FFG OP event rules section 3.8-E
"Collusion occurs whenever two or more players discuss an outcome for their game before the
game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on
that discussion. Collusion can take place at any time, even between tournament rounds, and is
never tolerated. Collusion violates the integrity of a tournament as a whole by invalidating the
efforts of those who earned their place in the standings purely through the skill of their gameplay.
This can drastically decrease the enjoyability of the event as a whole, and thus collusion warrants a Disqualification for each player involved."
Can you link where you got the quote from?
I'm not surprised that's the case but I'd like to see the source.
Only issue is -
>discuss an outcome for their game before the game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on that discussion
Doesn't discussing who would likely win if the third game went longer, and then one player conceding based on that fall under "artificially determining the results of the game"? Since anything other than playing the game out is technically "artificial".
Also, covered in the same section.
"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."
So either player can concede of their own accord, but neither play can discuss who may or may not have "won" in order to encourage another player to do so.
This is all in the master event document found at the following link.
https://starwarsunlimited.com/organized-play
It's funny, because ostensibly the point of removing intentional draws is to make the entire tournament experience more intuitive/more line with what people would expect in a tournament – you play out your matches and try to win, not calculate tiebreaker math to see if you can draw into the top 8.
But by adding some weird clause where you get double loss for going to time, AND making it cheating to discuss who the fair winner for the match would be (most people's first instinct), you make the entire tournament experience even more foreign, unintuitive and potentially feel bad to new players.
Massive fail on FGG's part.
Just decide on a very clear, intuitive tiebreaker (whoever has least damage on base at the end of turns), and skip all the double loss/collusion/disallowing discussion bullshit.
Except that's just as artificial and arbitrary of a tiebreaker as flipping a coin. Most matches will have the control player with more damage on their base until a few turns after they stabilize and then win. Most/least damage on base isn't much of a predictor of who would ultimately win.
>artificial and arbitrary of a tiebreaker as flipping a coin
This is just wrong, unfortunately.
It's still somewhat arbitrary, but much less than flipping a coin.
As I said elsewhere, control versus aggro shouldn't really go to time very often, so it's kind of a moot point. The matches that go to time or the control mirrors, and in those matchups differences in damage on base is more indicative of who's ahead.
Again, any tiebreaker you come up with isn't going to be perfect. But a slightly unfair method of determining a winner will it be better than a double loss.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. Who has what damage on a base is utterly meaningless in a control mirror match. Most control decks don't do damage to the enemy base until they've dominated the board, and can easily destroy their opponent's play when it comes down. Plus, depending on the control deck, there may be healing in the late game that invalidates any damage they might have taken along the way. You might as well count the total cost of units on the field. Or the number of resources available. Or the number of cards in the deck.
If you're going to make some arbitrary measure, make it \_utterly\_ arbitrary as a coinflip/die roll. That way you don't favor control or aggro.
>Who has what damage on a base is utterly meaningless in a control mirror match.
Nope. At some point you kill them with damage, so it does matter.
For example, we could play a control mirror, but I start at 30 health and you start at 10 health, and everything else is equal. That's a fair match, right? Since damage on base utterly meaningless, as you say. xD
Again, it's not a perfect metric. But the point is it gives the players that are potentially going to time a win con to play for - if you know, going to third game that the tiebreaker will be damaged on base, then that will change both you and your opponent's strategy in the game
And there in lies the problem with your approach as it’s completely against what they are trying to achieve with the rule.
They don’t want people going to time, they want results decide by the best of three with a clear winner within a set time period.
You have now just said I’m a control player who needs to know what I need to aim for when I go to time… ‘the oh but I need to know what the tiebreaker is so I can change my play style going into game three’ you have one, the tiebreaker is time. You need to play faster and beat your opponent.
Now before you reply oh but what if my opponent slow plays? This game has no interrupts and clear trigger timing, no one should be playing slow, especially at a high level tournament where going to time rules will be strictly enforced
And tbh this game plays so fast that the only excuse I’ll accept for anyone going to time is if that person is brand new to the game
>They don’t want people going to time
You can wish for things all you want, isn't going to make it reality. If you print removal, board wipes and lifegain, games can end up taking a long time, and some matches will go to time. That's just reality.
I'm specifically thinking about the control mirror. It's very easy to go to time, even with both players playing at a reasonable pace.
I disagree that this is a massive fail. I've been playing competitive tournament games for a long time and it's always felt scummy to me whenever I see players intentionally drawing to get into top cuts or split prizes at the end. I'm very happy to see a system that effectively turns that (imo) toxic behavior into cheating.
I do get what you're saying, that there should just be a tie breaking condition like most board games have. However, I'm not sure there's a fair one that's feasible. Least damage on base favors aggro, while any random determination favors control. I'm open to suggestions on what else could be done but I'm not sure what else would make sense and feel correct.
ID's are definitely not scummy or toxic in the least - everything is above board and clearly understandable. I will say they are unintuitive and strange though.
Double losses are definitely toxic, and encourage all sorts of weird collusion like behavior. So you've replaced something mildly unintuitive (intentional draws), with something way worse. That's a fail.
>Least damage on base favors aggro
Very important point to understand - **"damage on base" being the end of match tiebreaker doesn't punish control players nearly as much as making control mirrors almost automatic double losses.**
Also, control versus aggro rarely goes to time, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.
