Yeah, by that description, he should have gotten a warning for stalling and you shouldn't have gotten anything. Sometimes you can't get a 3 point win, that's understandable. Heck, my game against Gerry and his Superstealth Storm Commandos in round 1 at Kokomo was a 2 point win and I think it's unlikely that I could ever make that a 3 point win on his map (Asteroid Base). You were allowing engagement, though, and obviously were moving up to make that engagement happen. Your opponent was the one failing to engage. You got past the center of the map, so you did your due diligence to engage.

On to the main topic. I was under the impression that whoever won round 5 (Me or Mike) that the winner would get in. Mike won and I thought he was in but shawn came out of left field to sneak into the top 4. Everyone says that is all Tim's doing and that is not accurate.
If I would have won, I would have been in no matter what as I had all 3 pnt victories. If you are not undefeated then you better have all 3 pnt victories to get yourself in. If Mike would have had all 3 pnt victories, it would have been him in. If Shawn would have had all 3 pnt wins, then everyone would have known and seen him coming and it would have come down to a 3pnt win in his final game. And if both mike and him finished with all 3pnt wins then there would have been SoS to get involved. Long story short, Tim can not be blamed for all of this as the whole tourney up to that point had factors (unless Tim was using his Sith Sorcery ever since he walked in the door and his manipulation techniques decided every game played that entire regional to be a 2pnt or 3pnt win. I don't know about you guys, but I don't think Tim has that kind of power, or he would win Gen con every year.

About a thousand, huh? I'm glad someone was keeping count. It's too bad you spent so much time counting the number of posts instead of reading what was actually said. As to your question, "Why?", well I could explain it but let's just say I am a sanctimonious flip-flopper and leave it at that. A year from now that's what you will choose to believe anyway when your memory of the actual response is muddied and faded.

Not to be rude but Shawn really didn't come out of left field. He was 3-1 with all three point victories coming into the final round. His final round was the one where he got his 2pt victory just because of the nature of the match. Shawn just wasn't on the radar of most players well because for the most part he is a relatively unknown player in the national game. The same situation could have been had also for Chris Elwell (the tusken player) if he had beat Shawn in the 4th round.

If it wasn't for the fact that Shawn got three 3pt victories then Mike would have been in the top cut since he had the only win on Shawn.

Completely unnecessary and inappropriate. What's the point in trying to answer a question when it's obvious that everything that I've said on the subject up to this point has been taken completely out of context? (No answer needed - not even another eyeroll smiley. It's a rhetorical question.)

Wow, what is this thread about anymore?

There is so much to respond to that I honestly think with my current schedule and everything going on in my life I would not be able to address everything before GenCon . . . 2013

Where to start? So many misconceptions of intent and/or the situation as a whole.

I am sure I will bounce around on topics a bit - sorry, I'm a bit ADD anyway.

So many personal attacks on me that were somehow rationalized as not personal attacks by the one who delivered them. I will try hard not to stoop to that level. (I am only human though, and the level of this is asinine)

It's interesting that so many people are up in arms that weren't even there. They are battling a theoretical monster that doesn't even exist. (Lol, I just realized how funny that statement is considering we are all SWM players)

I do have a lot to say, and it may not all even get said. At least not here.

I guess I should start by saying these things:

It has been said that I purposefully lost the match so that I wouldn't have to face Mike G in the semis. This is not true. (I was shocked when he didn't make the finals.)

It has also been said that I purposefully lost the match to help Jake make the finals
This is also not true. (Jake was 3-1 with 9 pts going into the final round, he would have made the finals if he won regardless of the outcome of ANY other match in the last round of the tournament, much less the outcome of mine.)

I have no doubt that certain people will choose to not believe me on the points I just made above, and if that is the case, we are simply at an impasse.

So - the conversation can continue with anyone accepting the above statements

Regardless of what anyone says, I have a very good sense of personal and gaming ethics. Anyone who knows me well will attest to that. People who think otherwise obviously don't know me well.

