Various people got it, but for clarity I'll reexplain it myself (as punishment for knowingly doing a halfway job the first time... )

(0-3-0=6) if you go 3-0 but all go to tiebreakers you have 6 points.
(2-0-1=6) so a person whose 2-1 with both wins and a loss (or tiebreak loss!) can also catch you with 6 and potentially beat you depending on SOS.

(2-1-0=8) or take a more realistic case where an 3-0 player gets one of the wins via tiebreak for 8 points.
(1-2-0=7) while another undefeated player has one more tiebreak win for only 7 points potentially changing the order regardless of further tiebreakers like SOS.

It has huge implications for something like Gencon top 8 not so much in who places first in the top 8 of swiss (this has always been a bragging rights only kind of thing) but in which 8 people actually make it with very strong chances of 5-2's passing 6-1's if not the 7-0.

And again I don't really disagree with the premise. I've said it before a million times but I'd rather lose a game of SWM than "win" half a game of SWM. Nothing bugs me more than only getting to play 10-15 minutes of the hour and then not even finishing. But within that, I do still see the strong counterarguments.

1) If you're losing early, there's an active disincentive to actually trying to finish without intentional (to the level of proven) stalling. (Scoring the loser with 0 either way hurts, though doesn't destroy, the core concept of incentive base scoring to prevent slow play.)
2) Judges gain an extra burden.
3) We need additional clarification for how concessions are scored and allowed. (For example if concessions are just counted as a full victory I envision players early in a game aggreeing to both play at a laggardly pace and then whoever's behind 42-55 with 1 minute to play will concede.)

(Some will also argue that it will create a culture of ratting out slow play to judges, but that one doesn't bother me so much. Slow play has been tolerated too long and peer pressure and an understanding that the game discourages such practices will pay off in the end. (Win or lose, people have more fun in my experience when the game is moving along and the increase mistakes that come with that are just accepted as part of the game with mistake reduction becoming a skill worth learning.))

What i do not like about the Gambit changes is that Rapport takes a hit. It should take printed points into consideration rather than ingame points. That would still lower the amount of Minis that can collect Gambit.
I just do not think that Rapport should have a negative effect on the player using it.

Other than that i think it sounds great. Will have to wait for everything to be in writing to make a final comment.

Rgards Sinister

I like the 2/3 victory point rule.

Actually Jason in my opinion it makes the judges job easier.

No longer is the judge trying to decide if slow play warrannts a game loss. He just needs to decide if slow play should be called and the player awarded a full victory.

Concessions are full 3 point wins.

What is not a 3 point win is a lockout. A lockout victory will be a decision made by the player doing it whether or not he wants to forfeit that point. If his squad is much weaker then it is a easy decision. If his squad is stronger but maybe his opponent is better player than again it might be worth it. It will now be a decision that could have later effects.

Ah yes, I got you Jason. And as expected, I agree with what you said. There is one piece you are missing. The first tie breaker in tournament placing is most wins I believe. So in your example of the 3-0 and 2-1 guys each scoring 6pts, the 3-0 wins, not SoS. Dean can confirm, but that was the way I believe he wrote it.

Here's my philosophy on it. A score of 35-55 for example, doesn't really tell me who would have won the game if it hadn't gone to time. A score of 150-85 does. Under the current system, both of these are equal. So let's think about a Gencon size tournament and the 5-2s.

In the past three years, 2 5-2s out of something like 10-12 have made the top 8 each year. So we have been using SoS to break those ties. Under the new system, a 5-2 could pass the 7-0 possibly, and the 6-1s and can most certainly distance him/herself from the others with points.

A 5-2 who finishes all 5 wins fully, would get 15 pts. For the 7-0 to beat him, they need to finish one game. A 7-0 who doesn't finish a single game to me is clearly slow playing, and if they suffer a loss of position because of it, it's their own fault.

Now, a 6-1 would need to finish 3 games to beat the 5-2 who finished all 5 of his. That's 1/2 of your wins. And again, the 6-2 wins on the tie in points against the 5-2. I believe a 5-2 who has definitive wins has shown more than a guy/girl who only had 3/6 definitive wins.