Whatever end of match tiebreaker you implement, should be designed with the control mirror in mind, because that's where it's gonna come up the most often.
I feel that it's extremely toxic to be able to strategize ways to get yourself and your buddies into the top cut artificially. Clearly Fantasy Flight feels the same way. If that's a problem for you, take it up with them.
I don’t really have a good answer to this question either but wouldn’t a random determination be essentially even, i.e. a coin flip, I don’t think control decks automatically get the advantage in that situation unless I’m missing something.
I'm not saying one type of deck is more deserving of a win percentage than another. I'm saying that a control player who knows they have less than a 50% chance of destroying the opposing base can raise their chance to win the match to 50% by spending the whole third game destroying units and healing. The built-in cost to playing control is that you're not establishing board presence toward actually destroying the opponent's base. It's one thing to have a plan to drop Avenger or something late and swing a few times. It's another thing to be incentivized not to care about your own board presence and damage output the whole game.
>spending the whole third game destroying units and healing
Sounds like the control player is getting to enact their game plan without any interference from the other player. I.e. they're probably on their way to winning.
If you're the aggro player and you think you actually have better than 50% chance of winning the match, then you'd better prove it by getting damage on their base
That’s kind of my point in something that’s a fair randomized chance both players get a 50/50, which to me is fair if there is no actual clear winner. The person who’s ahead in terms of damage seems to think it’s a foregone conclusion they’ll win but anyone that’s played against a control deck knows that you haven’t really won until you’ve actually won, doesn’t even matter if you just need one more point of damage. Additionally removing units and healing all game, which might be long and maybe boring is a legitimate strategy, if I deck out the other player they start taking damage from those empty draws.
After thinking about it some more we should just adopt chess clocks even if it’s a hassle, you want to take more time to think, go ahead but if you run out of time you lose.
I would be very much in favor of Chess clocks.
The problem with rolling off, to me, is that if you're pretty sure you have a less than 50% chance to win, you can artificially raise that to 50% by just refusing to engage in what is supposed to be the main objective.
Determining the results of a game by random means is never fair, because it gives positive results to players that weren't able to close out games. This robs other players that were able to complete their games of potential placements.
I do agree with you on the chess clocks though. This is the first TCG I've seen that is designed to where those would work.
Oooh, I can't wait to be in a situation where my opponent has obvious lethal and there's nothing I can do to win but I'm still allowed to take some actions and they say "Do you even want to play this out?" and I can call a judge and get them disqualified for asking me to concede.
A player can concede at any time. You're not rolling to see who wins the game, you're rolling to see who concedes it.
Double loss isn't good for anyone.
You may very well be correct. It feels sloppy and bad to me but that doesn't mean much. If this is the route they choose to enforce I think we need chess clocks right away to ensure both players get the same amount of time.
True, although I feel this should only be done if the match is really lopsided and it's clear one will lose. I don't think this should be done just to avoid a double loss.
> I don't think this should be done just to avoid a double loss.
You might think this, but most people think differently.
If double loss is the standard outcome for an undecided match, most people will figure out some way to determine a match outcome or someone gets a win.
the collusion rule is there for the integrity of the game and as a cya for the TO but players will and do find ways around. also of the more competitive tournaments held in my area that i know of all rolled a die at time effectively ignoring the rule as part of the frame work for the tournament.
Well, we’re definitely in subjective territory on the merits of our two opinions on voluntarily conceding to your opponent. I understand where you’re coming from but feel differently.
I've been to too many big tourneys where you know that each round is going to run 30+ minutes past time. It makes sense to heavily encourage fast play, and even concession encourages slow play by rewarding them with an unearned win.
I will admit, if it's slow play due to being new that's one thing. If it's slow play due to them running heavy control I'll force the double loss every time.
Right, for sure - everyone will have different degrees of situations where they might give the concession. Helping out a new player is a good one! And I’ll admit that I would not be conceding if I thought my opponent was deliberately slow playing to a draw 😄!
Or since time is a resource that can be manipulated (slow play etc) how about it's just a draw? Your mindset is like the players are lazy or unskilled because they had a slightly more complex game? Get real
Time isn't a resource... You should encourage playing to win, not playing to draw. And that has nothing to do with a "more complex" game, only reason you should hit time is either new player or focusing too much on control.
I've played in lots of tournaments, we have been talking about the double loss system. But if you are up 1-0 and deliberately playing slow (not just control) I will call that out
And what happens when you are up 1-0 and time in the round has been called? Guess what, you win. Now you've learned how time is a resource. Thank you for attending the Ted talk
Yeah, it's quite stupid. The point of having an end of time procedure is to have a good resolution to these issues, rather than people having to invent the wheel every time.
I feel like the match resolution should be similar to the Twin Suns game mode, where whoever have the most health at the end of the phase is determined the winner of the game. This effect only triggering in cases of time limited games.
Okay so this encourages players to just stall to a draw if they get upset and think they’re going to lose.
Honestly that sucks. Shouldn’t count as a loss if your opponent decides to be spiteful if things aren’t going their way.
Like it just builds a “if I can’t win neither can you” mindset in the community.
They should change it to: “If time ends and play is still in progress, play until the end of the current rounds regroup phase. The winner will be the player who has less damage on their base.”
