Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » Rules

Subject: Proposed Changes to Tournament Floor Rules rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
H. Tucker Cobey
United States
Torrance
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Based on some issues that arose from Colorado, I'd like to propose the following additions to the Wizkids tournament rules.

Collusion

Any kind of collusion between opponents to influence match results--including, but not limited to, Battle Points, Fleet Points, randomization of winner/loser, or prizes--is prohibited. The only exceptions are Intentional Draws and Finals Prizes, as listed below.

Intentional Draws

At any time during a match in progress, both opponents may agree to an intentional draw result. Both players are awarded exactly 1 BP (equal to a loss, if not using BP) Fleet points equal to the BP limit for fleet construction, including any blind buy BP. If bonus BP are in effect, none are awarded.

Finals Prizes

Prior to the finals match of an event, both opponents may agree to reallocate prizes on the condition that it not affect the outcome of the finals match. In other words, one player may voluntarily "give up" one of the prizes, but may not attempt to bribe his opponent into forfeiting the match.

Conceding

A player may concede to his opponent at any time. This counts as a win for the opposing player and a loss for the conceding player. His opponent receives fleet points as if he had completely destroyed the conceding player's fleet. The conceding player receives fleet points equal to the maximum number of BP allowed for the event minus the total value of his opponent's surviving fleet at the time of concession. Both players receive any bonus BP already achieved, but any further BP are lost.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sax Carr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nope. I Don't think we need any "prize fixing" rules added to the tournament roster. This just leads to players being bullied by prize minded players who don't want to risk a loss. It also promotes a culture of pricecentricity over what pprizes are for which is rewarding good play and good sportsmanship.

Currently this kinda thing will (and in my mind should) get you banned from most venues. Even if this did change the letter of the rules most venues would just house rule it back bacause it destroys the feel of their venue from a "game store" into a gambling den.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C. E. Freeman
United States
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think collusion would be hard to prove in some cases and if it couldn't be adjudicated fairly for all occurances that could be problematic.

Perhaps if a double elimination bracket was used and the Swiss rounds were eliminated the motivation for collusion would be removed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Payne
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Nope.

First of all your credibility is not on stable ground at the moment, since you are guilty of "collusion" and "fixing the scores" from said tournament.

Any rules changes should come from an independent source that had nothing to do with Littleton or even a WizKids Open. That being said, it even excludes me.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Apo apsis
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Could someone provide a little more detail on what happened at the event? Feels like walking into the middle of a conversation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H. Tucker Cobey
United States
Torrance
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Davitch wrote:
Nope.

First of all your credibility is not on stable ground at the moment, since you are guilty of "collusion" and "fixing the scores" from said tournament.

I did something that was legal, people are unhappy, and I'm proposing a solution. You are literally impossible to please.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bwian, just
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Apoapsis wrote:
Could someone provide a little more detail on what happened at the event? Feels like walking into the middle of a conversation.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1255312/we-are-borg-borg-are...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Payne
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
tsuyoshikentsu wrote:
Davitch wrote:
Nope.

First of all your credibility is not on stable ground at the moment, since you are guilty of "collusion" and "fixing the scores" from said tournament.

I did something that was legal, people are unhappy, and I'm proposing a solution. You are literally impossible to please.


Until you admit that you were ethically and morally wrong and write an exhaustive apology for what you did and the attitude you have taken towards the community here, there will be no end in sight. OR you can disappear from the STAW community and never be heard from again, those are two options that would please me to no end. So, not impossible, just unflinching and resolute.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Val Cassotta
msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Davitch wrote:
Nope.

First of all your credibility is not on stable ground at the moment, since you are guilty of "collusion" and "fixing the scores" from said tournament.

Any rules changes should come from an independent source that had nothing to do with Littleton or even a WizKids Open. That being said, it even excludes me.



To be fair, it shows acknowledgement of a problem (the non-existence of cohesive tournament rules) and an attempt to address it.

While ethically a number of us disagree with what occurred, within the current confines of the game it wasn't a foul.

So, now there is an attempt to put together a set of rules/guidelines for tournament play that would address this issue.

