• Editorial: Draws and Their Place in Dice Masters

    No Level Up today - that's next week. Instead, I bring a timely topic in hopes that we can discuss it from a macro, game-integrity perspective instead of a micro, "how it makes me feel" perspective.

    There has been a lot of talk about drawing in this game lately, especially the intentional variety. There are several proposed solutions and while I’m not going to draw direct comparisons between other games where draws (intentional or otherwise) are legal, I’m going to do my best to explain why the system is working as designed for Dice Masters and why modifications to it should not be wantonly imposed. The same logic can be applied to other games as well, and that’s why intentional draws exist in those games just as they do in Dice Masters.

    For reference, this is the rule regarding draws in Swiss rounds:

    General Tournament Rules (5/29/15):

    Ties in Matches: After the additional 5 turns, during Swiss rounds, incomplete games end in a tie.

    [top]Sure, games can tie. But why are there intentional draws?


    As we know, Dice Masters uses a tournament system called “Swiss.” The benefit of Swiss is manyfold. Players continue to play even after losses, unlike single- or double-elimination. Swiss rounds are efficient and can be completed faster than double-elimination, as they generally require fewer rounds. Swiss also does a pretty good job of identifying the best decks since like records nearly always play like records.

    The problem with pure Swiss tournaments is that they are anticlimactic. In the end, someone is undefeated and everyone else places based upon strength-of-schedule. Thus, Dice Masters like many other games, uses a cut to a single-elimination tournament at the end of Swiss. The goal of the Swiss rounds, then, is not to win every game, but to simply be among the top eight to have a chance at a prize. Therefore, the goal is to maximize position.

    Since draws are possible, and the goal is to maximize your chances for a top cut, intentional draws exist. As in many other games, since players can intentionally play to a draw if they wish through in-game methods, they can bypass this and choose to preemptively draw the game and move on with the resulting record, so long as no coercion is taking place. Why can't that be prevented? Read on.

    [top]Proposal One: That sounds terrible. Intentional draws are cheating. Punish players who do it.


    Any rule that you make in a game must have scalability. In other words, it must be fairly enforceable with any number of players, from four to 400. If you can’t do that, then the rule can’t survive.

    Players can play to a natural draw in Dice Masters. If two players do not wish to play a competitive game, there is no way to force them to do so.

    Just because it seems easy to enforce something like the above in the game's relative infancy and a still small-in-size player base doesn't mean that it will always be so, and any rule as to ID legality would be increasingly impossible to enforce as the game gets larger. There’s no real way to determine what players are doing unless you have an official judge that can watch every player at every time. It’s not feasible. Just as was said for a very popular CCG on the same subject:

    Quote Originally Posted by "Intentional Draws and MTGO" 10/2008 at Star City Games
    “The reason that we allow IDs… is that we cannot prevent players from drawing the game anyway. Players could simply start a match and not play until time runs out… Because we cannot prevent draws… we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs.”

    I highlight this not to say that we should allow it because other games do; rather, I want to demonstrate that other very rules-intensive high-stakes games in our genre do not have a solution, either. This isn’t unique to us.

    Note also that any attempt to ban intentional draws in the first one to three Swiss rounds carries the same issue of enforceability.

    [top]Proposal Two: Ok, then draws shouldn’t be possible in the game. Change the rules to eliminate them


    Right, so if we can’t stop people from playing to a draw anyway, why not just eliminate draws, make them impossible in the game system? The highest life total after the five extra turns is the winner. Simple.

    Not really. There are some problems with this, too.

    The biggest is this: Life total is an incredibly poor indicator of who is ahead in a game. Some decks by design go down a bit early with a plan to stabilize and strike back. This is a legitimate strategy. There are plenty of occasions for me and likely every Dice Masters player where I was down 20 - 10 and still came away with a win.

    Sometimes you have a lower life total because you weathered the big alpha strike from an aggro player and now you’re building for the kill and they no longer have the ability to threaten you. Should you be punished with a loss when you’re actually poised to win?

    Further, this could also lead to the rise of “stall” teams that focus on getting a couple of points of damage in and then chaining life gain abilities. There are viable proof-of-concepts out there for it, and it would make for series of long, non-interactive games.

