Tournament/Qualifier rules question

Hi all, I have some curiosities related to tournament/qualifier rules. I guess the right place to ask would be the Princes' Conclave, but I'm not a Prince so here we are :-P Any help is appreciated, even better if "official" (Oscar? LSJ?). 1) Consider the situation in which a player who has played all the preliminary rounds and has qualified to play the final has to leave without playing the final. What happens to his ranking in the tournament? Sections 3.1.4 and 3.3.2 of the V:EKN tournament rules do not entirely clarify the matter to me. This issue becomes of particular relevance in a Qualifier tournament. For instance, suppose there are 6 qualification "slots", and the player who has ended the preliminary rounds being 4th in the ranking cannot play the final round. Does he qualify or not? And what happens in the same situation if, say, the qualification slots are only 4? 2) One more question about qualifier rules. Is it possible for a player to declare before the tournament starts that he does not wish to qualify, and then be treated the same way as an "already qualified" player (i.e. not counting towards the number of qualification slots)? Thanks a lot! Greets, Emiliano

Emiliano Imeroni wrote: > 1) Consider the situation in which a player who has > played all the preliminary rounds and has qualified to > play the final has to leave without playing the final. > > What happens to his ranking in the tournament? > Sections 3.1.4 and 3.3.2 of the V:EKN tournament rules > do not entirely clarify the matter to me. > > This issue becomes of particular relevance in a Qualifier > tournament. For instance, suppose there are 6 qualification > "slots", and the player who has ended the preliminary rounds > being 4th in the ranking cannot play the final round. Does he > qualify or not? And what happens in the same situation if, > say, the qualification slots are only 4? Assuming you have more than 4 qualifying spots, the person who doesn't play in the final retains his or her qualifying position. If you have 4 or fewer qualifying spots, then the final round determines who gets them, so only people who play in the final would be eligible for those spots. > 2) One more question about qualifier rules. > Is it possible for a player to declare before the tournament > starts that he does not wish to qualify, and then be treated > the same way as an "already qualified" player (i.e. not > counting towards the number of qualification slots)? Yes. Such a declaration must be made before start of play on the first round.

LSJ wrote: > Emiliano Imeroni wrote: > > This issue becomes of particular relevance in a Qualifier > > tournament. For instance, suppose there are 6 qualification > > "slots", and the player who has ended the preliminary rounds > > being 4th in the ranking cannot play the final round. Does he > > qualify or not? And what happens in the same situation if, > > say, the qualification slots are only 4? > > Assuming you have more than 4 qualifying spots, the person who doesn't > play in the final retains his or her qualifying position. > > If you have 4 or fewer qualifying spots, then the final round > determines who gets them, so only people who play in the final would be > eligible for those spots. Thanks a lot!!! One more "technical" question - Is there a way to make the Archon spreadsheet "reflect" this fact? It seems to me that the only way to remove one player from the final is assigning him a "DQ" flag, which moves him to the bottom of the standings. Not that it really matters, just a curiosity... Emiliano

LSJ wrote: > > Assuming you have more than 4 qualifying spots, the person who doesn't > play in the final retains his or her qualifying position. > > If you have 4 or fewer qualifying spots, then the final round > determines who gets them, so only people who play in the final would be > eligible for those spots. > Ah...wouldn't 5 be the breaking point here? If the qualifying player ranked 5th left without playing the final, the 6th ranked player takes his place, and if the table were to time out, everyone in the final would be ranked higher than the player who did not play the final. Only if the substitute player scored 0 vps would the absent player then retain his qualifying status. G

talonz wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Assuming you have more than 4 qualifying spots, the person who doesn't > > play in the final retains his or her qualifying position. > > > > If you have 4 or fewer qualifying spots, then the final round > > determines who gets them, so only people who play in the final would be > > eligible for those spots. > > > > Ah...wouldn't 5 be the breaking point here? No. With 5 spots available, the qualifiers are known before the finals start. And note that the numbers can be more lenient if previously-qualified players go to the finals, too. If there are only 4 qualifying spots and one previously-qualified player makes the finals, then the new qualifiers are still known before the finals begin. > If the qualifying player > ranked 5th left without playing the final, the 6th ranked player takes > his place, and if the table were to time out, everyone in the final > would be ranked higher than the player who did not play the final. > Only if the substitute player scored 0 vps would the absent player then > retain his qualifying status. Moot, but how would anyone's performance in the final change things? Even if someone swept, all the finalist would "finish" ahead of all the players who did not play the finals. But (by the ruling above) that wouldn't affect the figuring of who qualified (assuming it was known before the finals started).

[ quoted text not captured ] I think talonz's point was that if there are 5 qualifier spots and one of the finalists declines to play the finals, then the 6th ranked player will play the final. Now suppose this 6th player wins: would we then have the strange case where the winner of the tournament does not qualify because "the qualifiers are known before the final starts"? But maybe I'm missing the point... Emiliano

Emiliano Imeroni wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > talonz wrote: > > > If the qualifying player > > > ranked 5th left without playing the final, the 6th ranked player takes > > > his place, and if the table were to time out, everyone in the final > > > would be ranked higher than the player who did not play the final. > > > Only if the substitute player scored 0 vps would the absent player then > > > retain his qualifying status. > > > > Moot, but how would anyone's performance in the final change things? > > Even if someone swept, all the finalist would "finish" ahead of all the > > players who did not play the finals. > > > > But (by the ruling above) that wouldn't affect the figuring of who > > qualified (assuming it was known before the finals started). > > I think talonz's point was that if there are 5 qualifier spots and one > of the finalists declines to play the finals, then the 6th ranked > player > will play the final. > > Now suppose this 6th player wins: would we then have the strange > case where the winner of the tournament does not qualify because > "the qualifiers are known before the final starts"? Winning is quite different than "only if 6th player takes 0 VPs", but at any rate -- there should never be any incentive for an "I've gotta go" player to be forced to sit down at the final and roll at his earliest convenience (thereby ensuring his qualification status) as opposed to being allowed to recuse himself from the final and allowing the final to be played "properly".

