I lost a regional match on time by a very small point margin.
I was slow in positioning my pieces but I got faster later.
My opponent started fast but then got slower towards the end.
I felt like my opponent was stalling, but I didn't have the heart to calling over the judge,
because I had played so slowly at the start of the game.
At that time calling a judge over would be accusing my opponent of cheating.
Which was difficult to prove, and typically resulted only in a warning.

The upcoming changes make calling over a judge less dramatic and confrontational.
It will be easier for judges and players because now no one needs to be accused of cheating.
You can just say, "judge it doesn't look like we will be finishing our game.."
Then judges can decide what points to award or if they want to warn /DQ certain players.

Great discussion.

I have an idea about how to promote the battle. I call it "The Incredibly Shrinking Map". It goes like this.

For each round, the last legal row of the map on each side is now illegal as a final movement location (except for non-movable pieces: emplacement and speed 0). A piece can move through the illegal zone, just not FINISH their movement in the zone or it is removed from the map like defeated but not defeated (no self-destruct).

After 10 rounds, pieces can only occupy the central 14 rows of the (usual-sized) map. Can't have much more promotion than THAT.

Comments?

Overall that change changes how the game has been played even before DCI. I think its too big of a change. I think the Maps are too big and should of been small to start out with. That is why I like Starship even if some people hate the map.

First of all, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. At the outset I'd also like to thank Dean and Jim for their work on this, and all of you involved in this discussion for exploring possible exploitive scenarios. This is especially important to me as a T.O. and a judge at a new regional event in MD in 2010. Implementing the new system in a major event may become more problematic for a judge. I agree with Ray's statement here:

Now, as a major event judge, I am torn. I think it adds a new level of fairness to the player who really wants to win by finishing, but each judge may look at a situation differently and might decide to give a full 3 point win instead of a 2 point win which the next judge might decide. It could lead, in a few cases, to even more issues, but, honestly, if it is the third round after an hour, then it should be an easy thing to say, "Okay, this is a two point win." However, if I have been called over multiple times by the winner saying his opponent is stalling, then it will be a 3 point win for sure. It is a great thing, but will put a bit more responsibility on the judges, which is fine with me. I do not look forward to using this rule at all, but it will not be something I will shy away from, either.

I feel that a judge's decision may become more subjective, and I believe that we should be working to take subjectivity out of it. In baseball, ball/strike, fair/foul and safe/out calls are devoid of any subjectivity at least in responsibility. An umpire may make a bad call but at least he's not being asked to judge intent. Consider the situation DarkDracul was in:

I lost a regional match on time by a very small point margin.
I was slow in positioning my pieces but I got faster later.
My opponent started fast but then got slower towards the end.
I felt like my opponent was stalling, but I didn't have the heart to calling over the judge,
because I had played so slowly at the start of the game.
At that time calling a judge over would be accusing my opponent of cheating.
Which was difficult to prove, and typically resulted only in a warning.

In addition to that issue, what if his opponent had raised his hand first, knowing full well that he himself was the slow player at that point but wanted to pre-empt any claims made by DarkDracul? As a judge just encountering that situation for the first time could I readily see that? I truly believe that any player willing to slow play to a win would be willing to employ that kind of a devious mental strategy to deflect any attacks on his game.

Although I agree with Dennis in that I personally prefer a double elimination tournament rather than Swiss, it is simply because some of the strange things that happen in Swiss are avoided. It also puts the burden of getting to the final squarely on the player's shoulders. However, double elimination does nothing to discourage slow play and I feel like many others that it is the prinicipal issue we need addressed. So...it is back to working with a Swiss system with all its shortcomings. I agree with all of the changes being implemented and thank all of those involved for their hard work in making this happen. I would just like some help in working through all of this mentally so that I can be a good and confident T.O. when the time comes. Thoughts?

One other thing: As a judge when making decisions about slow play would it be appropriate to factor in rounds completed? I think I heard an acceptable pace discussed before of like 6 minute rounds...10 in an hour.