Who knows, maybe if we put together something good enough and toss it over to someone at WKs it might at least spur them to do something.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Anderson
United States
Greer
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Davitch wrote:
Until you admit that you were ethically and morally wrong and write an exhaustive apology for what you did and the attitude you have taken towards the community here, there will be no end in sight. OR you can disappear from the STAW community and never be heard from again, those are two options that would please me to no end. So, not impossible, just unflinching and resolute.


Can you tell me why I should value your opinion more than his? You're demanding a pound of flesh from Tucker. Alternatively you want self imposed banishment?

This accomplishes nothing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Anderson
United States
Greer
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tsuyoshikentsu wrote:
Intentional Draws

At any time during a match in progress, both opponents may agree to an intentional draw result. Both players are awarded exactly 1 BP (equal to a loss, if not using BP) Fleet points equal to the BP limit for fleet construction, including any blind buy BP. If bonus BP are in effect, none are awarded.


A few things here. If we're going to allow draws, then we should remove the battle station roll off, and increase the value of a win to 3 points and value a draw at 1. Also, if we're going to allow an intentional draw, the draw should take place before the match begins. Also, I don't think that allowing an intentional draw generating maximum possible fleet points. An intentional draw should be a 1 point game (more than a loss, less than a win) with half of the possible fleet points.

tsuyoshikentsu wrote:
Conceding

A player may concede to his opponent at any time. This counts as a win for the opposing player and a loss for the conceding player. His opponent receives fleet points as if he had completely destroyed the conceding player's fleet. The conceding player receives fleet points equal to the maximum number of BP allowed for the event minus the total value of his opponent's surviving fleet at the time of concession. Both players receive any bonus BP already achieved, but any further BP are lost.


I've always hated concession rules that seem to penalize the player who concedes a match, or the player whose opponent concedes. I agree that a player should be eligible to concede at any time. Lets face it, there are times when you know you just cant win anymore, and the time left remaining in the round could be better spent doing things to get ready for the next round (eating, bathroom, etc).

The winning player should get a full value victory.
The losing player should get any amount of points they have earned to that point.

Another thing that perhaps should be looked at. When I ran HeroClix events some time ago (before it was NECA), victory points was not only the points you killed, but also the points you have left alive. I know there were reasons within HeroClix to remove this half of the equation, but are those reasons still valid (It promotes aggressive play). Would Attack Wing be better off if there was a surviving fleet score? Would this be a better (and quicker) determinant than Strength of Schedule?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C. E. Freeman
United States
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So does nobody like a double elimination bracket as a solution? No draws, no tie breaker (except for an individual match), no way to gain from collusion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Payne
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Alyksandyr wrote:
Davitch wrote:
Until you admit that you were ethically and morally wrong and write an exhaustive apology for what you did and the attitude you have taken towards the community here, there will be no end in sight. OR you can disappear from the STAW community and never be heard from again, those are two options that would please me to no end. So, not impossible, just unflinching and resolute.


Can you tell me why I should value your opinion more than his? You're demanding a pound of flesh from Tucker. Alternatively you want self imposed banishment?

This accomplishes nothing.


No, you can only base your opinion on the facts that I try to present and thoughts that I put down here. I do not expect you to value my words over anyone elses until I have earned in your eyes that level of respect.

A pound of flesh? Maybe I am coming across a little harsh, but then again his blatant disregard for IMHO ethical play has come across very well in his AAR report in the sessions forum.

As for banishment? No, more of a self imposed moratorium to the subject since I am one of the main protestants against his play at the WizKids Open he was involved in and that I am possibly too close to the subject to be objective.

Do I want to see a rules change, possibly. Do I think we need one? Speaking from an ethical standpoint, I don't see we need one. Speaking from a society that has to have a clarification for everything, most assuredly. Not everyone has the same ethics and morality, so there fore we need to be explicit in what constitutes, in this case, cheating.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Covert
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
tsuyoshikentsu wrote:
Based on some issues that arose from Colorado, I'd like to propose the following additions to the Wizkids tournament rules.

Collusion

Any kind of collusion between opponents to influence match results--including, but not limited to, Battle Points, Fleet Points, randomization of winner/loser, or prizes--is prohibited. The only exceptions are Intentional Draws and Finals Prizes, as listed below.