    This modification ends up dictating what types of decks are viable instead of guiding player behavior. Tournament rules shouldn’t be meta-impacting.

    [top]Proposal Three: Fine then. Draws should be counted as a loss for both players


    This presents the same issue detailed immediately above.

    A healthy metagame contains a variety of decks that operate at varying speeds. Some decks will win very quickly, and we call those aggro. Others will work to win by establishing long-term inevitability, and we call those control. Still others operate in between these and we call them mid-range. Good control decks can sometimes take a long time to win, including going into turns and risking a split decision.

    Counting draws as a double loss significantly hurts control, and when control becomes a non-entity, the whole game suffers as a result. See Origins 2016, full of early-game aggro and combo wins by whoever went first. Is that the Dice Masters you want to play for the next decade? Not me, and a rule like the above would codify such an environment, make it necessary according to the rules. Creating a tournament structure that would by its nature disregard the viability of control (or any other archetype for that matter) is damaging to the game.

    [top]It’s not that I love intentional draws.


    No one does. If there was a way to fairly eliminate any and all draws from the game, surely they would do so. Any rules that punish draws hurts the competitive integrity of the game by lacking scalability in the case of punishment, or by damaging viable deck types in the case of other proposals. They are also increasingly difficult to enforce as the player count in a tournament rises.

    The solution, if one is required, may be to move to a point system, where wins are worth 3, losses are worth 0, and ties are worth 1. By making draws worth 1/3rd of a win instead of 1/2, it could create less of an incentive to do so. Other competitive activities have attempted this and seen a favorable result, and I know that this includes the Yu-Gi-Oh CCG - though I cannot speak to how well it has worked there. Perhaps a reader can assist there.

    [top]Love it or hate it, emotions can't rule the day - or the game.


    You may love the system. You may hate the system. That doesn't matter one iota.

    Draws are a reality in Dice Masters. If you love what IDs make possible, fine, but if there ever is a way to eliminate draws (and by extension intentional draws) from the game while maintaining competitive integrity, it has to be done.

    Until then, even if you hate draws, you must put that aside and recognize that for it's flaws, there are logical reasons why the structure is in place.

    One way or the other, large game-impacting considerations like these cannot be made from an emotional "it feels wrong" standpoint. Objectivity is required, and objectivity is in short supply for players that are trying to find any combination of cards and rules that will help them achieve victory.

    NOTE: Due to some heated debates, comments were turned off. This has the unfortunate side effect of removing those comments from public view. Apologies for the limitations of our site's programming, will work on fixing this. - Shadowmeld
    Comments 96 Comments
    1. jourdo's Avatar
      jourdo -
      Maybe I am just really naive, but how exactly does this work? Do the players just sit down and agree with each other to take the tie and not play the game?
    1. Jauron's Avatar
      Jauron -
      I've never played a tourney so this may not be as simple as I am thinking. I like the idea of eliminating win/loss records for Swiss and instead implement points for health removed from opponent, and a chess clock. A win could net you some bonus points, say 5 or 10 to motivate players to get lethal. Anything less than a win gets you points. With a clock you could mostly estimate the time it would take and turns you are guaranteed per game.

      Some teams would probably suffer a bit as you are giving your opponent points due to early health loss, but you have to weight that vs. ability to win and gain your own points. Knowing you have X turns could help you in designing your team as well, well at least past Swiss.
    1. SlapsterMcFlash's Avatar
      SlapsterMcFlash -
      The solution, if one is required, may be to move to a point system, where wins are worth 3, losses are worth 0, and ties are worth 1. By making draws worth 1/3rd of a win instead of 1/2, it could create less of an incentive to do so. Other competitive activities have attempted this and seen a favorable result, and I know that this includes the Yu-Gi-Oh CCG - though I cannot speak to how well it has worked there. Perhaps a reader can assist there.
      Am I confused or something? As opposed to what system that's already been in place?

      Isn't the system already 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a tie? Am I wrong about that?