One OTHER thing lol...

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.

The only way this gets any funnier would be to hear it straight from Deri's mouth as he's downing some strange 'across the pond' brew. Great stuff.

You can certainly take it into account, but generally it shouldn't matter. If you complete the game, you get three points. If you don't, whether it's round 3 or round 20, it's 2 points. The determining factor for granting the full 3 point win is if the losing player played obviously slower than his opponent. The only way a judge can make such a call is if 1) he was called over to observe the game mid-game and 2) observed that the eventual loser is not playing at a pace that would allow completion of the game while the other player is and 3) noting this and perhaps issuing a caution does not result in the game completing.

You generally should not be putting players on trial after the game and listening to two sides of a story. You're a judge but you're not a judge in the presiding over a court sense. The decision should be based on what you saw of the game itself not what players tell you after and if you saw none of it, or nothing obvious, it's 2 points because it did not complete.

I am trying to distill any decisions I make as a judge to objective as possible and take the subjectivity out of it.

"You generally should not be putting players on trial after the game and listening to two sides of a story. You're a judge but you're not a judge in the presiding over a court sense. The decision should be based on what you saw of the game itself not what players tell you after and if you saw none of it, or nothing obvious, it's 2 points because it did not complete."

I agree. What I was worried about was walking into a situation mid game and trying to figure out what was going on and who, if anyone, was at fault. Short of staying and observing the game, I don't see how I could except in certain instances where the character layout showed an obvious attempt not to engage. If the players do not report slow play during the game but want to complain about it afterwards or when it is too late for me to observe anything, then it seems that they would have to live with what they created.

"If you complete the game, you get three points. If you don't, whether it's round 3 or round 20, it's 2 points. The determining factor for granting the full 3 point win is if the losing player played obviously slower than his opponent. The only way a judge can make such a call is if 1) he was called over to observe the game mid-game and 2) observed that the eventual loser is not playing at a pace that would allow completion of the game while the other player is and 3) noting this and perhaps issuing a caution does not result in the game completing."

This is helpful. So, in DarkDracul's example I cited you would do nothing? In my opinion, if that is deemed to be too late for a judge to intervene, that takes a great deal of stress out of fulfilling my responsibilities.

I can see where Darth_Jim is coming from, especially for a larger tournament like Gencon, where we have more than one judge. It will be imperative that all the judges are going by EXACTLY the same criteria, or else we'll have inconsistency, where a given situation results in a full 3 pt win in one game and a 2 pt win in another.

Now, this is not to say that our judges won't be up to the task, because I think they will be. For what it's worth, I think we've had excellent judges both times I've been to Gencon. I am not questioning the judge's competence...what I am bringing into question is how easy it will be to get them all on the same page regarding this new ruling. And it's important, because it's already been shown that the difference between those 3pt and 2pt wins will mean the difference between Top 8 and Top 16 for a number of players.

Again, I am fully in support of these changes. I'm just saying we have to be crystal clear on the criteria for allowing an incomplete game to count for 3 pts. Here's my suggestion for those criteria: the only way an incomplete match will count for 3 pts is if it has been shown that the loser has played slow in that game, and the winner has not.

Therefore, personally, if I were a judge called over to a situation like the one Darth-Dracul described (but where the winner was asking for a 3pt win), I'd say it was a 2 pt win, because both players had played slow during the game. IMHO, if you played slow at any portion of a game that does not complete within the time limit, then you can only get 2 points, never 3. Maybe that sounds a bit too hard-lined...but it just illustrates the point I'm trying to make, which is that if we are a bit squishy on the criteria for giving 3pts to an incomplete victory, then we're bound to have inconsistency within a larger (multi-judge) tournament.