Intentional Draws

At any time during a match in progress, both opponents may agree to an intentional draw result. Both players are awarded exactly 1 BP (equal to a loss, if not using BP) Fleet points equal to the BP limit for fleet construction, including any blind buy BP. If bonus BP are in effect, none are awarded.

Finals Prizes

Prior to the finals match of an event, both opponents may agree to reallocate prizes on the condition that it not affect the outcome of the finals match. In other words, one player may voluntarily "give up" one of the prizes, but may not attempt to bribe his opponent into forfeiting the match.

Conceding

A player may concede to his opponent at any time. This counts as a win for the opposing player and a loss for the conceding player. His opponent receives fleet points as if he had completely destroyed the conceding player's fleet. The conceding player receives fleet points equal to the maximum number of BP allowed for the event minus the total value of his opponent's surviving fleet at the time of concession. Both players receive any bonus BP already achieved, but any further BP are lost.


Tucker,

As one of the people who questioned your actions in your report on the WKO, let me say thank you for making an attempt to find a solution to what people took issue with. I still don't agree that what you did was legal as you claim, but without clear rules either way, it certainly makes it understandable why you think there is no problem with what you did. I'll also say that it seemed like the whole issue might never have come up if the time limit for the round was not changed mid-round (unless I misread what you were saying), which also should have have been allowed to happen.

My question to you is what is the purpose of the Intentional Draw rule? I get the part about both players taking the equivalent of a loss in this case (to handing out a win or wins unfairly), but the part about both players getting max fleet points for a round seems like it can be gamed. For example, if both players have an single ship, unbreakable attack cancelling build, and both players know they can't win, they might take the draw to get the max fleet points instead of none (which should be a valid concern for anyone running this kind of fleet). Even if you give them half, or the average for the round (like as is done with a bye), you still have the possibility of gaining more fleet points than you should be able to. Yet if you make them both take 0, there is really no incentive to take the draw. Sure, you don't have to roam the map aimlessly until time is called, but at least once time is called, you have a 50/50 chance of winning via roll-off.

Is there some other purpose for this that I am missing? If not, then maybe the rule for a draw is replaced with a provision that at the request of both players (no player should be forced into this against their will), and at the discretion of the TO (who could try to determine if this appears to be a legitimate stalemate, or an attempt to game the system), a game can proceed directly to the roll-off so those two players can at least do something constructive with their time (maybe even play a side game with different fleets to pass the time if they have nothing better to do).

I would also put in a provision in the Concession rules that in games where an extra Battle Point is possible, but has not yet been earned, that the other player would need to approve the concession as the rules are currently written, or would automatically get the extra Battle Point if it is determined that the player still has a reasonable chance of earning it. I've seen players at some of my venues game the extra Battle Point (for example, flying their last ship off the map at Collective OP1 to deny me the extra point for destroying their last ship), and I wouldn't want someone to be denied the opportunity for the extra Battle Point in this way.

I think the other proposed rules look pretty good. The rules for Collusion seem to address the major concerns there, and as long as the outcome of the game is not influenced, I have no problem with people reaching an agreement on handling the final prizes between themselves, and making the agreement enforceable by the TO to prevent the winning player from reneging on the deal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H. Tucker Cobey
United States
Torrance
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Japherwaki wrote:
My question to you is what is the purpose of the Intentional Draw rule?


Coincidentally, on the same day that I posted my AAR, Mark Rosewater (head designer of Magic: the Gathering and a former top-level judge for Magic events) had the following conversation on his tumblr:

http://tmblr.co/ZrlFax1TVSyjh
http://tmblr.co/ZrlFax1TbEvIn
http://tmblr.co/ZrlFax1TYL8BB

I feel that there's little that I could say that would add to that.

Quote:
I would also put in a provision in the Concession rules that in games where an extra Battle Point is possible, but has not yet been earned, that the other player would need to approve the concession as the rules are currently written, or would automatically get the extra Battle Point if it is determined that the player still has a reasonable chance of earning it. I've seen players at some of my venues game the extra Battle Point (for example, flying their last ship off the map at Collective OP1 to deny me the extra point for destroying their last ship), and I wouldn't want someone to be denied the opportunity for the extra Battle Point in this way.