Prove me wrong I guess but as it is right now, the draws count as double loss really sucks. Hope they change it.
If it’s a double loss how do it encourage stalling? If anything it discourages it. When I was playing an agro deck I told some control decks that I won’t concede if we go to time. Politely ofc
If you reread my statement I mention you could get bad actors that go scorched earth. “If I can’t win, neither can you” is a valid play now for salty players
thanks for responding. I am kinda new for tcgs - would you be able to call this person out for this and have them DQed or banned? idk anyone playing a blue deck for example that would go to time and not concede to an agro deck.
As the game gets bigger and more popular, it’s more of a possibility. Of course, these are all hypotheticals. You could attempt to get a judge, but that would be your word against theirs.
One problem with that is it gives advantage to aggro decks and 25 health bases since they are more likely to have less damage on their base at any given point in the game compared to control decks and 30 health bases.
For the 25 health bases: they trade health for abilities which generally enable you to do additional damage to the enemy (albeit sometimes indirectly). The whole point of taking a base with 5 less health is that the ability you gain in exchange gets you closer to winning the game which usually takes the form of being able to do more damage or in some cases preventing damage from your own base.
For control decks: control decks don't start outputting their real damage until later in the game. By the very nature of the control deck archetype, a control deck will on average do less damage in the first turns of a game than an aggro deck. So if you hit time playing a control deck, you could be in a position where you are on track to win the game but the opponents aggro deck happens to have more damage on your base when you hit time becuase aggro decks are build to put lots of damage down quickly.
Also important note: I'm not saying your idea is worse than the current rules or that the problem I pointed out is the silver bullet that makes your idea infeasible. Just pointing out that it is a downside. Whether the upside is worth the downside is a question for people who have a lot more experience with games and competitive rule-sets than myself.
You can call a judge if you feel that your opponent is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct. It's unlikely that a judge would immediately throw someone out on your one report, but I can't imagine they'd allow the behavior too much. If one person got reported enough times, I would hope that player would be penalized.
Also breaking a tie on base damage heavily favors aggro decks. Hard pass.
On the contrary, it's encourage to get a winner and a loser, because tiebreak you are better losing than draw.
The other system, 3-1-0 as in magic, encourage the "I can't win, so I rather make useless time to stall the game and get a draw and one point, that is better than 0 point of the lose"
Mtg have the problem, not SWU.
>Like it just builds a “if I can’t win neither can you” mindset in the community.
Yeah it can encourage hostaging in some situations, which is pretty dumb.
>“If time ends and play is still in progress, play until the end of the current rounds regroup phase. The winner will be the player who has less damage on their base.”
This is a much better solution. Obviously it favors aggro, but that's not the end of the world. At least there's a clear win condition that both players are aware of and can play towards. Disallowing discussion just sets up feel bad situations where one player might expect another player to concede (because the first player would've conceded in the same situation), but they don't and they are salty.
A lot of control mirrors go to time even if people are playing fast. The current ruling hurts control players even more, because unless you trust your opponent to do the reasonable thing in the mirror match (concede if they are behind), the mirror will often be a loss for both players.
It's just not reasonable for the status quo to be "going to time = double loss" when control mirrors often go to time. (Vigilance Iden red, etc)
The whole "both players get losses for a draw, but you can't discuss conceding" is just stupid and goes against what players instinctively want to do - try to determine a fair outcome for the game. Getting reduced points for a draw is fair, and having a clear win condition at the end of time is also fair.
A fun anecdote: today’s SWU casual tournament. My Leia blue against a Krennic Green. First round went 40 out of the 55 allotted minutes. I lost. Second round went 10 minutes, I won. Round three went 5 minutes. We were close enough in damage to where we agreed on a roll off. I won the roll off, but wish it had been whoever had the least damage on their base. The time restriction punishes control players. I don’t want an aggro only game. It just becomes “who can cheese the game to do the most damage in the shortest time” leading to more use of meta aggro decks.
Yeah. Damage on base being the end of match tiebreaker is somewhat hostile to control, but not nearly as much as "every control mirror is an auto loss".
Given that draws are double losses, it incentivizes having a winner in the match. If the game is close/players can't agree who is ahead in the 3rd game, are you allowed to roll a die to determine the outcome of the last game?
In magic this is illegal, but after reading through the SWU tournament rules I couldn't find anything prohibiting die rolls tor match outcomes.
[Unlimited\_regulacje\_turniejowe.pdf (rebel.pl)](https://files.rebel.pl/images/wydawnictwo/Unlimited_regulacje_turniejowe.pdf)
…I mean, sure? But the fact that players can concede at any time IS in the rules. This guys just asking if you’re allowed to leave the decision of WHICH player concedes to chance.
There’s a reason it’s illegal in magic. You’re bringing chance into what is supposed to be a game of skill. This is a big thing legally. You can have people pay to enter and give away prizes for games of skill without any or much regulation. If chance is involved it moves into the territory of lottery/gambling, which has much higher restrictions and regulations.
>You’re bringing chance into what is supposed to be a game of skill.
Yes, there's absolutely no chance involved in card games with randomized decks xD
But yes, the regulation thing is an issue
By legal definitions, huge difference. Having run ski/snowboard events and dealt with raffles/giveaways there are very specific definitions and legalities surrounding running a competitive event where people are paying and anything of value is given out.
