This has been somewhat overshadowed by the new FAQ, but has anybody checked the new tourney rules? Some *huge* changes there.

- Taking draws is explicitly forbidden

- Collusion and deals before/in between games forbidden

- New scoring system for overall champ

- modified win now 4 points

EDIT: - TMP players can't get a Win *or* modified win with chains on the Agenda now.

- CD legal for GenCon.

And there's more, really lots of stuff. They even banned scouting. Good luck policing that.

The TMP ruling caught my eye too. Given they're trying to lessen the impact of TMP, this may help a little - or at least cause people to rethink the number of chains they can afford in time-limited games.

The scouting and collusion rules intrigue me greatly. I didn't see a definition for scouting, but I am a bit concerned that simple spectating of other matches would fall under a strict definition. My hunch is that isn't how it would be enforced, but I would like to see it more clearly defined.

I am very pleased to hear that premeditated collusion and the like are forbidden, but the matter of enforcement is an issue of course. I think the way it (and scouting, etc.) are enforced will eventually vary a bit from meta to meta, but maybe folks will take their lead from how it is enforced at GenCon (by Ktom or Nate most likely)

The new scoring (with modified wins and losses altered) sits well with me, as someone who has received a number of modified wins and losses in his day.

What about conceding the match? Did I just miss that in the tourney rules? I'd heard it was in there (you can't concede unless you drop) but I didn't spot it in this iteration.

I sense some bull coming after major tournaments now where the winner slips and says something like '….we talked about our decks beforehand….', then someone complains and the champ gets the title stripped…..

dcdennis said:

Now, if the winner slips up and says something like "…we talked in the car on the way over and agreed that if we faced each other, he'd throw the game…," you've got a different situation.

Shenanigans said:

It's a little hard to codify, actually. I mean, where is the "concede" line that requires dropping? Is it conceding to look at the board, see that all your characters are knelt, your opponent has 4 characters, 2 with renown, with all three icons represented and a 2-claim plot showing, do the math and realized he's going to pick up 8 power by the end of dominance and say "looks like you win" without playing it out? Is it conceding to scoop in the second or third round when you've only seen 1 character all game? Should you be dropped for that?

The "you can't concede unless you drop" rule is something that developed along with the modified win rule. It's not in the tourney rules per se . What is in the rules is that if the game goes to time limit, you get a modified win/loss or a draw, depending on the power totals. There is nothing in there allowing the players to decide who "won" if the game reaches time limit, no matter how one-sided the game was. Effectively, you are deciding the outcome of the game after playing it. You may be doing a favor for the record of the guy you are conceding to, but (now especially, since there are points involved) you are also mucking with the Strength of Schedule for everyone else who played you (and your opponent) in the event. You are allowed to do that by dropping, but anything else is a form of collusion (now expressly prohibited).

So the way the Gencon TOs have handled people conceding the full win after the game is played is the same way you would handle people conceding before the game is played by not showing up to the match ; win for the guy who didn't concede, drop for the guy who didn't show up.

Anyway, long and short of all this is that the "conceding after playing the full match to time limit is the same as a drop" was an extension of the "specific outcome at time limit" rules. Now, it is still that, but also strongly supported by the sportsmanship rules defining collusion as "unsportsmanlike."

That makes a lot of sense Ktom.

I know it would be a bit unwieldy, but I still think a definitions section for the tourney rules would be good, although in the alternative, I do like the "TO has sole discretion" proviso.

dcdennis said:

"Making deals before and in between games…"

~Just make sure you wait before the first plot phase to make a deal on who wins. "Have we started? Can we collude now?"

AGoT DC Meta said:

If I could like posts on this forum I definitely would this because it made me spit out my drink lol.

~I hacked into Twn2dn's computer and found an email about the NY meta's "finger code" used in finals games. The fore-finger pointed towards one's self means "I am getting first," whereas two fingers pointed at your meta-mate means, "You are getting second."

I haven't decided about putting it on wiki-leaks yet.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Man, I wish this scoring system would have been in place for Gencon last year.