Remember, a tie breaker win, is simply that. A tie. the 6-2 in this case tied 3/6 games, and we have no real idea who was going to win his games. He chose to go to tie breakers. One game where he plays a slow player cannot affect this. 2 games cannot. But 4 games can. So this guy, if he is really becoming a victim, needs to learn to call the judge.

Another interesting possibility is that a 4-3 guy could make the top 8 next year, although with the usual number of 5-2s, I really doubt it will ever happen. The odds are extremely low. A 4-3 would need 4 full wins, so 12pts, and would have to have 8-9 of the 5-2s score less than 2 full wins each - so effectively it's 0% chance.

The chances of a 6-1 not making the top 8 are slim to none, and everyone playing will know they need to finish 3 of their wins before time in order to prevent losing a spot. The only real difference are which 5-2s make the top 8, and the current system, simply awards the people with the higher SoS, which as we all know, is out of the control of the player, and has as many flaws as anything - for example drops and so on. In the new system, a 5-2 who finished 4 games will beat one who only finished 2. That to me is totally fair. And everyone going in knows the rules. You can control to a large degree if you finish most of your games or not. You cannot control who the computer matches you up with.

The idea here, is that this will help change the culture. No longer will people have 0 motivation to finish games. There is now a very good reason to try to do so. Anyone making a good effort, will not be penalized, because 1 game out of 3/4 isn't enough. Its the people who consistently play to tie breakers that will be effected, which are the people who slow play regularly as well.

Concessions are full wins as well. And a judge has the power to award a full win at any time they deem necessary.

And a side effect on the judges, is that it actually became really really easy to determine stalling vs slow play under this system. The hardest part has always been trying to judge intent, and judges don't want to DQ people. But now it's pretty easy. The game is clearly in hand, the winning player has already called a judge for it before, and is calling again. The judge doesn't have to watch the whole game, doesn't need to read the mind of the opponent, and can simply look at the board, see the slow player has run away and has almost 0 chance at winning, and award the full win right then and there. If this happens again with the same slow player, the judge should have a pretty clear indication that he is stalling on purpose, and can DQ him.

I think most of the changes are going to be good. Some of them probably should have been implemented a long time ago. I'm not sold on the points concept for games that go to time.

If you think a game is going to go to time, call a judge IMMEDIATELY, especially if this new rule is put into effect.

Personally, I think it penalizes people who face opponents on the learning curve (newer/less experienced players who need time to read their opponents' cards or check LOS constantly because they are unfamiliar with the map) or opponents who strive for a points lead then go into full retreat. I can pull out a win against a player like that but then time is called anyway, so even though I won the other player was the one who slowed the pace of the game.

Or its a game like Jason Alvey and I once played where he had tempo control on me but I had the points lead and so I had to position carefully to prevent him from bum-rushing me at the end of each round. Both of us played according to the rules and no one stalled, but there just wasn't any action during the game. Basically this rule is forcing me to run right up to him and then sit and watch as he cuts down all my pieces before I get a chance to respond. To me, that's almost worse than the current problem with games going to time.

I still say Gambit is the problem in conjunction with the maps that have been designed in the last couple of years. The "hit, save, damage" concept hasn't really helped matters, either.

Nah, you would simply collect your 2 points for that win, as one game will not effect your total rank in almost all cases. Its always still better to get the win, even by 2pts. Now, late in a tournament, if you already have 4 timed wins, you go into that game knowing you likely need to finish it to make the top 8. I think that's a case that is more than fair. And I think that's the key with this system here. It doesn't overly punish anyone for one particularly problematic case. It only starts to punish you when a trend starts to develop with you.

Could a person face 4 straight tough opponents who give him no chance to finish? Sure it's possible, but in most cases, I would still put the onus on that player. And further, that player has motivation to actually call the judge on slow play the moment they realize they might not have a chance to finish with a full win based on their opponent's play speed. I see that as a positive. I have no trouble finishing my games with 90% of my opponents, good players or otherwise. I know others can learn to do it with proper motivation. This is the motivation. This is attempting a changing of the culture, and it's a very tough nut to crack.