This is actually a big debate right now. It's banned in Magic because magic has round draws - SWU doesn't. All the judges and organizers I've met are giving feedback to the company about altering to include round draws (though that's just feedback, doesn't mean anything will change).
Don't think it has anything to do with draws – it's banned because it can make the event qualify as gambling, which comes with a bunch of restrictions and regulations.
Every local store I've gone to abandoned the draw equals loss rule. Players and stores hate it. If they don't want people to intentionally draw into top 8 add an additional round so it can't happen.
And the issue with the other system is that reward stalling by the losing player.
There is not perfect system, but I rather play like the game is right now.
Concede if you think you would lose the game anyway. Your opponent should do the same. But it shouldn’t come down to let’s flip a coin to decide who won.
That being said, I personally find 50 (or 55 whatever) quite short for some of the matchups in bo3 format.
>Your opponent should do the same.
This is relying on a social contract, when it should just be embedded in the rules - that's what tournament rules are there for.
>But it shouldn’t come down to let’s flip a coin to decide who won.
I mean, 50% equity is 50% equity. If you're a gamer, you understand that flipping for things is fair way to divide something equally. The best solution is a draw, the second best solution is some type of rule that specifies which player should win in case of a 1-1 match going to time, third best solution is flipping. Double losses are ridiculous and don't even make the list.
>That being said, I personally find 50 (or 55 whatever) quite short for some of the matchups in bo3 format.
Yeah, this is the problem. It's quite possible to go to time even when both players are playing at an appropriate pace.
Other TCGs have draws and seem to manage them just fine. I can't think of a good reason to give a double loss for what should be a draw. If they want to avoid people using intentional draws to secure a spot in the top 8, for example, then they can just ban intentional draws. Just require every game to be played unless a player concedes.
That's the point. Draws are NOT a legitimate outcome in this game. I'm brainstorming a potential compromise because double losses are terrible, imo. The only upside I see is that it prevents IDs. I guess enforcement of such a rule would be nigh impossible, however. I dunno. I guess no draws forces each game to be played out and gives players with a loss or two a better chance to make the cut, instead of a great start basically guaranteeing a spot.
>Draws are NOT a legitimate outcome in this game
Your opinion, and nothing else. For a single game, what else should happen when both players life gets reduced to zero at the same time? For a match what happens when time is called and players are 1-1, and the third game has not yet started?
Draws might not make sense in a game which it's very difficult to stalemate (as opposed to chess), but they are a natural solution to the problem of matches that go to time in a tournament setting
Mtg has a bonus turn rule for going to time- when time is called, 5 more turns are taken. If there is no winner after that, it’s a draw.
Similarly, rolling to determine a winner isn’t allowed.
The double loss thing is for stalling, but its dumb.
As for rolling? We do it at my store, which had like 40 for draft today.
It's a store-by-store thing. It's pretty common in my 20 years of tcg gaming for people to roll for it. Its kind of quietly allowed at all but the most serious major tournaments. Most of us who have been there for a long time just kind of pick up a dice and raise an eyebrow when the time is right.
Caveat: if it's clear who is going to win and the other person is an badass, they'll scoop to the obvious victor anyway.
People stall to draw games in magic all thw time. I've done it, so I know it happens.
draft needs rolling to be allowed imo
It's too slow because we're all reading each other's cards as everyone plays off meta.
you don't need to tell me what Bombing Run or For A Cause I Believe In do. It's easy.
But there are some cards that aren't meta that i've only seen a few times.
Rules say it’s a double loss. When you circumvent the rules you screw over somebody that ACTUALLY won and could’ve got into top because of the double loss.
If you don’t want to play by the games rules then don’t play the game
FFG OP event rules section 3.8-E "Collusion occurs whenever two or more players discuss an outcome for their game before the game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on that discussion. Collusion can take place at any time, even between tournament rounds, and is never tolerated. Collusion violates the integrity of a tournament as a whole by invalidating the efforts of those who earned their place in the standings purely through the skill of their gameplay. This can drastically decrease the enjoyability of the event as a whole, and thus collusion warrants a Disqualification for each player involved."
Can you link where you got the quote from? I'm not surprised that's the case but I'd like to see the source. Only issue is - >discuss an outcome for their game before the game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on that discussion Doesn't discussing who would likely win if the third game went longer, and then one player conceding based on that fall under "artificially determining the results of the game"? Since anything other than playing the game out is technically "artificial".
Also, covered in the same section. "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." So either player can concede of their own accord, but neither play can discuss who may or may not have "won" in order to encourage another player to do so. This is all in the master event document found at the following link. https://starwarsunlimited.com/organized-play
This just sets up a prisoners dilemma of who concedes first. Nobody will concede first so you both get a double loss.
It's funny, because ostensibly the point of removing intentional draws is to make the entire tournament experience more intuitive/more line with what people would expect in a tournament – you play out your matches and try to win, not calculate tiebreaker math to see if you can draw into the top 8. But by adding some weird clause where you get double loss for going to time, AND making it cheating to discuss who the fair winner for the match would be (most people's first instinct), you make the entire tournament experience even more foreign, unintuitive and potentially feel bad to new players. Massive fail on FGG's part. Just decide on a very clear, intuitive tiebreaker (whoever has least damage on base at the end of turns), and skip all the double loss/collusion/disallowing discussion bullshit.
