Hey there folks, I'd like to clarify something with you guys.

We're at a tournament and we've been through the swiss and all the cut and we're now at the finals, but both players decide that "they are too tired to play the final" and so they decide to either roll a random red die to see who wins it or do a final salvo style without even making the setup. What would you do? Let it happen because there's nothing you can do? DQ both of them and let those that lost to the finalist play the final table? Another option?

Thanks!

I'd get brutal and DQ the pair of them, and promote the next pair to play for the final.

Yup, seconded. Don’t play if you can’t handle the day. If you’re playing to make a final then you’d better we’ll play it when you get there.

Absolutey, @Dr Zoidberg !

No final should EVER be decided by a single dice roll instead of playing. If they played to the time limit and discovered they had a draw, then the dice roll is fine.

I'm about to TO an upcoming tournament and if I hear two players making a decision to decide a game with a dice roll instead of playing it, I'm going to DQ them on the spot!

If it was a small casual tournament, I would probably allow it... though, by the sound of it, this was something fairly major, with a cut to the top and single elimination after swiss. To that end, it sounds a little unsportsmanlike. If you play for the finals, you should play THROUGH the finals as well. Personally, if they don't want to actually go through the rounds, I think the conversation for me would go something like this:

"Ok, Player #1, just to make sure I understand, you do not want to play out the final round? Ok. Player #2, same question, you don't want to play the final round either? Ok. Since you both have agreed to forfeit the final round, I'll go ahead and mark you both as drops , and you'll ultimately fall to 3rd and 4th place. Now, can I see the two players who lost last round?"

@emeraldbeacon Iti didn't happen, but I was with a couple of friends that are helping me organize an upcoming tournament and that question came up.

But thank you very much guys!

As long as they earned those places fair and square, I'd let them have it and level an unsportsmanlike conduct charge at anyone who complained. If you want to be in the final, stop losing.

By that logic, if you want to be in a final, play it when you get there.

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

If you want to be in the final, stop losing.

Oh. That’s what I’ve been doing wrong! Thanks!

9 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

By that logic, if you want to be in a final, play it when you get there.

By what logic? I don't see a connection.

I'll take the other side: I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but it depends on the event and the folks. I'm imagining my FLGS having a tournament, and there was just a large crowd today, and we went to a 4 person cut instead of ending with 4 rounds of Swiss. So folks are already there later than they planned, and perhaps I know the finalists and they're generally good sports, but stuff comes up. One says to the other, "I've got XYZ thing, just Final Salvo it?" Both of them earned the right to be at the final table, by winning their way up. I don't necessarily see a problem with things ending by dice rolls. I mean, that's what most games of X-Wing come down to.

I might try to talk them out of it. Folks came to play X-Wing, not Yahtzee. But I don't think I'd DQ folks over it, unless there was something shadier going on.

LOL at anyone who would DQ finalist that are too tired to play in a regular store tournament...

If the thing was filmed then yes I would enforce it to have the feed on camera... But at the same time, do you really want to stream a tournament where the first and second are DQ and your final stream is in fact the 3rd and 4th !?!

Since people don't seem to think games can end in a draw it looks like an opportunity for Final Salvo.

Personally, I feel draws should be expected at a tournament despite the mentality that seems to be everywhere that you MUST have winners and losers at everything.

But we must know which list wins for meta-wing! Without the data the game will be dooooomed!

Imagine how thrilling it would be if in the Worlds this years the finalists decided not to play it and just roll a red die or a final salvo to determine who's the winner. I'm sure everyone would be excited.

It's hard I know, but I'm pending on the forcing them to at least play something or drop. Not a decision by a freaking red die or a final salvo without a game. The worst part is that there's no clarification for that anywhere in FFG documents, or in what is considered legal of DQ

It wouldn't be accepted at any other stage in the tournament, so why should the final table be different? They can either drop or continue, just like every other round.

I think it bears repeating that, if this is a basic store-level tournament without any real ramifications for future events, I wouldn't be opposed to it. For casual event formats, they should be allowed to decide things in a dice roll, provided they both agree, and that a TO/Judge is present to validate both players' choices.

