WacoBlaze wrote:
I, like some people at our regional, were not entirely sure how the system is to be applied. I totally get how the system is to be scored now, but there is a great deal of confusion about it in the community rest assured. I guarantee I will be vigilant about how myself and others are scoring games from now on...several of us are going to Michigan's regional and I will ask that the system be explained before the event begins so the entire room will know how we are scoring.
It is important to get the community to understand the 3-2 system, and I feel equally important to be sure some do not cheat the system by agreeing to a conclusion and point total that is not consistent with the rules that are in place. I think it would be great if the map, minis and damage markers were left in place just as the game ended and the judge called over to examine it...primarily for those reporting 3 point wins before or after the 30 minute mark. Simply having both players report it is not sufficient in my opinion and no exceptions should be made for any player known or unknown in the community.
One note of clarification, I was not concerned that some would take a 2 point win over a 3 to pair themselves down, but that someone would take a 3 point win instead of a 2 pointer thereby enhancing their chances of advancing when said advancement was still uncertain (early rounds).
I know there is wide-spread confusion, which is why I made this thread. I do think it's a good idea to have it explained before every tournament, so everyone is on the same page.
I brought up the whole issue at Kokomo when it was clear that people were reporting 3 pt wins when it should be a 2 pt win. I will say I honestly didn't think anyone was purposefully cheating - I just don't think it was clear to many people how it was supposed to be specifically ruled. I think many were under the misconception that a 3 pt win was awarded when there would be an obvious winner if the game were completed, even though the point total was not reached in time.
The reason I brought up someone reporting a 2 pt win when a 3 pt win was earned, is because someone actually said that to me. To be fair I think it was a hypothetical comment as opposed to an actual strategy. It was in round 4 of the Kokomo Regional, and the way it played out was that I was the only 3-0 at that point, and therefore guaranteed into the finals. In fact - it ended up that the 4 finalists were 3-1 or better, while all the 2-2s missed the finals. So I faced someone who was 2-1, and had to beat me to make the finals. Well, our teams did not match up well (to my advantage) and he said, "Man, I should have gotten a 2 pt win last round, and then I would have been paired with someone else". Which is probably true, and had he won that last game vs someone else, he would have made the finals and bumped someone else out. Once again - I think it was a theoretical hindsight comment, and not an actual strategy to employ. Of course as it turned out, points meant nothing at this tournament, since only record ended up mattering. Obviously in other situations it could make a big difference.
I was a bit confused when I heard talk of the system being manipulated. The system actually takes all cases into account quite well in my opinion, and the tricky situations will come down to a judges decision, as it should. So if the system is followed, it has built in counters to manipulation. The case that you brought up is not following the system at all.
Now this is not to be confused with someone being determined to finish games. I have personally focused on making that a goal for myself. I will even say to my opponent at the beginning of a match, "I am determined to finish this game, win or lose. I want us both to play at a speed where that will happen." This will result in a 3 point win either way. That's not manipulation, that's actually the goal of this system.
There was even a situation at Kokomo where 2 players were playing, and I had finished early, so I was watching. There was 10 minutes left in the game, and one player conceded to the other. It was clear that the conceding player would have lost, but it was still gonna take a couple rounds to mop up the rest of the 200 pts. I informed them that it wouldn't automatically be a 3pt win unless they finished, since it was past the 30 minute mark. They both felt it should be a three point victory, so I encouraged them just to finish the game. This way there was no question, no ambiguity. They did finish under time and it was a 3 pt victory nobody could argue with.
I have also seen another strategy employed, which you may be referring to, which is actually impossible to stop. And that is where someone wants to concede after the 30 minute mark, and doesn't want it to come down to a judge's decision. So they run all their pieces at the opponent to get slaughtered. If someone wants to do that, they can, there is no way to prevent it. If they do this and finish before time is up, then it's a 3 pt win. Not ideal, I don't like it, but it's how it works. At Chicago Regionals, I had several matches (vs Ben in the semis, and vs Jason in the finals) where they fought to the last man standing. I actually had respect for how they fought to the end. No concession, no running and hiding - just trying to play quickly and as best as you can in a bad situation. They didn't run and hide and try and give me a 2 point win when it was obvious the victory was mine. They kept trying to hurt me any way they could. Jason still came after me when it was only his Jabba and Thrawn vs most of my squad. He didn't stop until I reached 200 pts. That's how the game is meant to be played. I personally hate concessions, but you can't prevent them. I encourage everyone play out the game until time is called or the point total is reached. Every time. You're there to play minis, right?