There are two options: making it easier to deny an enemy bonus BP, or making it easier to give a friend bonus BP. Since the community seems to frown on friendly shenanigans, I chose the former.

Alyksandyr wrote:
A few things here. If we're going to allow draws, then we should remove the battle station roll off, and increase the value of a win to 3 points and value a draw at 1. Also, if we're going to allow an intentional draw, the draw should take place before the match begins. Also, I don't think that allowing an intentional draw generating maximum possible fleet points. An intentional draw should be a 1 point game (more than a loss, less than a win) with half of the possible fleet points.


Increasing a win to 3 BPs makes it extremely hard for a player behind in the standings of a storyline event to come back--especially if there are bonus objectives at play. With that said, if you're going to increase it to 3 a draw should be 2 BP with 0 FP. 1 BP with max FP is an attempt to simulate a result halfway between 1 and 2 BP.

Quote:
The winning player should get a full value victory.
The losing player should get any amount of points they have earned to that point.


That is what the rules as currently proposed do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Braden Boe
United States
Sun Valley
California
flag msg tools
mb
It sounds like somebody got Tuckered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tacullu64 wrote:
I think collusion would be hard to prove in some cases and if it couldn't be adjudicated fairly for all occurances that could be problematic.

Perhaps if a double elimination bracket was used and the Swiss rounds were eliminated the motivation for collusion would be removed.


Collusion is invariably hard to catch, but I'm amazed at how often people treat that as a good enough reason for not having rules against it. Same goes for the defenses I've read of MtG's intentional draw rule: "it's hard to prove cases of slow play, so the only thing to do is institutionalize the practice." Then uh why do you so heavily (and unenforceably) regulate the circumstances under which intentional draws can be agreed to?


Okay, yes, if agreeing to fly one's ships off the board for mutual benefit were against the rules, people might still do it. Another thing they might do is just quietly pad their scores at the end by mutual agreement. Note that the latter would actually be easier to get away with, since you don't necessarily have another game happening about twelve inches away from you while you discuss your plan to break the rules. So I guess there's no point in prohibiting score falsification, if determined cheaters are just going to find a way around it.


(That said, I agree that disincentivizing collusion through changes in the tournament format might be the most effective way to go. I've never much been a fan of double elimination, but if we thought it was the sort of change we could successfully lobby for, that might be the best option. Unfortunately, I think the biggest obstacle is getting WizKids to go for such a radical change.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
richard spangle
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
if I may, and understand that I do not fully understand all of what transpired (nor, in truth, do I really wish to-I'm a casual player, who plays in tournament for the "fun," not for the win). I must ask if the absence of a rule dictates that a rule is required. my limited understanding of the game is that it ends when one side is eliminated, or the time expires (at which point the highest points win). should you wish to "concede," would it not make sense to simply fly off the board?

I could no more see new rules needing to be made, as I could requesting that a "brief intermission" be required when I suffer a minor seizure and am forced to leave the area while medication corrects the issue (which has happened once). there is no need for it. fortunes of war or hazards of playing, as it were. it happens, it's a game, we move on.

if I read correctly, you commented about casually tracking each others points (and based on what little I read, seem to have an excellent memory for these ships, and your opponents (and the numeric workings of the tournaments)), that would seem to imply that you knew the possible result when you made your offer to the other gentleman, figured out the math as it were. now, I am in no way intending to make any accusations, and I please to not start a fight, I am just pointing out the curiosity in the situation.

I will step down off my soapbox now. sorry for my irrelevant comments.

BTW-what place did you come in? I missed that detail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
demonllama wrote:
if I read correctly, you commented about casually tracking each others points (and based on what little I read, seem to have an excellent memory for these ships, and your opponents (and the numeric workings of the tournaments)), that would seem to imply that you knew the possible result when you made your offer to the other gentleman, figured out the math as it were. now, I am in no way intending to make any accusations, and I please to not start a fight, I am just pointing out the curiosity in the situation.