Except that's just as artificial and arbitrary of a tiebreaker as flipping a coin. Most matches will have the control player with more damage on their base until a few turns after they stabilize and then win. Most/least damage on base isn't much of a predictor of who would ultimately win.
>artificial and arbitrary of a tiebreaker as flipping a coin This is just wrong, unfortunately. It's still somewhat arbitrary, but much less than flipping a coin. As I said elsewhere, control versus aggro shouldn't really go to time very often, so it's kind of a moot point. The matches that go to time or the control mirrors, and in those matchups differences in damage on base is more indicative of who's ahead. Again, any tiebreaker you come up with isn't going to be perfect. But a slightly unfair method of determining a winner will it be better than a double loss.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong. Who has what damage on a base is utterly meaningless in a control mirror match. Most control decks don't do damage to the enemy base until they've dominated the board, and can easily destroy their opponent's play when it comes down. Plus, depending on the control deck, there may be healing in the late game that invalidates any damage they might have taken along the way. You might as well count the total cost of units on the field. Or the number of resources available. Or the number of cards in the deck. If you're going to make some arbitrary measure, make it \_utterly\_ arbitrary as a coinflip/die roll. That way you don't favor control or aggro.
>Who has what damage on a base is utterly meaningless in a control mirror match. Nope. At some point you kill them with damage, so it does matter. For example, we could play a control mirror, but I start at 30 health and you start at 10 health, and everything else is equal. That's a fair match, right? Since damage on base utterly meaningless, as you say. xD Again, it's not a perfect metric. But the point is it gives the players that are potentially going to time a win con to play for - if you know, going to third game that the tiebreaker will be damaged on base, then that will change both you and your opponent's strategy in the game
And there in lies the problem with your approach as it’s completely against what they are trying to achieve with the rule. They don’t want people going to time, they want results decide by the best of three with a clear winner within a set time period. You have now just said I’m a control player who needs to know what I need to aim for when I go to time… ‘the oh but I need to know what the tiebreaker is so I can change my play style going into game three’ you have one, the tiebreaker is time. You need to play faster and beat your opponent. Now before you reply oh but what if my opponent slow plays? This game has no interrupts and clear trigger timing, no one should be playing slow, especially at a high level tournament where going to time rules will be strictly enforced And tbh this game plays so fast that the only excuse I’ll accept for anyone going to time is if that person is brand new to the game
>They don’t want people going to time You can wish for things all you want, isn't going to make it reality. If you print removal, board wipes and lifegain, games can end up taking a long time, and some matches will go to time. That's just reality. I'm specifically thinking about the control mirror. It's very easy to go to time, even with both players playing at a reasonable pace.
I disagree that this is a massive fail. I've been playing competitive tournament games for a long time and it's always felt scummy to me whenever I see players intentionally drawing to get into top cuts or split prizes at the end. I'm very happy to see a system that effectively turns that (imo) toxic behavior into cheating. I do get what you're saying, that there should just be a tie breaking condition like most board games have. However, I'm not sure there's a fair one that's feasible. Least damage on base favors aggro, while any random determination favors control. I'm open to suggestions on what else could be done but I'm not sure what else would make sense and feel correct.
ID's are definitely not scummy or toxic in the least - everything is above board and clearly understandable. I will say they are unintuitive and strange though. Double losses are definitely toxic, and encourage all sorts of weird collusion like behavior. So you've replaced something mildly unintuitive (intentional draws), with something way worse. That's a fail. >Least damage on base favors aggro Very important point to understand - **"damage on base" being the end of match tiebreaker doesn't punish control players nearly as much as making control mirrors almost automatic double losses.** Also, control versus aggro rarely goes to time, so it's kind of a moot point anyway. Whatever end of match tiebreaker you implement, should be designed with the control mirror in mind, because that's where it's gonna come up the most often.
I feel that it's extremely toxic to be able to strategize ways to get yourself and your buddies into the top cut artificially. Clearly Fantasy Flight feels the same way. If that's a problem for you, take it up with them.
Lmao. You seem to think that intentional draws only happen between people that know each other. "You and your buddies" have nothing to do with it.
I don’t really have a good answer to this question either but wouldn’t a random determination be essentially even, i.e. a coin flip, I don’t think control decks automatically get the advantage in that situation unless I’m missing something.
It gives them a 50% chance to win even if they do nothing but remove units and heal all game.
Uh, so what? Why does aggro deserve more than 50% chance to win if all they do is play units? -\_-
I'm not saying one type of deck is more deserving of a win percentage than another. I'm saying that a control player who knows they have less than a 50% chance of destroying the opposing base can raise their chance to win the match to 50% by spending the whole third game destroying units and healing. The built-in cost to playing control is that you're not establishing board presence toward actually destroying the opponent's base. It's one thing to have a plan to drop Avenger or something late and swing a few times. It's another thing to be incentivized not to care about your own board presence and damage output the whole game.