I have a rhetorical question that I will pose to the community. Let's say you were to sit down across the table from a kid. A kid who had done really well that day, and was one step away from making the final 4, after you are already guaranteed in. He sits across from you dejected and already feeling defeated because he thinks he can't beat you. You encourage him to play, and you play fast and ridiculous just to see what happens. He wins. Is this cheating? Even if you downright let him win, to try and encourage him to keep playing and never give up, is this cheating? Is this really a bad set of morals? What if you simply conceded? What would this be viewed as then? Many will say that this is not the best way to encourage a kid, and they are probably right - but that is a whole different conversation.

I have been told more times than I can count that the only way to guarantee your way into the final 4 is:
A. Go undefeated (or 1 loss for the GenCon top 8)
-or-
B. Lose no more than 1 game (2 in the GenCon top 8) with NO 2 pt wins. (This is the case since the 3/2 system started)

You might still make it otherwise, but if you meet the previous criteria you WILL make it.

Fact: Everyone that went 4-1 with only one or less 2 pt win (in other words 11 or more points) made the finals at the 2012 Star Wars Miniatures Kokomo Regionals.

I was literally bummed that Mike didn't make the final 4. He's a great guy and a really good player. I would have relished the chance to face him.

Had he won just a single additional 3 pt victory that day (he had two 2 pt victories), he would have made the final 4. No matter what the outcome of my final match ended up as.

Regardless, as I said before, I was sincerely surprised to see him not get in. Clearly I wasn't trying to avoid facing him, since I assumed I would be facing him.

On another note, a thick level of hypocrisy is apparently rampant in the SWM community.



I was going to try and not mention specific names, or specific instances from the past, but it seems impossible in this situation.

Coincidentally, a related issue to what is being accused here happened at the 2010 Kokomo regionals.

Jason Alvey conceded to let his friend and gaming partner Brandon Pyle win in the Swiss rounds so that Brandon could have a better chance of making the finals. I know this because Jason literally told me this is what he did directly, and that this was his intention.

Of course Brandon lost again and neither made the final 4, so it wasn't really examined closely.

I would personally argue that it was in his rights to do, but according to what some people have posted that would be bracket/pairing manipulation and cheating.

I respect the opinions of a lot of different people in this community. I thank those rational thinkers who defended my integrity. I put a lot of stock into the opinions of people who I consider to be intelligent, understand the game on a deep level, and are still active in competitive play. If you aren't even active in competitive play anymore, frankly you don't contribute anything valid to this conversation. There are certain people that miss on all three points, and it's just a waste of space to have them type anything. I will ignore any posts made by those people.

Furthermore, I will say this about the strategy of losing on purpose. It is a bad strategy. There are simply too many variables to be able to accurately predict the outcome. I have actually thought about this quite a bit. It is a strategy I would implore people not to use for many reasons, the least of which being community fallout.

I can guarantee this. If you face me at Wisconsin Regional - no mercy. If you are paired against me at Danville Regional - I will make every human attempt to crush you. At GenCon, even if you are a little kid playing for the first time, I will probably make you cry as I kill every one of your pieces. The community can make any rule that they want related to what they think happened (even though making a rule preventing this is preposterous and virtually impossible). Losing on purpose is not a strategy that I will be employing, therefore it won't effect me.

I will come back to this but I need to attend to more important matters such as babies being born.

So I'll be the first to say it, since this really does beg the question: Why DID you do it? I'm genuinely curious. These two things have been suggested because they're the most likely answers. I guess you could have done it just to get Wes in the top 4, but if that were the case why didn't you give him a full win? I can't really think of another good reason.

And as for your hypothetical match against the kid who needs to win to get in: Yes, I think it's poor sportsmanship to intentionally lose to him, too. I've already made my point that intentionally losing screws up the entire tournament, regardless of the reason you're doing it. It doesn't matter if you're doing it to let a young kid into the top 4 to make him happy, doesn't matter if you're doing it to get your buddy into the top 4, doesn't matter if you're doing it to get an easier match in the top 4, doesn't matter if you're just doing it on a whim. If you conceded the game because you were hungry and just didn't want to play the last match, yeah, that's bad sportsmanship, too. It causes people to be treated unfairly by either letting people into the top 4 or keeping people out of it for reasons completely outside of their control. Again, I don't think this is something judges should be able to hand out DQ's for as it's just my personal ethics, but that's my opinion on it.