Obviously I'm in no position to speak to how much Tucker knew, but I can say that it's typically pretty hard to plan such things out with much precision. For starters, a lot depends on the outcomes of other matches that are still in progress. That said, when you're about to go 2-1, it's reasonably likely that the difference between a low-scoring match and a high-scoring one will make or break you.

So the concern, then, is that the circumstances of allowing "fly-off" concessions can create perverse incentives. In particular, as soon as two players determine that an outcome is clear, they should try to inflate their scores. And if this becomes a common practice, the end result will be that certain matches will be worth much more points to one or both players, but for entirely arbitrary reasons.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
richard spangle
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kobold47 wrote:
So the concern, then, is that the circumstances of allowing "fly-off" concessions can create perverse incentives. In particular, as soon as two players determine that an outcome is clear, they should try to inflate their scores. And if this becomes a common practice, the end result will be that certain matches will be worth much more points to one or both players, but for entirely arbitrary reasons.

and so that, by this example, would indeed be Collusion, which is unethical and poor sportsmanship (IMHO).
but, as I asked, does the issue not become moot since the gameplay rules state until one side is eliminated or time expires? as I understand it, you cannot simply resign or concede the match, so this issue should not (logically) arise. and should two players reach such a point and just "fly defensively" (read: never engage in order to pad their points), then there again we reach that poor behavior do we not?

I would think that such a situation could simply be moderated by the TO, indicating to the players that such gameplay is in poor sportsmanship and should be avoided. thus avoiding the need for more "special rules" to be added to the TO Instructions.

as to the point about points (double?), I have seen in Clix tournaments (of which, I admit, I do not play the game) players go around "politely asking" how people did and what their score is. one such player, who seems to have a great win/loss record in tournaments, I know has a great memory for numbers and is, in all likelihood, calculating his ratios. were he to play STAW, I could easily see him tracking 20 or so players scores.

perhaps I am fortunate in that we have very small tournament each month, with only 12 to 18 players in attendance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Lin
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Generally speaking, in this sort of game, when one player concedes it is usually when they're in a position where they know they can't win. This usually takes place where they might be flying a dreadnaught build, and the dreadnaught is taken out leaving them with a poor chance of victory with the blind.

It can also be done if your opponent has some sort of combo that you know you just can't overcome, although these sorts of scenarios are rare. (But not impossible with things like triple-attack-cancelling)

In all those cases when someone forfeits or concedes the match, they basically give the other player all their points and would only get the points for anything that they did manage to kill (Such as their opponents blind) if at all, as if all their ships had been destroyed.

This 'all or nothing' kind of working for concession/forfeiting a match helps (but does not completely stop) the problem of collusion for stacking points in another players favor, but is at least 'clean' in that you either won or you lost, and you don't have to worry about ties and roll offs that might occur with a tie. (Although realistically you could still 'win' a scenario you might not win against, say, a triple-attack cancel by a long fight involving a lot of flying and dealing out hits against the blinds; but it's difficult and generally not worth the effort, which is why people would concede)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
richard spangle
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SeijiTataki wrote:
...(But not impossible with things like triple-attack-cancelling)...

please forgive my ignorance, but what is Triple-Attack-Cancelling ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
demonllama wrote:
SeijiTataki wrote:
...(But not impossible with things like triple-attack-cancelling)...

please forgive my ignorance, but what is Triple-Attack-Cancelling ?


A build that can repeatedly cancel up to 3 attacks per turn.

Weyoun/Varel/Li Nalas/Crusher/Phlox are likely involved cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Payne
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Wiz Kids beat us to the punch

http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2014/10/24/star-trek-attack-win...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Human Being
msg tools
mb
Bwian wrote:
Apoapsis wrote:
Could someone provide a little more detail on what happened at the event? Feels like walking into the middle of a conversation.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1255312/we-are-borg-borg-are...


Ive read a lot of threads over the years and that was one of the most ridiculous, specifically with the derailing. Tucker could have conceded before dials revealed without knowing whether Voyager was going to fly off the map or not. There's no way to prove collusion. If you want to make top 8, win your games. It's as simple as that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.