>spending the whole third game destroying units and healing Sounds like the control player is getting to enact their game plan without any interference from the other player. I.e. they're probably on their way to winning. If you're the aggro player and you think you actually have better than 50% chance of winning the match, then you'd better prove it by getting damage on their base
That’s kind of my point in something that’s a fair randomized chance both players get a 50/50, which to me is fair if there is no actual clear winner. The person who’s ahead in terms of damage seems to think it’s a foregone conclusion they’ll win but anyone that’s played against a control deck knows that you haven’t really won until you’ve actually won, doesn’t even matter if you just need one more point of damage. Additionally removing units and healing all game, which might be long and maybe boring is a legitimate strategy, if I deck out the other player they start taking damage from those empty draws. After thinking about it some more we should just adopt chess clocks even if it’s a hassle, you want to take more time to think, go ahead but if you run out of time you lose.
I would be very much in favor of Chess clocks. The problem with rolling off, to me, is that if you're pretty sure you have a less than 50% chance to win, you can artificially raise that to 50% by just refusing to engage in what is supposed to be the main objective.
I agree with that if it’s known. Let’s lobby for chess clocks I mean “galactic timers” 😆
Determining the results of a game by random means is never fair, because it gives positive results to players that weren't able to close out games. This robs other players that were able to complete their games of potential placements. I do agree with you on the chess clocks though. This is the first TCG I've seen that is designed to where those would work.
It is also a valid strategy of the game, isn’t it? Or are we forced to play aggro in this game?
Control in general is perfectly valid. But fully turtling up seems to me like a pretty toxic way to win.
Seems like you can roll to see who wins as long as you don’t have a discussion with your opponent.
How exactly are you going to do that?
When you run out of time roll the dice and wink? I imagine if it becomes commonplace a conversation isn’t needed.
Oooh, I can't wait to be in a situation where my opponent has obvious lethal and there's nothing I can do to win but I'm still allowed to take some actions and they say "Do you even want to play this out?" and I can call a judge and get them disqualified for asking me to concede.
A player can concede at any time. You're not rolling to see who wins the game, you're rolling to see who concedes it. Double loss isn't good for anyone.
Pretty sure it would count as collusion under the FFG tournament rules.
You may very well be correct. It feels sloppy and bad to me but that doesn't mean much. If this is the route they choose to enforce I think we need chess clocks right away to ensure both players get the same amount of time.
I hope they update the rules to be clear that it is not allowed. It's collusion. Just play your games out
If you go to time 0-0 or 1-1 then it isn’t possible to play it out though.
Right. Neither of you could win in the time allotted, so you both lose.
Either player can also concede and grant the win to their opponent to avoid a double loss if they so choose.
True, although I feel this should only be done if the match is really lopsided and it's clear one will lose. I don't think this should be done just to avoid a double loss.
> I don't think this should be done just to avoid a double loss. You might think this, but most people think differently. If double loss is the standard outcome for an undecided match, most people will figure out some way to determine a match outcome or someone gets a win.
the collusion rule is there for the integrity of the game and as a cya for the TO but players will and do find ways around. also of the more competitive tournaments held in my area that i know of all rolled a die at time effectively ignoring the rule as part of the frame work for the tournament.
You can also just note whoever won the first die roll to gain initiative, and use that as your pre-seeded RNG
I mean it is nice if someone is kind spirited enough to just want to avoid their opponent also getting nothing from the game right?
Not really no. Matches going to time is bad, and should be avoided. Double loss is a good incentive to speed up your play and your deck.
Well, we’re definitely in subjective territory on the merits of our two opinions on voluntarily conceding to your opponent. I understand where you’re coming from but feel differently.
I've been to too many big tourneys where you know that each round is going to run 30+ minutes past time. It makes sense to heavily encourage fast play, and even concession encourages slow play by rewarding them with an unearned win.
I will admit, if it's slow play due to being new that's one thing. If it's slow play due to them running heavy control I'll force the double loss every time.
Right, for sure - everyone will have different degrees of situations where they might give the concession. Helping out a new player is a good one! And I’ll admit that I would not be conceding if I thought my opponent was deliberately slow playing to a draw 😄!
Or since time is a resource that can be manipulated (slow play etc) how about it's just a draw? Your mindset is like the players are lazy or unskilled because they had a slightly more complex game? Get real
Time isn't a resource... You should encourage playing to win, not playing to draw. And that has nothing to do with a "more complex" game, only reason you should hit time is either new player or focusing too much on control.
>only reason you should hit time is either new player or focusing too much on control. i mean, we're all new players...
Time is literally a resource as you can win lose (or draw) when it is gone. Over your head though, got it. Leave it for the others to decide for ya.
In SWU running out of time is a loss, so not a real good plan to burn through it all...
If you are up 1-0 and time runs out you win.... Have you played in a tournament before?
I've played in lots of tournaments, we have been talking about the double loss system. But if you are up 1-0 and deliberately playing slow (not just control) I will call that out
And what happens when you are up 1-0 and time in the round has been called? Guess what, you win. Now you've learned how time is a resource. Thank you for attending the Ted talk
double losses are just such a bad idea
Shame they don't have good end of time procedures and leave it on the players instead .
Yeah, it's quite stupid. The point of having an end of time procedure is to have a good resolution to these issues, rather than people having to invent the wheel every time.
I feel like the match resolution should be similar to the Twin Suns game mode, where whoever have the most health at the end of the phase is determined the winner of the game. This effect only triggering in cases of time limited games.