      Also, I know the official rules were originally that after turns, the person with more life was supposed to win, and I always house-ruled that if neither player was at 0 life after turns, it was a tie, and I had to explain that to people who weren't regulars ahead of the tournament so they'd know how to play, and put it in the house rules section of the WizKids Event System. When was the official change made? I ask because I'm super happy to hear those are the official rules, as I was baffled when it used to be more life after turns was supposed to be the winner.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
      Am I confused or something? As opposed to what system that's already been in place?

      Isn't the system already 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a tie? Am I wrong about that?

      Also, I know the official rules were originally that after turns, the person with more life was supposed to win, and I always house-ruled that if neither player was at 0 life after turns, it was a tie, and I had to explain that to people who weren't regulars ahead of the tournament so they'd know how to play, and put it in the house rules section of the WizKids Event System. When was the official change made? I ask because I'm super happy to hear those are the official rules, as I was baffled when it used to be more life after turns was supposed to be the winner.
      The date I cited on the ruling was 5/29/15. I think lots of people missed it.

      If we use a point system for tournament ranking it's news to me. I've only seen Swiss record with Strength-of-schedule. Perhaps the WKPoints on Win used for the season standings do it that way, but to my knowledge tournament rankings do not.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jauron View Post
      I've never played a tourney so this may not be as simple as I am thinking. I like the idea of eliminating win/loss records for Swiss and instead implement points for health removed from opponent, and a chess clock. A win could net you some bonus points, say 5 or 10 to motivate players to get lethal. Anything less than a win gets you points. With a clock you could mostly estimate the time it would take and turns you are guaranteed per game.

      Some teams would probably suffer a bit as you are giving your opponent points due to early health loss, but you have to weight that vs. ability to win and gain your own points. Knowing you have X turns could help you in designing your team as well, well at least past Swiss.
      I've thought about a chess clock. It would still make rounds of an indeterminate length (you would know a maximum though). You also have to rely on a venue having a lot of working chess clocks at hand, or players having fully charged smartphones for the entire day and enough outlets to keep them charged, which most won't. I don't know that I've ever seen a single chess clock at a FLGS.

      This would also have an issue of scalability.
    1. JasonG's Avatar
      JasonG -
      Full discloser: I only play casually against my son; a tie has never occurred, so excuse my ignorance please. Like @jourdo asked, doesn't it take two to tango, so to speak? I can see the purpose of ID's in tournaments to improve seating, but aren't tournaments the place to prove your team and piloting are superior to every other entrant? But like Dave said "You may love the system. You may hate the system. That doesn't matter one iota."
      I sympathize with the competitors that wanted to experience more of the convention, as hard earned money and vacation time go into such ventures. ID's allowed that in some cases.
      Maybe a change in venue at the Worlds level would be a Band-Aid fix, like a stand-alone event. Possibly a steel cage-type event.
    1. jacquesblondes's Avatar
      jacquesblondes -
      Great article! Very clearly written. I must say, though, that the tournament rules you link to are less clearly written. I just can't seem to reconcile these three statements:

      1. '​Rounds: ​​Each Swiss round will be 1 game with a 30 minute time limit. Each single elimination round will consist of a 3 game match with a 50 minute time limit'.
      2. '​Timekeeping: ​​Once time is called, the active player finishes their current turn and the game proceeds to a 5 turn extension. ​​At the end of these 5 turns the player with the highest life total is the winner'.
      3. '​Ties in Matches: After the additional 5 turns, during Swiss rounds, incomplete games end in a tie'.

      If (1) each Swiss round is 1 game and (2) this game is won after 30 minutes+5 turns (I assume 3 for 1 player and 2 for the other) by the player with more life remaining, then why does (3) refer to matches and draws during Swiss rounds? According to (1), matches happen is single elimination (not Swiss) and, according to (3), draws happen in matches.