For clarification, I'm only talking about granting 3pts for an incomplete victory here. I'm not talking about concessions...that's another matter.

at my 1st tourney, in the 1st 2 rounds, i conceded victory to my opponents.
they played well, and deserved the full win.
i dont know if that is customary to what everyone else does, but i felt it justified.
i have noticed people playing to the very bitter end, even if they know they donty have the point totals to deter the opponent who is winning.
to me, if you know the Jig is up, you shouldnt be spiteful and let it go to time, let the guy who deserves the 3 points get them.
i have no problems with the new changes, i like them actually.
watching a few matches at the tourney and on vassel have made me realize that there are ALOT of people who choose to play slow, because they think they wont get called out on it. i for one am one of those people who will tell you to speed it up, and if if you havent taken me seriously, i will pull the rat card and get a judge to the table and supervise.
we are talking wins and losses here.
if you know that you have lost, give the credit to where it is due, and thats the 3 points to the victor.

Exactly. I think that there need to be 'hard lines'. I think that it will not only be easier on judges, but I think the players will appreciate seeing the boundaries themselves. I am excited at the prospect of where the new floor rules can take us. Maybe they won't eliminate all of the problems in the game, but I truly believe that we're getting closer to where we need to be.

I think it is pretty straightforward. The only reasons to allow an incomplete game to score 3 are based on slow play (or some extenuating circumstance like a fire in the convention hall or something like that).

As for the consistency issue, well we will always have that. We already have it heavily in calling slow play at all. The judges at Gencon this year, were not at all consistent in what they viewed as slow play, and it did cause problems. This actually does help with that from teh judges pov. A judge should not be hearing complaints post game, or in the last 3 minutes about how someone's opponent slow played them to a timed win generally. For me, I'd pretty much say, "you should have called me earlier in the game" and move on. Outside of that, I see no reason for a judge to be dealing with this at all. It shouldn't be a "close enough" type of issue. Judges simply need to keep it simple here.

But if you think this introduces more inconsisntency than the current slow play enforcement, then I really disagree. This actually improves on it, because it takes away the emphasis of enforcement of slow play from the judge alone, to the players. All judges will now understand what slow play actually is (because currently, they have multiple definitions, much like the balls and strikes in baseball). Now its always, "too slow to allow the game to complete in time".

I wasn't at all talking about consistency or inconsisency in calling slow play. I was talking about con-/incon- regarding how the judges will determine who gets 3pts for an incomplete game and who gets 2pts. It's a different issue.

There's no question that slow play has been called inconsistently in the past, and that has mostly to do with the fact that--with a few exceptions--people never really made an issue about it, and therefore judges never had to look at it carefully. For example, in the past (or even currently), as long as Player A is winning handily, he didn't care whether or not his opponent went slow, because the result would be the same. But with the new floor rules, it will matter, quite a bit in some cases. So the judges will have to find a way to clarify what constitutes slow play, and also how to recognize it.

All I was saying was simply that I think there need to be "hard line" rules regarding how 3pt victories are handed out for incomplete games. Beyond that, the discussion (as we've seen here and there more than once) gets much bigger and broader, and far more contentious.

Nope...I agree with you there. I am looking forward to seeing the new floor rules change the game for the better. What I believe though, is that it will increase the number of perceived slow play issues, actual or not. I want to be consistent in addressing all of those issues. With my understanding of what 'too slow to allow the game to complete in time' means, there is no way I can grant a 3 pt win in a game that went to time unless I observe the slow play taking place myself. Is that where you are at? I guess what I am wondering is if there are situations that I should consider that I am not able to observe. I guess I am also envisioning being the only judge at the regional in MD and dashing from game to game and failing miserably to watch any of them adequately.

Yeah, I think there will be. If the loser was warned/cautioned for slow play during the game and the winner was not and it doesn't complete, the judge may grant the 3 points.

So for Darth_Jim's question about the DarthDracul example, yes, 2 points and a life lesson.

For Mandalorethebeast's concession examples, if they came at the midpoint of a game timewise, or when the game was truly decided by a large margin 3 points for the concession. If they came with time running down in a match with a close score nowhere near the build total, 2 points.