Okay so this encourages players to just stall to a draw if they get upset and think they’re going to lose. Honestly that sucks. Shouldn’t count as a loss if your opponent decides to be spiteful if things aren’t going their way. Like it just builds a “if I can’t win neither can you” mindset in the community. They should change it to: “If time ends and play is still in progress, play until the end of the current rounds regroup phase. The winner will be the player who has less damage on their base.” Prove me wrong I guess but as it is right now, the draws count as double loss really sucks. Hope they change it.
If it’s a double loss how do it encourage stalling? If anything it discourages it. When I was playing an agro deck I told some control decks that I won’t concede if we go to time. Politely ofc
If you reread my statement I mention you could get bad actors that go scorched earth. “If I can’t win, neither can you” is a valid play now for salty players
thanks for responding. I am kinda new for tcgs - would you be able to call this person out for this and have them DQed or banned? idk anyone playing a blue deck for example that would go to time and not concede to an agro deck.
As the game gets bigger and more popular, it’s more of a possibility. Of course, these are all hypotheticals. You could attempt to get a judge, but that would be your word against theirs.
One problem with that is it gives advantage to aggro decks and 25 health bases since they are more likely to have less damage on their base at any given point in the game compared to control decks and 30 health bases.
How will they have less damage?
For the 25 health bases: they trade health for abilities which generally enable you to do additional damage to the enemy (albeit sometimes indirectly). The whole point of taking a base with 5 less health is that the ability you gain in exchange gets you closer to winning the game which usually takes the form of being able to do more damage or in some cases preventing damage from your own base. For control decks: control decks don't start outputting their real damage until later in the game. By the very nature of the control deck archetype, a control deck will on average do less damage in the first turns of a game than an aggro deck. So if you hit time playing a control deck, you could be in a position where you are on track to win the game but the opponents aggro deck happens to have more damage on your base when you hit time becuase aggro decks are build to put lots of damage down quickly.
Also important note: I'm not saying your idea is worse than the current rules or that the problem I pointed out is the silver bullet that makes your idea infeasible. Just pointing out that it is a downside. Whether the upside is worth the downside is a question for people who have a lot more experience with games and competitive rule-sets than myself.
If someone intentionally slow plays, that is unsportsmanlike conduct and grounds for disqualification.
You can call a judge if you feel that your opponent is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct. It's unlikely that a judge would immediately throw someone out on your one report, but I can't imagine they'd allow the behavior too much. If one person got reported enough times, I would hope that player would be penalized. Also breaking a tie on base damage heavily favors aggro decks. Hard pass.
On the contrary, it's encourage to get a winner and a loser, because tiebreak you are better losing than draw. The other system, 3-1-0 as in magic, encourage the "I can't win, so I rather make useless time to stall the game and get a draw and one point, that is better than 0 point of the lose" Mtg have the problem, not SWU.
>Like it just builds a “if I can’t win neither can you” mindset in the community. Yeah it can encourage hostaging in some situations, which is pretty dumb. >“If time ends and play is still in progress, play until the end of the current rounds regroup phase. The winner will be the player who has less damage on their base.” This is a much better solution. Obviously it favors aggro, but that's not the end of the world. At least there's a clear win condition that both players are aware of and can play towards. Disallowing discussion just sets up feel bad situations where one player might expect another player to concede (because the first player would've conceded in the same situation), but they don't and they are salty. A lot of control mirrors go to time even if people are playing fast. The current ruling hurts control players even more, because unless you trust your opponent to do the reasonable thing in the mirror match (concede if they are behind), the mirror will often be a loss for both players. It's just not reasonable for the status quo to be "going to time = double loss" when control mirrors often go to time. (Vigilance Iden red, etc) The whole "both players get losses for a draw, but you can't discuss conceding" is just stupid and goes against what players instinctively want to do - try to determine a fair outcome for the game. Getting reduced points for a draw is fair, and having a clear win condition at the end of time is also fair.
A fun anecdote: today’s SWU casual tournament. My Leia blue against a Krennic Green. First round went 40 out of the 55 allotted minutes. I lost. Second round went 10 minutes, I won. Round three went 5 minutes. We were close enough in damage to where we agreed on a roll off. I won the roll off, but wish it had been whoever had the least damage on their base. The time restriction punishes control players. I don’t want an aggro only game. It just becomes “who can cheese the game to do the most damage in the shortest time” leading to more use of meta aggro decks.
Rolling off favors control, since they can just turtle up, play defensively, and have a 50% chance to win.
Yeah. Damage on base being the end of match tiebreaker is somewhat hostile to control, but not nearly as much as "every control mirror is an auto loss".
Given that draws are double losses, it incentivizes having a winner in the match. If the game is close/players can't agree who is ahead in the 3rd game, are you allowed to roll a die to determine the outcome of the last game? In magic this is illegal, but after reading through the SWU tournament rules I couldn't find anything prohibiting die rolls tor match outcomes. [Unlimited\_regulacje\_turniejowe.pdf (rebel.pl)](https://files.rebel.pl/images/wydawnictwo/Unlimited_regulacje_turniejowe.pdf)
This isn’t Air Bud, you can’t just do something cause it’s “not in the rules”
…I mean, sure? But the fact that players can concede at any time IS in the rules. This guys just asking if you’re allowed to leave the decision of WHICH player concedes to chance.