      What am I missing here? I don't have any big tournament experience to draw on, and it's doing my head in
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by jacquesblondes View Post
      Great article! Very clearly written. I must say, though, that the tournament rules you link to are less clearly written. I just can't seem to reconcile these three statements:

      1. '​Rounds: ​​Each Swiss round will be 1 game with a 30 minute time limit. Each single elimination round will consist of a 3 game match with a 50 minute time limit'.
      2. '​Timekeeping: ​​Once time is called, the active player finishes their current turn and the game proceeds to a 5 turn extension. ​​At the end of these 5 turns the player with the highest life total is the winner'.
      3. '​Ties in Matches: After the additional 5 turns, during Swiss rounds, incomplete games end in a tie'.

      If (1) each Swiss round is 1 game and (2) this game is won after 30 minutes+5 turns (I assume 3 for 1 player and 2 for the other) by the player with more life remaining, then why does (3) refer to matches and draws during Swiss rounds? According to (1), matches happen is single elimination (not Swiss) and, according to (3), draws happen in matches.

      What am I missing here? I don't have any big tournament experience to draw on, and it's doing my head in
      Life decided in single elimination 2-out-of-3 rounds. Ties are in Swiss.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
      Full discloser: I only play casually against my son; a tie has never occurred, so excuse my ignorance please. Like @jourdo asked, doesn't it take two to tango, so to speak? I can see the purpose of ID's in tournaments to improve seating, but aren't tournaments the place to prove your team and piloting are superior to every other entrant? But like Dave said "You may love the system. You may hate the system. That doesn't matter one iota."
      I sympathize with the competitors that wanted to experience more of the convention, as hard earned money and vacation time go into such ventures. ID's allowed that in some cases.
      Maybe a change in venue at the Worlds level would be a Band-Aid fix, like a stand-alone event. Possibly a steel cage-type event.
      3-1-1 might make top 8, 3-2 might not. 3-1-1 is a stronger record. You don't get the chance to show your stuff if you don't make top 8, so players may agree to do this. If I'm 3-1 and playing another 3-1 player, before the game, we don't know the result. Either of us has the chance to lose and miss the cut. I think player one advantage makes this worse since the games are too often a coin flip anyway, but other games where things are different have it too so it might not change anything on this front.

      I don't think that a change of venue improves this. It also happens in other games where the venue is solely the tournament and no convention.
    1. Necromanticer's Avatar
      Necromanticer -
      I can't really say I'm convinced about this... When something falls directly into the definition of "cheating" listed in the tournament rules you cite, you can't just let that happen because solutions aren't perfectly scalable.

      It's true that it's not possible for a few people to perfectly monitor 400 people, but it's not true that a few people can't monitor a few dozen. Beyond that, it is possible for a few people to roughly monitor 400 people. If those judges are walking around and see a match that's still on turn 3 forty minutes into the match, clearly there's fixing of the result. There's simply no basis for declaring that imperfect solutions are not viable because they aren't perfect.
      You point out that it's not possible to force players to play to win, but it doesn't have to be. So long as the players are playing the game remotely well enough to not be immediately obvious in fixing the match, there's going to be some variance as to how the game plays out. Inevitably, one side is going to be weaker or stronger than the other and since there are dice being rolled and decisions being made, there's the opportunity for one player to take advantage of those disparities in strength and take the win.
      It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. If one player doesn't play to win, they open themself up to the other player playing to win and beating them outright. However, if both players refuse to play to win, there's nothing to be done and a tie will happen. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, it's easiest to accomplish cooperation if you can communicate and agree in a binding fashion. While players can still communicate in-game, taking away the option to create a binding agreement leaves the door open to backstabbing and forces the players to trust blindly in their impromptu partner or play to win themselves and try for a legitimate win.

      Fixing a match is cheating, no two-ways about it. If two competitors decide to intentionally tie their game to gain an unfair advantage in making the cut to top-8, that's cheating the other players of their fair shot at cut and should be grounds for disqualification if it's clear enough what's going on. It doesn't matter that it might not be as easy to make sure it's clear when you have more than 10 times the number of players, if judges spot cheating, it's up to them to deal with that.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
      I can't really say I'm convinced about this... When something falls directly into the definition of "cheating" listed in the tournament rules you cite, you can't just let that happen because solutions aren't perfectly scalable.