We all know the ideas, these have been around for years since Boris first brought up the problem in 2006 before Gencon. This solution isn't new either, it's simply a slight modification of what Nickname suggested years ago. And when you look at it, the potencial problems are much less than the current system. I think it's a beautiful solution and considering the complexity of the issue, I am quite impressed with how well I think it will actually work.

And I will just add this to what Dennis said about facing the "new player". One game does not change outcomes. If you face said player and win on time, 1 pt isn't going to hurt you, even in a small event. Could you end up finishing below another player with the same record who finished all of his games? Sure, it's possible. But you could on the SoS system as well, and likely would have, because the new player wasn't going to help you anyway. If people have real questions, I suggest you try it a few times before the change and see what it really changes in your ranks locally. Then think about those ranks that do change honestly, and decide if it's really less fair, equally fair, or more fair.

I was an opponent of this idea years ago, and really until Gencon of this year. I've come around, particularly because the math on a 3/2 scoring system works out better than a 2/1 system that I always used before. I went through a bunch of scenarios and to me, the system shows a more fair presentation of who really deserved to finished higher than SoS alone was able to provide, even in small events. In the past, playing the new player in a 10 person 3 round event where two people finish 3-0 usually lost your first place. Not a big deal, we are all use to it, and just laugh when it happens. Now you actually have a chance of finishing 1st instead. That's an improvement, not a detriment of the new system.

Maps was to be expected.
Not a fan of the Gambit change at first, but I am liking it now. Adds some more strategy, which is always good.
A big fan of timed wins. As Bill said, it will help change the culture.
All in all, this has really invigorated my interest in competetive SWM. Bring on Regionals.

I really like how the Full Win/Timed Win dynamic looks. I wonder if we might try it out in our Vassal Tournament this Saturday (Nov 21)? Or we could at least take a look at how the final standings would look according to both the present (old) system and the new system. Either way, this seems like a helpful change for the competitive game.

I do have a question about Slow Play, then: Will the Slow Play 'Guidelines' proposed in September of this year be showing up in the floor rules? As already mentioned in this thread, it seems like these scoring rules will be a big step towards addressing the community's slow play mindset; so far I haven't read anything about the Guidelines, but I thought I'd ask for clarification.

The maps are a natural and obvious choice, and I'm happy about the change. And judging from the discussion in September, I'm also happy to see the change to gambit.

All in all, I'm excited to see the impact of these changes to DCI play.

I do agree that's it better than doing nothing, and to be honest I think everyone knows how much I HATE the Swiss system, for multiple reasons that go all the way back to my days playing Magic. This will just be another component of that frustration about Swiss and is nothing personal against any particular person.

Take Coolecticon for example. I went 3-1 in the main event and finished in 6th place. I had 2 games go to time, and in both cases my opponent had tempo control and I did not. They were not playing slow, they just weren't sure about their moves at the end of the rounds. In one of my games I completely controlled the center of the map, but 10 x5 only equals 50 points. No way I can reach the build total in that situation. Additionally, I really had no reason to call a judge for anything like slow play or stalling. Standing on the back line doing nothing with more than half one's pieces is not stalling.

Anyway, under this new system, I would not have even finished 6th, and IMO through no fault of my own (aside from the one loss, of course).

In the Tile Wars event the night before, I got paired down EVERY game after the first one. I also finished 3-1 in that event and wound up in something like 4th or 5th. That really doesn't have anything to do with the new proposed points system, but I figured while I'm griping about Swiss I'd throw that in.

The more I think about it, maybe tempo control is the problem.

I wouldn't mind one bit if tempo control was eliminated from the game.

Have to move 2 each phase? May as well get right to the bloodshed

EDIT: Sorry for multiposting--gamers edit window gets all screwy for me if I try to type a long post.



Fair enough. I wouldn't say it's an unreasonable position, but I think the opposite will end up being more common. Right now, few complain about slow play. There are people who it drives nuts, but ultimately, it's accepted as "just how the game is" during the game itself. That will no longer be the case. Every game that is proceding slowly will get someone calling for a judge to clarify whose "fault" it is should it later be necessary to determine 3 vs 2 or worse, hard feelings when a judge isn't called midgame and a player gets 2 from his own inaction even if it isn't deserved (in his opinion--personally I won't have much sympathy).