This makes more sense now, but it doesn't change the fact that it could happen. I completely agree that is really difficult to enforce. I still propose adding the following:

616. End-of-Match Procedure
A match ends when:
1. a player meets the victory condition, or
2. the match time limit runs out, or
3. no side takes damage, makes an attack roll, or makes a saving throw for 5 complete rounds.
3a. In the case of a match ending in this way, the judge may award a 3 point win if the initiating player is the eventual loser of the match.

I think this will really invalidate any future complaints of manipulation. It is judge's discretion, so if the judge felt that the initiating player lost because a 3 point win would put their opponent(friend) into the finals then he won't do it. It does however, protect the opponent from being maliciously handed a 2 point win or finding a way to avoid a lockout victory on the initiators part.

I didn't know Shawn had all 3pnt victories. I appoligise if I overlooked him that was not of intent and I don't overlook any player based on where their from, weather that be Danville, Atlanta, Michigan, Chicago, or even Mars. It probably should have been me vs Shawn in round 5 then as we had same record and same points and as far as I know nobody else did

I completely respect this statement. (Made by an intelligent person? Check! Made by a player who understands the game on a deep level? Check! Made by a player currently active in competitive play? Check!) In fact I actually agree with it.

The big thing here is that you are consistent. I really believe that you have to be all or none on this. And people saying that it is OK to concede but not OK to play the game and lose is ridiculous.

I also respect the opinion of players like Bill (Made by an intelligent person? Check! Made by a player who understands the game on a deep level? Check! Made by a player currently active in competitive play? Check!) Who thinks that any of the above are fine. Once again - consistent.

I completely respect this statement too. (Made by an intelligent person? Check! Made by a player who understands the game on a deep level? Check! Made by a player currently active in competitive play? Check!) In fact I actually agree with it.

I am actually totally fine with this. Hard to determine, and probably won't come up ever again - but why not have it in there.

This +1. Hopefully, it protects anyone else that ever finds themself in Tim's predicament as well.

The phrase "initiating player" is tricky. Why not just:
3a. In the case of a match ending in this way, the judge may award a 3 point win at their discretion.

You're already putting it in the hands of the judge, so why not leave out the tricky wording?

In Shawn's case, apparently one of his games was entered incorrectly. That was why there was a bit of a hold up between the last round and the finals. He wasn't listed at 3-1 with nine points when the last round was paired up. That may be why you thought he came out of left field on this one.

I am remiss for not adding this to my initial post:

I realize this is a divisive issue, and whether you look at it as it was first presented or as it actually happened, it seems there are still people with differing viewpoints on the topic.

I want to give an apology to the community for being at the nexus of this storm, and involved in the match that caused all the controversy.

I am sincerely sad that focus got taken away from excellent gameplay by many individuals, and a really kick-@$$ Regional tournament run very well by Les and Bryan.

Take the time to give them props, they deserve it.

So - Sorry community. Let's all work to make this game continue for a long time!

Let's turn this into something productive by seeing if we can prevent the worst case scenario that many people came up with. I am all for that.

Hooray Star Wars Miniatures!

Indeed it is, see my case for that point waay back on page two when I initially brought this up. I think those cases will be rare though, and I need some kind of clarifier for the intent. I don't want people to think they can kill lobot in a non-finals game, lock out the player and demand three points simply because they could have won wholeheartedly from that point on.

For what it's worth, I accept you at your word.

Regardless of whatever else you may or can say about me and my comments (even under the guise of carefully avoiding referring to me in your rebuttal attacks to what you view as personal slights), we only had the word of your opponent to go on, and while I understand you had actually important issues going on that take precedence (as they should), this simple paragraph was all that would have been needed to stop the conversation before it even began. I frequently stated that the entire scenario was based on the words of your opponent from that game, and that is regrettable - as is the fact that your absence from the discussion only fueled the fire.

I'll be the first to apologize for the misunderstanding, and the quick assumption that what your opponent said was true. However, perhaps you may want to consider why others were so quick to believe it. I will leave that for you to ponder, and offer nothing else on this subject (as apparently, my opinion about competitive play doesn't matter since my venue gave up the game many months ago save for regionals).

I also have far more pressing matters in my life than a debate over a reportedly fictious event.

Then we can lay all this silly debate to rest