      It's true that it's not possible for a few people to perfectly monitor 400 people, but it's not true that a few people can't monitor a few dozen. Beyond that, it is possible for a few people to roughly monitor 400 people. If those judges are walking around and see a match that's still on turn 3 forty minutes into the match, clearly there's fixing of the result. There's simply no basis for declaring that imperfect solutions are not viable because they aren't perfect.
      You point out that it's not possible to force players to play to win, but it doesn't have to be. So long as the players are playing the game remotely well enough to not be immediately obvious in fixing the match, there's going to be some variance as to how the game plays out. Inevitably, one side is going to be weaker or stronger than the other and since there are dice being rolled and decisions being made, there's the opportunity for one player to take advantage of those disparities in strength and take the win.
      It's the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. If one player doesn't play to win, they open themself up to the other player playing to win and beating them outright. However, if both players refuse to play to win, there's nothing to be done and a tie will happen. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, it's easiest to accomplish cooperation if you can communicate and agree in a binding fashion. While players can still communicate in-game, taking away the option to create a binding agreement leaves the door open to backstabbing and forces the players to trust blindly in their impromptu partner or play to win themselves and try for a legitimate win.

      Fixing a match is cheating, no two-ways about it. If two competitors decide to intentionally tie their game to gain an unfair advantage in making the cut to top-8, that's cheating the other players of their fair shot at cut and should be grounds for disqualification if it's clear enough what's going on. It doesn't matter that it might not be as easy to make sure it's clear when you have more than 10 times the number of players, if judges spot cheating, it's up to them to deal with that.
      Sure. But I'm talking specifically about IDs. They're not currently determined to be cheating, but some are saying they should be. There's no way to monitor a match to determine whether or not players are intentionally playing to time + turns and therefore a tie. It IS however, easy to call a judge because your opponent is not cinching their bag properly or something else like that. How do you catch people "cheating"? Slow rolling is only a problem if one player complains about it. Accidentally rolling a die off the table is only a problem if one of the players complains about it. There's no feasible way to do it. It's very easy to intentionally, legally play to a tie.

      If there were, don't you think that MTG, whose designers have stated that they'd get rid of IDs if they could, would have eliminated IDs from paper play? Chess? Countless other games? It's not that we should allow it because others do, but it IS very telling that other, better organized games have no viable solution either.
    1. SlapsterMcFlash's Avatar
      SlapsterMcFlash -
      btw like

      you couldn't pay me to pull an ID instead of play for one of us to win, even if I thought the opponent's team was better

      that's a real low move, like, I think of people who do that in the same category as I think of people who purposely cheat their dice pulls or rolls or anything else that could be fixed

      that's some real sucker-jive, no joke. like, I would say it to the person's face too, if you have ever purposely IDd in order to guarantee a top 8, I would be more than happy to tell you about yourself, for real

      I'm not saying that I have a solution to stop it or anything, or even that it should be banned (simply for the practical reasons outline in the original post, which are unfortunately true), but I am saying that someone doing this is a mark trick and I'd love to tell them that personally

      that disgusts me
    1. jacquesblondes's Avatar
      jacquesblondes -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      Life decided in single elimination 2-out-of-3 rounds. Ties are in Swiss.
      Thanks for the reply. I'll take your word for it The rules seem to make no sense though, and suggest the opposite. Apologies if I'm being dense.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
      btw like

      you couldn't pay me to pull an ID instead of play for one of us to win, even if I thought the opponent's team was better

      that's a real low move, like, I think of people who do that in the same category as I think of people who purposely cheat their dice pulls or rolls or anything else that could be fixed

      that's some real sucker-jive, no joke. like, I would say it to the person's face too, if you have ever purposely IDd in order to guarantee a top 8, I would be more than happy to tell you about yourself, for real

      I'm not saying that I have a solution to stop it or anything, or even that it should be banned (simply for the practical reasons outline in the original post, which are unfortunately true), but I am saying that someone doing this is a mark trick and I'd love to tell them that personally

      that disgusts me
      Yeah you can't do that, coercion is always illegal. Luckily, I haven't heard of such a thing in DM.