That said, if this is an event whose result has implications for future events (I'd say at the Store Championship or higher prestige level), a refusal to play is the mechanical equivalent of a drop, and should be treated as such. There's no need to disqualify them for unsporting behavior; however, they should be clearly notified that a decision to not play the final round by either player would be treated as a drop, and the next runner-up would be allowed to participate in their place.

Instead, I would encourage them to just play free and loose, if they're "too tired" to mentally compete at a high level. Throw the obstacles out without tactics. Joust each other. Quote the films liberally in between game actions. Tell jokes, laugh often. Fly casual and fun, and let the chips fall where they may. It might not be the most competitive match, but I bet everyone - players, spectators, even judges - will have a lot more fun than they would watching a final salvo, or forcing a 3rd v 4th match for the finals.

13 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

By what logic? I don't see a connection.

You said: if you want to be in a final, stop losing. I’m turning your statement around: if you want to be in a final, play it when you get there.

Both are equally valid statements.

Something similar happened recently at a Regional Championship (the stream vid can be watched here:

) *I am not in any way affiliated with Athena Games, just happened to have recently watched the vid.

If you listen to the beginning of the match, this was supposed to be a semi final match and ended up being a final because two players did not want to play any further (and dropped).

So @emeraldbeacon has it on the nose. If its a casual event, then let it be what it is and as long as the TO is okay with it, and all players (for me I would include those ranked behind the two finalist) are okay with a roll off or final salvo, then fine. At a Store Champ, Regional or higher level play. Then either play or drop.

I played at a store champions ship where the final two were allowed to roll off by the TO to determine winner and was not the only person not pleased with that decision. Technically players choosing to decide a game in anyway but fair play falls under unsporting like conduct:
"Unsporting Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden.

The organizer, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct." (p3, Tournament Regulations)

just rolling off, or intentionally flying ships off the board by setting up backward, etc. is all manipulation of the scoring.

So the TO should have simply asked them to play or drop, if they did not want to play, promote the next two to that rank (again if the tourney was anything more than a FLGS casual level).

6 hours ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

Both are equally valid statements.

No, they're not. That's nonsense.

32 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

No, they're not. That's nonsense.

Explain how. What makes your statement any more valid than mine? Or mine any more valid than yours.

There was a regional in the UK this year where one player (Ash Hemmings) got two byes at top 8 and top 4 and went on to win the tournament.

Top 8 - his opponent was really tired, had won dice and wanted to go home, so he dropped.

Top 4 - paired against his brother in a (pre-nerf NymMiranda exact mirror match) rather than play, they opted to final salvo and rest for an 1h30

He then won the regional, playing against another player. Clearly in the final, there is an advantage to the player who has had 3 hours rest going in. Should the TO have forced Ash to play his games? Revoked the prizes for his opponents and promoted someone else? I don't think so. Under tournament rules, he won the games he won, and his opponents dropped/scooped and gave the win. You could call it collusion, but that is a stretch. If you start promoting up people who lost a game because the person who beat them drops next round, you needlessly overcomplicate the tournament structure.

In theory the first game should have been offered to the next player down in the swiss rankings, at the very least.

3 hours ago, Dreadai said:

There was a regional in the UK this year where one player (Ash Hemmings) got two byes at top 8 and top 4 and went on to win the tournament.

Top 8 - his opponent was really tired, had won dice and wanted to go home, so he dropped.

Top 4 - paired against his brother in a (pre-nerf NymMiranda exact mirror match) rather than play, they opted to final salvo and rest for an 1h30

He then won the regional, playing against another player. Clearly in the final, there is an advantage to the player who has had 3 hours rest going in. Should the TO have forced Ash to play his games? Revoked the prizes for his opponents and promoted someone else? I don't think so. Under tournament rules, he won the games he won, and his opponents dropped/scooped and gave the win. You could call it collusion, but that is a stretch. If you start promoting up people who lost a game because the person who beat them drops next round, you needlessly overcomplicate the tournament structure.

The Top 8 is just his good fortune especially if the guy dropped before pairings were determined. That Top 4 situation should be a DQ for both of them at any level of tourney.

4 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

In theory the first game should have been offered to the next player down in the swiss rankings, at the very least.

Top 16 cut ... he'd already won his first cut game ... should it have gone to the guy who lost the top 16 game?