I like it.

1st - scoring system is good. I like it as well.

2nd - I am pretty sure I didn't make Top 16 last year because my opponent conceded the match at time when it was obvious I was going to win in the 30-60 seconds after time ran out. Unluckily, that was told to me it was a timed win even though it wasn't in the tourney rules that I saw (in so many words). Overall, I do dislike the inability for someone to concede a match that is obviously lost - I certainly have conceded before, heck on turn 3. I don't think it should be mandatory, but an option using good manners (any room for that anymore?).

I understand that can mean people conceding to put friends in higher places, but that can/will happen anyways ('oh, look, I don't have any characters to put out…oh, I forgot to flop characters…etc'). It then becomes a judgement call by the TO and I just don't think that is a good idea (Ktom does a great job, but isn't at every tourney).

OVERALL I think that competative Joust should just print off Magic's competative play rules. I don't like MTG at all - but they have years and years of competative play experience and know what can be judged consistently from tourney to tourney, and what cannot be. Knowing what is a legal concession and what is not can be the difference of whether the TO is at the table or not, or which TO you have.

In the same vein, I am worried about the drama of collusion or no collusion and when/what is acceptable. Multi-player takes it up a notch or 17. What someone gets caught doing will be done 15 times before with no penalty *shrug* But, I guess that is what you sign up for on competative multi-player.

How about instead of "conceding", you play it out as quickly as possible until the opponent has met their win condition. I mean, it would be pointless to try and do detrimental things to the opponent once you've decided that you want to concede. Does score of the match matter in standings?

I mean, if there is a potential timed win/loss then you should want to play it out as a timed loss is more beneficial to you than a regular loss. I think I'm correct on that.

Dobbler said:

It's similar to the system we used at the DC regionals (NYC players proposed that point system). There, we had 10 points for a full win, 7 for modified win, 5 for tie, 3 for modified loss, 0 for full loss. Basically, all matches result in 10 points being distributed between the 2 players in different combinations. It seemed to work well, as it incentivized modified losses above outright losses. I could be wrong, but I think this allowed us to break at least one person based on points rather than strength of schedule who otherwise may not have broken using the old system.

FFG's version brings the point scale back down to 5 points, and more heavily penalizes draws. Otherwise, it looks pretty similar in that it reduces the reliane on strength of schedule breaks by providing more gradations in point systems and incentives to play out the rounds rather than to concede. A 10-point scale would allow further gradations in points (can give modified wins 7 of 10 instead of 6 or 8 of 10), but FFG must have felt that the extra level of detail is ultimately unnecessary.

Question about the collusion ruling: Does it count as collusion if it's in-game negotiating during melee? For example, I understand that colluding before the game has begun is now against the rules. But what if we're on plot 4 and I know I can't win the melee, so I want to put myself in second place. Can I say "Feel free to attack me, I won't defend…I want to take second place"?

Twn2dn said:

This is a good question, and one where many people draw different lines. Some would say it's collusion; some not. Are we supposed to pretend as if there are no external motivations at all when we're in the game? What is arbitrary and what is "legitimate" motivation for making in-game deals? This is why I feel this rule, and debate in general about "collusion" to be rather pointless and inane.

The better question would be: Where does FFG draw the line, and where will they enforce it? There is no strong definition of what is allowed in game, so I would hate for it to be defined only after some people get kicked out and the competitive environment is upset by misconceived notions of where that line is.

Twn2dn said:

I'm not talking about the "per game scoring". I'm talking about the placement scoring that goes towards the overall champion.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Nate and I have yet to talk about the specifics of enforcement (yes, that means I will be the TO for the Melee and Joust events at Gencon this year), but I would lean toward this reasoning: Everyone should be entering the game with the intention to win, if at all possible. At some point during the Melee game, you may conclude that you are not going to come in first, but the assumption is that you would still try to maximize your standing. So there is a big difference between Twn2dn's "I want to take second place" somewhere around plot 4, and "I'll help make sure you win; I don't care how I place" before the game (or the event) starts. Determining the difference is, unfortunately, very situational and (honestly) kind of subjective. So it's hard to say how it will, or even should be, determined because so many of the cues will be situational. Ultimately, it'll likely come down to behavior and attitude (of everyone involved, including the judge). I'm not saying it's the best system - only that that is likely the hardsh reality when dealing with sportsmanship issues.