This leads to the gentleman's agreement issue. People will concede with 30 seconds left in a 50-40 game knowing their opponent will do the same for them should the situation be reversed and we solve nothing. It'll become common practice and people will argue that it's fair just like people argue slow play is fair now. It's within the rules. And a judge who tries to make an intent call that this is abuse of the system will get an earful even if he's right.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Lockouts always reach 150 typically through concession, but if someone forced it you could spin every figure for as many rounds as it takes to complete the game in under 5 minutes.

Ah, you're right--if accurate, that's not how I understood it. So mine and Jonny's first examples aren't correct and I think your original examples too if I remember correctly. (I think they were all about undefeated's vs players with fewer wins.) I'm not really sure if that's better or worse (leaning toward slightly worse? ) but it's not really relevent to mine or Jonny's point.

Jonny (as I interpret it) thinks it won't have much real impact on the ranking and I think it will have a ton even if it's just among the 5-2s for example. There will clearly be some 5-2s that finish all their games under the new system. That means if you don't finish one early you're almost certainly out of the top 8.

@Dennis - You are right, some of things will still be issues, but as you said, this is better than what we currently have. Any more drastic change would have been met with greater resistance. I would still argue that your opponent's were playing too slow, but that's not really the major issue. In the current system, that "deliberate" play is just fine and faces no penalties. In the future, that person will know ahead of time, they are forcing a 2 pt win rather than a 3 by playing that way. I think people will learn to speed up even unconsciously because of that.

@Trever - By all means, try it on Sat. In particular do the comparison to the reporter and see if it makes sense. Regarding the guidelines, all that is happening is that timed wins are now clearly listed as a tie breaker, so there should be no more creative reading of the floor rules to argue that they are not. The guidelines will be published on the RAC at some point and that's where it will end for now.

Ah, well think of this. Someone could conceded obviously, and the "gentleman's agreement is perfectly legal, even if it is skirting the rules a bit. At the very least however, is that one of the players can not agree to it. And further, agreeing to such a thing, would technically be intent to slow play, which by the rules, is stalling, and therefore worthy of a DQ. If someone tried that with me, I would be tempted to call the judge then and there and report it. But even in cases where one player doesn't want to do that, obviously they don't have to agree to it at all. So if someone who doesn't like slow play faces one of these guys, they are under no obligation to agree. IF two slow players want to do it, I see it as the same thing as two buddies agreeing to give the win to the one with the best shot at winning. It's legal, they can do it if they want to, and I don't think I would care that much personally if I weren't involved in that game.

To the lockout issue. It isn't a full win unless one of the opponents can get to the build total by the end of the 10 rounds. So if the score is not 100 to something when the lock out occurs, and gambit is secured, it will be a 2 pt win. That's what Dean was referencing. Obviously someone can still concede early if they want to. I wouldn't

It's a common perception but I don't know how. The simple fact that you have to make no concessions for what your opponent might do should be quicker regardless. There's fewer variables to consider no matter how you cut it. I think there's a perception to one's opponent that it's slower because you sit and wait a bunch all at once, but it really should be faster than those same moves spread out over typical phases.

No one says that out activating one's opponent slows the game down. This is just a more extreme version of it.

There's some truth to the fact that the increased offensive lethality of today's game creates so much caution that the game is slower. A minor placement mistake today can be much more damning than it was back in the RS/CS days.

(Note that I cut out one small part of the post because I don't really disagree with the broader points about that anecdote being a good example of what often happens--just that conclusion about why.)

Well as I said, I believe that's what he went with. I'll let Dean confirm the actual order for certain.

And yes, that is correct. The biggest impact on Gencon will be in the 5-2s. My personal feelings are this. When we are choosing between roughly 8 different players for two slots, I want the guys who played the game out as much as possible. I'm not sure I foresee a norm of 2 of those guys finishing all 5 of their wins under time however. But if we did, how great would that be! I would love it if making the top 8 at Gencon was dictated by finishing your games! I finished 4/6 this year (and my loss was complete as well). I don't think we will see enough people in the mid rounds finishing every game. If you are undefeated or 1 loss you still pretty much guarantee a top 8 by winning out, even on points. But the moment you get that second loss, you darn well know you better finish your games. I think that's good motivation and if it gets to a point where 4-5 people in the 5-2s have all 5 games finish the system worked perfectly!!!!