      Other games that allow IDs also get rid of coercion. FFG recently updated their tournament rules for Netrunner to make a clear ID process that does not allow coercion. In general, if you're going to do it, immediately call a judge, then offer the ID. If the other player refuses, so be it, play on. But do it in an official way.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by jacquesblondes View Post
      Thanks for the reply. I'll take your word for it The rules seem to make no sense though, and suggest the opposite. Apologies if I'm being dense.
      It states what happens in 2, and then makes the exception for swiss rounds in 3.
    1. jacquesblondes's Avatar
      jacquesblondes -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      It states what happens in 2, and then makes the exception for swiss rounds in 3.
      Fair enough, but 1. says 'Each Swiss round will be 1 game with a 30 minute time limit', i.e. not best of 3.

      Honestly, though, I know this is not the point of your article, and I totally feel like I'm wasting your time! Maybe I should take my pedantry over to fb, and stop distracting you
    1. Necromanticer's Avatar
      Necromanticer -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      Sure. But I'm talking specifically about IDs. They're not currently determined to be cheating, but some are saying they should be. There's no way to monitor a match to determine whether or not players are intentionally playing to time + turns and therefore a tie. It IS however, easy to call a judge because your opponent is not cinching their bag properly or something else like that. How do you catch people "cheating"? Slow rolling is only a problem if one player complains about it. Accidentally rolling a die off the table is only a problem if one of the players complains about it. There's no feasible way to do it.

      If there were, don't you think that MTG, whose designers have stated that they'd get rid of IDs if they could, would have eliminated IDs from paper play? Chess? Countless other games? It's not that we should allow it because others do, but it IS very telling that other, better organized games have no viable solution either.
      That's the thing, though, according to the definition of cheating that you cited, ID's are cheating. They are when "Players... intentionally try to gain an unfair advantage over other players". You can't argue that intentionally fixing a match in order to gain an advantage over other players isn't cheating. If you tried to make that claim in any sort of sport, you'd be laughed out of the room immediately. As such, it's clear that the problem isn't "Is it cheating?" but "How can we deal with this cheating?" The fact that other games have thrown their hands up in the air and claimed "laissez-faire," is not grounds to do so in Dice Masters.

      In Dice Masters, it's very easy to look at a game that's been played for 40 minutes, see that only 3 turns have passed, and start paying more attention. All it takes is a little attentiveness on the judge's part to raise suspicion and then they can investigate. If the players are clearly not playing the game as anything more than a cover, the judge can take action. There are very real and very simple answer to ID's that don't involve playing the game and if the players are escaping those by playing the game, that's all you need to solve the problem. You can make the argument about scalability, but it simply doesn't apply to Dice Masters in its current form and so you're arguing for pragmatism when it's not pragmatic. Yes, cheating can and will happen regardless of jduges' attentiveness, but that's not a reason to up and allow it to happen openly. If cheating is no longer carries any penalties, what's to stop people from cheating?

      Simply put, sanctioned ID's are not a solution to a current problem in Dice Masters even if they may be a pragmatic acquiescence to a problem that could come up later or.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
      That's the thing, though, according to the definition of cheating that you cited, ID's are cheating. They are when "Players... intentionally try to gain an unfair advantage over other players". You can't argue that intentionally fixing a match in order to gain an advantage over other players isn't cheating. If you tried to make that claim in any sort of sport, you'd be laughed out of the room immediately.
      Awful comparison. Sports don't play swiss tournaments. Sports aren't driven by results on a per-game basis. A team's schedule is set at the beginning of the season.

      And yet, teams rest players at the end of seasons, sometimes with standings-impacting implications. What about intentional fouls in basketball as a close game winds under a minute? What about teams tanking to get a higher draft pick? All perfectly legal manipulations. Sports teams also have an obligation to their advertisers, season ticket holders, and TV contracts to play the game.

      As such, it's clear that the problem isn't "Is it cheating?" but "How can we deal with this cheating?" The fact that other games have thrown their hands up in the air and claimed "laissez-faire," is not grounds to do so in Dice Masters.
      I don't think anyone is being laissez-faire about it. If there was a solution, it's been made VERY clear by those who run Magic and those who run Chess, for two examples of games far above us in competitive echelons, that they don't have an answer. MTG does NOT allow it in the online game, but that is because there ARE no draws in the online game.