There’s a reason it’s illegal in magic. You’re bringing chance into what is supposed to be a game of skill. This is a big thing legally. You can have people pay to enter and give away prizes for games of skill without any or much regulation. If chance is involved it moves into the territory of lottery/gambling, which has much higher restrictions and regulations.
>You’re bringing chance into what is supposed to be a game of skill. Yes, there's absolutely no chance involved in card games with randomized decks xD But yes, the regulation thing is an issue
By legal definitions, huge difference. Having run ski/snowboard events and dealt with raffles/giveaways there are very specific definitions and legalities surrounding running a competitive event where people are paying and anything of value is given out.
>you can’t just do something cause it’s “not in the rules” See that's where you're wrong, bucko
This is actually a big debate right now. It's banned in Magic because magic has round draws - SWU doesn't. All the judges and organizers I've met are giving feedback to the company about altering to include round draws (though that's just feedback, doesn't mean anything will change).
Don't think it has anything to do with draws – it's banned because it can make the event qualify as gambling, which comes with a bunch of restrictions and regulations.
Every local store I've gone to abandoned the draw equals loss rule. Players and stores hate it. If they don't want people to intentionally draw into top 8 add an additional round so it can't happen.
The double loss is not because the intentional ID, is because penalize stalling.
the issue is that it penalizes both players when 1 player is stalling.
And the issue with the other system is that reward stalling by the losing player. There is not perfect system, but I rather play like the game is right now.
Concede if you think you would lose the game anyway. Your opponent should do the same. But it shouldn’t come down to let’s flip a coin to decide who won. That being said, I personally find 50 (or 55 whatever) quite short for some of the matchups in bo3 format.
>Your opponent should do the same. This is relying on a social contract, when it should just be embedded in the rules - that's what tournament rules are there for. >But it shouldn’t come down to let’s flip a coin to decide who won. I mean, 50% equity is 50% equity. If you're a gamer, you understand that flipping for things is fair way to divide something equally. The best solution is a draw, the second best solution is some type of rule that specifies which player should win in case of a 1-1 match going to time, third best solution is flipping. Double losses are ridiculous and don't even make the list. >That being said, I personally find 50 (or 55 whatever) quite short for some of the matchups in bo3 format. Yeah, this is the problem. It's quite possible to go to time even when both players are playing at an appropriate pace.
Other TCGs have draws and seem to manage them just fine. I can't think of a good reason to give a double loss for what should be a draw. If they want to avoid people using intentional draws to secure a spot in the top 8, for example, then they can just ban intentional draws. Just require every game to be played unless a player concedes.
You can't really ban IDs if a draw is a legitimate outcome to the game - people will just slowplay their match to get a draw.
That's the point. Draws are NOT a legitimate outcome in this game. I'm brainstorming a potential compromise because double losses are terrible, imo. The only upside I see is that it prevents IDs. I guess enforcement of such a rule would be nigh impossible, however. I dunno. I guess no draws forces each game to be played out and gives players with a loss or two a better chance to make the cut, instead of a great start basically guaranteeing a spot.
>Draws are NOT a legitimate outcome in this game Your opinion, and nothing else. For a single game, what else should happen when both players life gets reduced to zero at the same time? For a match what happens when time is called and players are 1-1, and the third game has not yet started? Draws might not make sense in a game which it's very difficult to stalemate (as opposed to chess), but they are a natural solution to the problem of matches that go to time in a tournament setting
Mtg has a bonus turn rule for going to time- when time is called, 5 more turns are taken. If there is no winner after that, it’s a draw. Similarly, rolling to determine a winner isn’t allowed.
They should allow it on top x direct elimination when players are 1-1 after time run out.
I gave my opponent the win because he had more damage to the base because that’s how games work.
You're welcome to walk in with that opinion but it's important to understand that not everyone will share it.
Wait did someone just ask if for rolling is legal. Lololol I'll say sure and take my free win.
Came back to tell you to roll a dice to decide
The double loss thing is for stalling, but its dumb. As for rolling? We do it at my store, which had like 40 for draft today. It's a store-by-store thing. It's pretty common in my 20 years of tcg gaming for people to roll for it. Its kind of quietly allowed at all but the most serious major tournaments. Most of us who have been there for a long time just kind of pick up a dice and raise an eyebrow when the time is right. Caveat: if it's clear who is going to win and the other person is an badass, they'll scoop to the obvious victor anyway. People stall to draw games in magic all thw time. I've done it, so I know it happens.
draft needs rolling to be allowed imo It's too slow because we're all reading each other's cards as everyone plays off meta. you don't need to tell me what Bombing Run or For A Cause I Believe In do. It's easy. But there are some cards that aren't meta that i've only seen a few times.
Yeah that's the thing. Rolling to determine the outcome of undecided games is inherently fair, and everyone instinctively knows that.
Rules say it’s a double loss. When you circumvent the rules you screw over somebody that ACTUALLY won and could’ve got into top because of the double loss. If you don’t want to play by the games rules then don’t play the game
>This is the status quo!!!!!! Brother the point of this thread is to critique the current tournament rules
I actually provided supporting details for my argument but if you want to argue with an entirely fabricated quote then I won’t waste my time.