Get Off My Lawn is a series of articles from guest contributor Ben “ObiWein” Weiner. If there is no clear victor by the end of this article, then we will decide the winner in a series of coin flips to take place on three subsequent odd-numbered calendar days.
I find it interesting that a tie result is referred to as a draw when, in the old West, two gunslingers drawing their weapons generally resulted in one of them losing everything.
There have been ways for individual games to end in a draw previously. The simplest example would be a single card doing damage to each player simultaneously. This exact thing can occur in Star Wars: Unlimited today with Sabine doing a point of damage to each player’s base and maxing them both out on damage at the same time.
While that works for a single game, there is a larger issue when attempting to resolve a tie scenario in a tournament match.
SWU currently uses the concept of having a double loss. Game record being tied either 0-0 or 1-1 and time is called, the current round completes, players regroup and play one additional round. If no game winner is determined then both players get a loss.
One reason for this is to eliminate the intentional draw mechanism. In a large enough event, two players playing in the final round with no losses or even one loss each could in theory decide to draw the match therefore gaining points for the tie and potentially both advancing to a top cut bracket. Basically two players are 6-1 and playing in the eight round of the event. If played out, one could be 7-1 and the other 6-2. In this case the 7-1 player probably makes a top 8 cut while the 6-2 player does not. However, with an intentional draw both would have a match record of 6-1-1, and both might make the top 8 cut finishing higher than any 6-2 player due to the draw.
FFG’s double loss concept removes the ties from match record and the collusion that goes along with it where the two players crunch the numbers and realize they can “draw into the top 8”. While this is a noble idea, there really ought to be a better way.
At GenCon recently, while watching a friend pilot a Young Han Blue deck to a top 16 finish, I saw him end up in potential double loss scenarios twice. The first occurred in the initial pairing of the tournament. Game one took a very long time, and then speeding through game two put the game record at 1-1. Time was called and no winner was determined after the extra regroup and round. My buddy’s opponent looked at the game state of that third game stated out loud a potential next couple of turns in which my friend would ultimately win. The opponent then graciously conceded such that at least one of them would have a win on the record.
The second occurrence was in the final round. Both my friend and his opponent were 5-1 and both were playing somewhat slow decks. A similar thing occurred in game three, however this time neither wanted to concede. A winner would potentially be in the top 4, and the loser while still likely in the top 16 would get significantly less in terms of prize packs to open.
With a judge sitting right there, many options were not available. It is currently against the rules to determine a winner at random, so high roll on a set of dice does not work, nor does a coin flip or other mechanism. My friend’s opponent offered up a number of packs and the judge immediately jumped in suggesting that they could be disqualified from the entire event for even suggesting that. Eventually, with no solution, it was a double loss. Luckily they finished ninth and tenth and both received the top 16 play mat portion of the prizing.
The current setup really seems to penalize control decks. It also makes it rather agonizing to play against an opponent that takes a long time to make decisions and take their actions. There is potential to actually encourage slow play as well giving that winning the first game a slow deck and player combo are incentivized to have the second game not have a resolution.
While random determination doesn’t seem like a great method, there just really should be a better way. The intentional draws and associated collusion would be a step backwards. Maybe the player with the lowest amount of damage on their base would be considered the winner.
Course then if game two goes to time and the game record really would be tied at 1-1 and would somehow have to be an actual draw… But people could collude on that… My brain hurts now. Get off the lawn.
Ben is a technology professional by day. He has been an avid gamer for 40 plus years spanning everything from Dungeons and Dragons, board games, and through multiple past and present collectible card games. His non-gaming spare time is spent with his family and playing guitar. Warning: Do not play Jenga for money with this person.
The updated SWU Tournament Regulations from 2024-07-12 introduced new tie breaker mechanism for top cut round best of three matches:
4.3.2 Best-of-Three Match Resolution
> During a top cut round, if time is called and players are tied for number of games won, the
winner of the match is determined in different ways based on which game players are in. If the
players are in game one or game three when time is called, the winner of the match is the
person with the most remaining health on their base after the final action phase. If both players
have the same amount of health on their base, the player with the initiative wins the match.
If time is called during game two and the final action phase results in both players having each
won one game, the winner of the match is the player who had the most health remaining on their
base in the game they won. This rule also applies if time is called between games two and three,
before the setup of game three is complete.
It does solve the issue for swiss rounds, but at least it provides a solution to double loss during important games.
card art (2) community (3) cunning (2) draft (5) get off my lawn (15) guest article (11) guest author (3) how-to (2) leaders (6) podcast (5) pre-release (3) prerelease (3) quiz (2) spark of rebellion (3) speculation (2) spoilers (3) swu harvest podcast (3) tier list (2) vigilance (2) youtube (3)
Leave a Reply