Perfect. Sounds good to me.

Now the question comes up (as Bill alluded to) about warnings/cautions for slow play. And as I said, I think this is where it gets messy. Hopefully people will be sportsmanlike on both sides of the issue, but there inevitably will be some people who are hyper-sensitive about it, calling a judge over for even the most minor delay so that they can get the 3pts if necessary, which could result in people being unfairly or illegitimately given warnings/cautions, which could lead to unfair or illegitimate DQs later on. It's one thing to call a judge regarding true slow play...it's another thing to start a witch hunt.


Again, that makes a lot of sense.

Okay...thanks, everyone. I think this is beginning to come together for me. Now if I could just figure out what to get the wife for Christmas...

I believe Dean has said that Boba BH will now be legal in the Dynamic Duo format, but Disintegration will not be usable.

A good post at BlooMilk suggests that Betrayal should not be allowed either. Yes, it's less likely to happen with Force rerolls, but that chance of a 2-vs-2 becoming a 3-vs-1 is there.

I didn't go back through all 8 pages here. Was that considered? If not, probably too late anyways since I think Dean has submitted the Jan. DCI changes already.

I think the only reason why Betrayal hasn't been worried about so far is that the possibility of it affecting the game is MUCH less. The pieces that do have the Betrayal ability are not very good for DD. Kreia and Boba Merc Commander is probably the best combo, but that is far from the best combo overall. The problem with Boba BH's Disintegration is that there are multiple combos with Boba BH that are very good DDs, even WITHOUT Disintegration. The DDs with pieces that have Betrayal, with or without that ability they aren't top-contenders typically.

In addition, Betrayal can be avoided to some degree by re-rolling the attack via Force Points, or by not attacking the piece with Betrayal until you've already killed the opposing piece. Or by using Special Abilities against the Betrayal piece instead of normal attacks. There's a myriad of ways to avoid Betrayal for the most part, and it is MUCH easier to work around than Disintegration.

Honestly, I'd be fine with saying that both Disintegration and Betrayal don't work in the DD format. But I'm not certain that it's really necessary for Betrayal. It's not nearly as powerful as the Big D.

Yes it's already been submitted.

The discussion on Bloo, doesn't take into account that Betrayal will happen on a much less frequent scale than a disintegration, that the opponent has some degree of control over it (a good player would never end up in a 3-1 for example - i.e. strategy dictates that Palps and Kreia be attacked after the other figure is killed). and of course the point that most betrayals happen in a situation where you can recover, where disintegration you cannot.

Boba BH is a fine figure and a popular character and is played heavily. Even without disintegration, just an almost automatic (90% of all DD teams are uniques) 40 damage at range is more than enough to play him in DD heavily. Neither Palps nor Kreia fit any of that criteria.

Further, we have no evidence of betrayal having a significant impact on DD games, but Disintegration has been. And it totally takes the fun out of it. I'm not convinced that Betrayal works in this way, because it can't happen on the first attack, from across the map, unless I the attacking player choose to allow the possibility. Disintegration is completely out of the players control in that regard.

And even deeper - Boba gets significantly more actual attack rolls than it takes to kill Palps or Kreia in a single game, so the odds are simply significantly different between the two. They are not even close to the same in reality, and anyone bringing it up is doing so based on the "theoretical" rather than the actual. Banning Disintegration came from "actual" results. No reason to ban betrayal until it proves to be a "real" problem.

And here is my reasoning of the difference between Disintegration and Betrayal. With Boba and his "Big D", as the opponent, you do not have a choice as to whether or not he is going to attack you. You take "the risk" just by being on the same board close to somewhere he can attack you. With Betrayal (the "Big B"???), the opponent is taking the risk, which is their choice. You do not have a choice whether or not to play against Boba, but you can choose to attack/not attack Kreia or Palpy until you deem it is time.