(It's worth noting, by the way, that this same reasoning can be applied to the FFG preference for "no concession at time limit." You are expected to play toward the best possible outcome for yourself. Taking something lower doesn't fit that philosophy. Hence, playing it out to time limit, then taking an outcome other than the ones the rules determine,might be very sporting to the guy you're playing, but is not necessarily sporting to the rest of the field - especially now that there is a point difference between a full and modified loss - affecting strength of schedule for everyone who has played either one of you. However, I would say that not playing it out when it's obvious your opponent will score 8 power this challenge phase, or scooping in the 3rd round because the game is so one sided is not "colusion" or "concession" in my book.)

Ultimately, I think it will not be that big of an issue. Most people in this community play the game honestly and go into the game intending to come in first. Those that don't are kind of hard to pin down in Melee, where collusion does not necessarily equate to opportunity to throw the game to someone else. When it has become an issue in the past, it was because the "conspirators" told everyone that that was what they has intended to do from the time they both made the table.

I still think that a draw should be 2 points for both players. I understand this was probably put into place for two maester decks playing each other but as I stated on my thread about this particular issue, that if time is called why on earth would I try to get power that would bring me to a draw when I could take a mod loss get the same point (one) and my opponent would get four. This would increase my strength of schedule in the long run and keep one of us from being destroyed in the rankings for the next round. Making no difference between a draw and a mod loss is frankly ridiculous. A mod win has a range of 14-0 power to 14-13 power. That is a large range for change. But if I match my opponents power, let's say 14-14, I get the same points for a draw. This only hurts good players trying to win the game. They want to diminish collusion, but this scoring idea of one point for each player on a draw will only lead to more collusion. Just make it two points and move on. The total points for the match is less then the five for a full match and so each player has been "punished" for the non-win but rewards both players for playing for the win. Two points helps no one in the greater scope of tourney points and still has the negative effects of a draw. Two points in comparison to the Five for a win is mediocre. Please FFG realize this mistake is easily rectified.

Dobbler said:

I think the outcome from last year is basically the reason for this change.

I couldn't say it better than Erwo. 1 point draws make them less attractive than modified losses (like full losses were more attractive than modified losses under the previous system).

And ties in 3-player melees should be 2 points as well, it's bad enough being at a 3-player table (2+2 is still lower than 5+0, so the incentive to do better is still there).

After reading Ktom's nicely put post, I think collusion rules are best summed up by the famous Supreme Court definition of porn. "I know it when I see it" Maybe not very satisfying, but a fairly decent working model. Heck, if the Olympic Games can figure out when the best teams in the world are doing it and toss them from the Olympics, I'm sure it can work with Thrones. (~and of course we have a lot more at stake-cardboard with our name on it)

-Goshdarnstud

A consideration for collusion. Pre-game collusion is not a known quantity for all at the game. If players 3 and 4 are playing a free for all melee while players 1 and 2 are playing a 2 v 1 v 1 melee, players 1 and 2 have an advantage over players 3 and 4. Forcing this collusion to be explicitly stated in a way that players 3 and 4 are now aware makes it so they are now playing the same 2 v 2 (if they so choose). Is it wrong for 2 players to know that they can take 1 and 2 by playing together? I would argue no. Is it wrong for 2 players to take 1 and 2 without giving their opponents prior knowledge of their intent? I would argue yes.

Also, if you can't outright win in 50 minutes, do you even deserve a full win? You couldn't close the game. If it were a contest with judging involved, a closed out, perfectly played game would be a 10. A non-closed out, but perfectly played game would be a 9.9, maybe even less. You showed less skill at closing the game than the other player, resulting in a deduction from your highest possible score.

mdc273 said: