On 2/23/2019 at 2:29 AM, MegaSilver said:

@Slugrage For Regionals and above, I woudn't dare change the number of rounds without FFG's approval. You're effectively going to hamstring/neuter some players by not playing the correct number of rounds and cut.

Using Top Cut Calculator, with 6 Rounds and Top 8 cut:

(Based on 70 players, 6 rounds of Swiss, and a top 8 cut.)

6-0 — 1.09

5-1 — 6.56

4-2 — 16.41

0.34 players with a record of 4-2 will make top cut and 16.06 will miss. All better records should be safe.

Now for your suggested modification of 5 Rounds and Top 8 Cut:

(Based on 70 players, 5 rounds of Swiss, and a top 8 cut.)

5-0 — 2.19

4-1 — 10.94

5.81 players with a record of 4-1 will make top cut and 5.13 will miss. All better records should be safe.

You've effectively ruined the chances of half of the X-1 players to make the cut, and it'll be entirely based on their squad's ability to preserve MoV.

If the store is worried about the event taking too long, have them either start earlier, or make it a 2 day event.

Thanks for the math. I knew someone would be able to work it out.

What is the ruling on this particular incident:

A player forgets to set a dial between rounds, and carryies out there turn as normal (activating other ships). What is the correct ruling?

A question about conceding and tournaments. I realize that conceding is allowed. We dont want to be further humiliated when it is a done deal and you dont want to be tabled, ya gotta take a massive dump and cant hold it any longer or you may be short on time and the 12 year old your playing has not won a game all day and you want to be santa claus for them.

But the rules mention intent of the game designers and the intent of the tournaments and so forth. There are people who watch the rankings and intentionally throw games they have won in order to ensure easy future games. Was this one of the intended reasons that the designers tournaments are set up? Is this an artificial manipulation of the system that judges should watch for or was this intended?

22 hours ago, EVIL INC said:

A question about conceding and tournaments. I realize that conceding is allowed. We dont want to be further humiliated when it is a done deal and you dont want to be tabled, ya gotta take a massive dump and cant hold it any longer or you may be short on time and the 12 year old your playing has not won a game all day and you want to be santa claus for them.

But the rules mention intent of the game designers and the intent of the tournaments and so forth. There are people who watch the rankings and intentionally throw games they have won in order to ensure easy future games. Was this one of the intended reasons that the designers tournaments are set up? Is this an artificial manipulation of the system that judges should watch for or was this intended?

Where are you seeing, in the rules, the intent of the game designers and tournaments? Below is every use of the word "intent" in those documents. Also, the designers and developers are not the ones who write the tournament rules; that's Organized Play.

From the floor rules:

Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion . Players are allowed to concede a game at any time before the end of the game , so long as there was no discussion or solicitation involved. However, convincing or manipulating an opponent to concede in order to give any person a distinct advantage is dishonest and is considered a form of cheating. Asking an opponent to concede in any shape or form falls under collusion and is grounds for Disqualification .

The following are some examples of collusion:

1. A player offers to concede to their opponent in return for some of the prizes their opponent will win.

a. This is also a form of bribery.

2. Two players realize that they both will make the top cut regardless of who wins. After discussing it with each other, they decide to randomly determine the outcome of their game rather than play it out.

a. As soon as there is discussion, the integrity of the game has been lost. If players do not want to play the game, then one of them should concede.

3. Player A and Player B are friends. Player A is already going to advance to Day 2, but Player B needs one more win to do so. After discussing it with each other, Player A offers to concede so that Player B can also advance, and Player B agrees.

a. As soon as there is discussion, the integrity of the game has been lost. Player A is allowed to concede the game at any time, but should do so without soliciting the concession. For the purpose of determining collusion, a “discussion” is when the involved players negotiate and agree upon an outcome of some sort. It is largely up to a Judge’s interpretation on whether or not a particular conversation between players is a discussion leading to collusion.

As long as you haven't discussed it with your opponent, and since taking a loss, regardless of the reason, is not "Convincing or manipulating an opponent to concede in order to give any person a distinct advantage," then you are not breaking any current tournament rules by conceding.

RRG

No use of “intent.”

Tournament Regulations

Page 7: If a player no longer wishes to continue playing, that player must notify the organizer of their intent .

Page 7: Players must notify the organizer of their intent to drop as soon as possible, and the organizer may apply penalties to players who fail to do so, such as withholding prizes at their discretion.

Fundamental Event Documt

Page 9: Informing a leader of their intent to leave or drop from the event, verbally or in writing if requested.

Floor Rules

Page 13: This kind of unsporting conduct involves actions of malicious intent or great inconsideration that could ruin another person’s experience or cause them to want to leave the event.

Page 14: A person purposefully gets in the way of another person with the intent of causing physical contact.

Page 14: Players come to Organized Play events with the intent to enjoy themselves playing a game they love while competing against others in a welcoming environment.

23 hours ago, EVIL INC said:

A question about conceding and tournaments. I realize that conceding is allowed. We dont want to be further humiliated when it is a done deal and you dont want to be tabled, ya gotta take a massive dump and cant hold it any longer or you may be short on time and the 12 year old your playing has not won a game all day and you want to be santa claus for them.

But the rules mention intent of the game designers and the intent of the tournaments and so forth. There are people who watch the rankings and intentionally throw games they have won in order to ensure easy future games. Was this one of the intended reasons that the designers tournaments are set up? Is this an artificial manipulation of the system that judges should watch for or was this intended?

Mate. Stop once you proven wrong. Just concede, to be topical.

Double post