvo.

Is it necessarily fair that one player gets pretty arbitrarily stuck with that choice? Not really, but it's going to happen no matter what tie breaker you use. Final Salvo at least is never entirely guaranteed and is almost impossible to plan for in list building, making it much harder to abuse.

The last store championship I was at, the top 2 players decided to Final Salvo instead of playing before the cut. They had both ridden together and played each other regularly, so didn't want to have to play each other. They were both 4-0 and had high MOV, guaranteeing them in the cut.

59 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

The last store championship I was at, the top 2 players decided to Final Salvo instead of playing before the cut. They had both ridden together and played each other regularly, so didn't want to have to play each other. They were both 4-0 and had high MOV, guaranteeing them in the cut.

Don't let new york city find out about that

OP is ridiculous. Firstly, the problem with intentional draws was that... they were intentional. Both players agreed on the result without even playing the game. Final salvo on the other hand only happens after 75 minutes of playing if the game is still unresolved. Secondly, even if both players were willing to do so, they simply cannot recreate the effects of intentional draw in the final salvo system because in FS there's a winner and a loser. This prevents the system from being abused and gamed in a way that benefits both players involved while putting other players at disadvantage. In fact, intentional final salvos would usually put both players at a disadvantage. The loser for obvious reasons and the winner because he gets a very bad MoV.

The only situation I can imagine where going for final salvo might be intentional and benefit both players would be if they met in the last round of Swiss (and there's a cut), both have won all their previous games and have such a good MoV that they're fairly confident they're going to make the cut whether they win or lose as long as they don't lose too badly. Going for final salvo might then guarantee making the cut because each player would be certain he's going to either lose with a very strong MoV or win. However it's worth pointing out that it's still massively better than the intentional draw system because:

1. Such a situation is relatively rare and is likely to only happen once or twice in a tournament (depending on it's size and the number of Swiss rounds). IDs were much more common than that.

2 It isn't part of the rules of the game. Back when IDs were a thing even players who wouldn't know each other would often agree on a draw because it was a perfectly legit scenario. "Hey, if we take the draw we'll both make the cut, what do you say?" was something people would say without feeling (overly) ashamed because the developers of the game clearly envisioned and accepted such a situation. "Hey how about we pretend to fight for 75 minutes and roll dice?" isn't something you'd say to a stranger and most likely not even to a friend.

3. Intentional FS is arguably AGAINST the rules of the game actually. I'm quite certain that faking a game could be regarded as unsportsmanlike conduct and result in disqualification for both players. It's also highly unlikely that such a behaviour on what would probably be the first table would go unnoticed. As a result, faking the game to get a final salvo would be far from guaranteeing making the cut with no risk involved. It might do precisely the opposite and get both players out of the tournament.

44 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Intentional FS is arguably AGAINST the rules of the game actually. I'm quite certain that faking a game could be regarded as unsportsmanlike conduct and result in disqualification for both players.

Define "faking a game"?

If players are setting their dials and moving their ships, what is the rules violation? Nothing in the rules obligates either player to ever engage their opponent.

45 minutes ago, miguelj said:

Define "faking a game"?

If players are setting their dials and moving their ships, what is the rules violation? Nothing in the rules obligates either player to ever engage their opponent.

Also, considering FFG allowed two players to go to final salvo at worlds (although FFG said they had to wait the full 75 minutes), they clearly don't think it's collusion.

I saw a video where the players played looping chewie instead, got a crowd around them

15 hours ago, Chibi-Nya said:

Ive heard of players choosing to Final Salvo instead of playing a matchup neither of them wanted.

That's forbidden by the tournament rules. Officially, those players have to sit there for 75 minutes and fly in circles or fortress and reveal pointless dials for the full length of the game, THEN roll the Final Salvo.*

*Note: I have done this, and it was mind-numbing.

15 hours ago, DR4CO said:

The difference is that it's bloody hard to successfully evade your opponent for 75 minutes without messing up. So hard, in fact, that every player worldwide seems to have accepted that it's easier to actually have a go at playing the game instead.

I suppose it's hard to run from an opponent who wants to catch you for the full 75 minutes.

But it's a trivial matter to fortress from the outset of Turn 1 (whether or not your behind a god-forsaken wall of Mapped Cluster Bombs). In this case, you just have to sit there and wait for the final salvo. It's up to your opponent to decide if they want to fly around for 75 minutes and then Salvo, or if they want to come at you despite your superior defensive position.