After all, let's not forget. A game that goes to time gives a winner, but not a true winner. A 10-10 victory, like I had over James Naegle this year in the final round is great and all, but by no means would I ever argue that the game was a decisive victory for me. Had we played it out, it just as easily could have gone his way. Should I have been in the position of being tied with someone else who finished their game, I have no problem admitting that this other player deserved to be in ahead of me. I did not win all of my games fully, and they did. That is much more fair than the current system that awards that spot to the guy who luckily got paired with tougher opponents, or those who didn't drop, and all that other stuff.

Point is, ties always have to be broken. I understand this will have different issues. The question at it's heart is what is more fair? I believe this system is much more fair as I as a player have much more control over it. Even with the situations where you can get screwed by a slow opponent accepted, its still more fair than the current system where you are much more screwed by one opponent who drops. That's my feelings on it anyway.

Regarding gentleman's agreement, my fear is such a situation will become institutionalized and the change will have virtually no impact. You and I and a dozen others with a real distaste for slow play will still play fast. And everyone else will still play slow with the gentleman's agreement to concede if necessary. And we're right where we are now regarding actual and accepted play speed of the average player.



Got it! Combined with the 10 round inactivity rule. I overlooked that. Net win here. A real positive that you have to get within 50 points of the build total before you get a 3 point lockout win via gambit and can't get it all really without gambit.

Please note that no where have I said I'm opposed to this particular change. So I'm just discussing what I consider the weaknesses, but I'd say I'm leaning toward it being a borderline improvement, if not a black and white one. (What really holds it back to me is that the loser doesn't get 1 point for a complete game and 0 for a tiebreaker loss so the incentives cut both ways. Probably a Reporter scoring issue though.)

Ah crap, I see what you are saying. If too many start doing it, we have an issue of falsified data, and worse, collusion. I guess the answer will be that if cannot be tolerated if its being done on purpose. I think you leave that to the judge. If someone wants to concede a 179-25pt 200pt game, I think there is no issue at all. If its a 50-48 game, we have an issue.

Let's see what Dean says about it. I agree, if done excessively this could be a problem. Again, no more than the other ways to abuse Swiss that Dennis has mentioned over the years, but a potencial problem nonetheless.

I think the solution to it is actually rather straightforward. Concessions require judge notification and aren't necessarily worth 3 points. So if you concede in 15 minutes after Boba disintegrates your Darth Bane it's pretty clear to a judge that the reason for conceding is that you have no hope and it's pointless to play it out even though you could. And conversely, a concession at 59 minutes the judge will walk over, see the score is 26-18 and tell the players they can but it's only worth 2 points to the victor since it's pretty clearly going to be an incomplete game. We're back to a bit of judge's discretion here, but it should be an easy one for a judge to pick out--concessions in the last 5 minutes are WAY suspect.

The changes sound good.

Concessions being full point wins might cause tension towards the end of a match.

e.g.
"well i'm ahead by xx and you need can't make the those points up so you should be a good bloke and conceed."
"screw that you stalled your way to win you slow-playing arse. Have your two point victory and like it, scumbag!"
"i think its time to settle this dispute in the parking lot, have at you, you cad and bounder! here is a D20 for your eye."
"Ow, you rotter, i'm proficient at Queensbury rules, i'll have you know!"

Fisticuffs commences.

Serisoulsy though, It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in tourneys. It seems to make more difference in smaller tourneys when your wins are a larger %age of your total.

I'm a bit worried about lockout wins and the tensions they will cause. Your locked out with 30 mins to go, do you sit there and spin figures for 30 minutes with your opponent glaring at you hoping that he will attack you for the extra points giving you a chance? I guess any deterent to wining by means other than engagement is good. Personally i would prefer lock out wins to be auto 2 point wins regardless of the points difference. It just takes the confrontation out of the game and puts it between the players otherwise.

Maps fine

Reinforcement changes - awesome. Lobot will still be used for activation advantage but at least you don't get activation advantage AND free gambit.
Great rule

Well done Lads.