      The problem can ONLY be addressed when you can fairly and legally eliminate draws.

      In Dice Masters, it's very easy to look at a game that's been played for 40 minutes, see that only 3 turns have passed, and start paying more attention. All it takes is a little attentiveness on the judge's part to raise suspicion and then they can investigate. If the players are clearly not playing the game as anything more than a cover, the judge can take action. There are very real and very simple answer to ID's that don't involve playing the game and if the players are escaping those by playing the game, that's all you need to solve the problem. You can make the argument about scalability, but it simply doesn't apply to Dice Masters in its current form and so you're arguing for pragmatism when it's not pragmatic. Yes, cheating can and will happen regardless of jduges' attentiveness, but that's not a reason to up and allow it to happen openly. If cheating is no longer carries any penalties, what's to stop people from cheating?

      Simply put, sanctioned ID's are not a solution to a current problem in Dice Masters even if they may be a pragmatic acquiescence to a problem that could come up later or.
      It would be an "unfair advantage" if it was an option not available to all players. There is no legal point, for example, where I can roll sloppily and rake extra dice into my roll. There is no legal point where I can "hold" a die while I shake the bag, ensuring that I draw it. None of that happens during the course of regular game play. However, there ARE legal points where the game can end in a draw.

      Should we also prevent players from dropping? It gives others an "unfair advantage" as well as giving some an unfair DISadvantage for SOS damage and the like.

      And I think WizKids acquiescence to it at Origins is a sign of their feelings on the same matter.

      You argue "bug", saying it is a problem. I argue feature.
    1. Necromanticer's Avatar
      Necromanticer -
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
      It would be an "unfair advantage" if it was an option not available to all players. There is no legal point, for example, where I can roll sloppily and rake extra dice into my roll. There is no legal point, short of a card ability, where I can "hold" a die while I shake the bag, ensuring that I draw it. However, there ARE legal points where the game can end in a draw.

      Should we also prevent players from dropping? It gives others an "unfair advantage" as well as giving some an unfair DISadvantage for SOS damage and the like.

      And I think WizKids acquiescence to it at Origins is a sign of their feelings on the same matter.

      You argue "bug", saying it is a problem. I argue feature.
      Sorry, none of that's gonna fly as an excuse.

      You as well as I know that ID's exist strictly because they give players an unfair advantage. They effectively allow the already leading players to cut one round off the rounds of swiss they have to win in order to get into the top 8. You could argue that if everyone has the option, it's not an advantage, however that's not the case. Because ID's only give an advantage to those who have already earned an advantage by their wins, it is not a viable option to all players. Instead, it allows for specific players to increase their odds of getting into the top 8 without any relation to how they would fair in-game. That's a very blatant "unfair advantage" if ever I saw one. Period.

      Players dropping is not the same as ID's since dropping does not unfairly advantage you against other players. If you've conspired with others to have them drop to advantage you, that's already cheating as you well know.

      WizKids disobeying their own rules may be a sign of their feelings on the matter, but in that case it's on us the players to hold them accountable.

      I'm not arguing "bug," I'm calling "Hax!" I don't want to see match fixing in any game I'm a part of and it really worries me out that you of all people would come out in support of cheating.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      You're arguing based on how it makes you feel, which is why none of us are in a position to propose a solution.

      I'm not making excuses, I'm telling you why it is the way it is.

      You're taking cheating to be the FULL EXPERIENCE. Cheating tends to be about in-game issues. Clearly they don't consider this to be an in-game issue.

      I'm happy with draws going away, IF a realistic solution is implemented. But simply calling it "cheating" won't address the problem and also puts the game in a position to be damaged when people do it anyway (because it won't be "if"). You need a ruling on that specific action. The tournament ruling is that it's fine, so until they rule otherwise it clearly DOES NOT fall under their definition of cheating.

      EDIT: I encourage you to read this, unless you refuse to do so with an open mind. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/e...ntional-draws/ I guarantee that WK's position is essentially the same.