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm opposed to this. To qualify, it should be based on the standing at the end of the final round. the end of the final round is the end of the tournament, and it's the whole tournament that should decide who qualifies. if I pull out after the 2nd round with two sweeps, and thus (say) I would have been coming 1st at the end of the 3 prelim rounds, do I still get to qualify? (If, say there are 5 qualifying spots). I'm pretty sure dropping before the start of the third round should put me at the bottom of the rankings, and I shouldn't get to qualify. If this means people will hang around for 5 mins to start the final and then "roll at his earliest convenience" to make sure they qualify, then obviously they're not 'playing to win', should be removed from the table, and have their ranking removed, thus not qualifying. I can't believe people should be rewarding for not even playing the full tournament. If they don't think they'll be able to stay the full time, they should say so at the start and thus exclude themselves from the qualifying spots, and if it's an emergency as to why they have to leave, well that's unfortunate, but obviously whatever it is that's pulling them away is more important than qualifying, and thus they shouldn't be too upset for not qualifying (as if it was more important to qualify, obviously this 'emergency' wouldn't pull them away). play. all. of. the. game. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > at any rate -- there should never be any incentive for an "I've gotta > > go" player to be forced to sit down at the final and roll at his > > earliest convenience (thereby ensuring his qualification status) as > > opposed to being allowed to recuse himself from the final and allowing > > the final to be played "properly". > > I'm opposed to this. To qualify, it should be based on the standing at > the end of the final round. the end of the final round is the end of the > tournament, and it's the whole tournament that should decide who qualifies. > > if I pull out after the 2nd round with two sweeps, and thus (say) I > would have been coming 1st at the end of the 3 prelim rounds, do I still > get to qualify? Yes, just as if you had joined late (missing the first round). Fair's fair. > (If, say there are 5 qualifying spots). I'm pretty sure > dropping before the start of the third round should put me at the bottom > of the rankings, and I shouldn't get to qualify. No, it doesn't put you at the bottom of the rankings. It puts you 6th. > If this means people will hang around for 5 mins to start the final and > then "roll at his earliest convenience" to make sure they qualify, then > obviously they're not 'playing to win', should be removed from the > table, and have their ranking removed, thus not qualifying. Unfortunately, being a final, the player would be playing to win. Of course the question doesn't arise except in terms of outside concerns (catching a plane, for example). And why penalize the player who qualified for having to catch a plane? If there are 6 spots and the #6 player has to catch a plane (and cannot stay to watch the finals), would you disqualify him? What if the #5 player dropped (propelling the #6 player to the final) -- would he then lose his qualification? What if #6 had already left (having swept his table in 30m and already calculating his 6p finish as his highest possible finish)? Would you disqualify him after the fact? Even if all of the above is acceptable to you, note that it makes finishing 6th preferable to finishing 5th. > I can't believe people should be rewarding for not even playing the full > tournament. So the late-comer shouldn't be allowed to qualify, even if he wins? Should his tournament victory be stripped as well? Note also that it is not a matter of rewarding them "for" not playing. It's rewarding them for their performance in play, and not penalizing them after the performance. > If they don't think they'll be able to stay the full time, > they should say so at the start and thus exclude themselves from the > qualifying spots, And if there are 7 qualifying spots, they should be forced not to play for any of them? Or be forced to "shoot for #6 or #7 and pray that the higher finishers don't drop"? > and if it's an emergency as to why they have to leave, > well that's unfortunate, but obviously whatever it is that's pulling > them away is more important than qualifying, and thus they shouldn't be > too upset for not qualifying (as if it was more important to qualify, > obviously this 'emergency' wouldn't pull them away). > > play. all. of. the. game. Emphasis on "game". Reward. Good. Play. Don't. Get. Caught. Up. In. Legislation. Play. The. Table. Not. The. Chair. Et. Cetera.

LSJ wrote: > Salem wrote: >> play. all. of. the. game. > > Emphasis on "game". > Reward. Good. Play. > Don't. Get. Caught. Up. In. Legislation. > Play. The. Table. Not. The. Chair. > Et. Cetera. ok, sorry. it seems like my early-morning (read: afternoon after a big night out) post was a little poorly thought out. (as an aside, I'm not familiar with the 'play the table not the chair' expression, but i think i might have a vague idea based on context). I suspect I was pushing my disappointment and frustration as a past event organiser who's had to deal with people dropping for fairly lame (to me, as a biased observer) reasons, when I just want everyone to play as much as they've earned. The point you made about if there were 6 spots and the 6th player left before the start of the final, should he lose his qualifying spot? well, I guess not. So, just to clarify, this bit is confusing me: > > if I pull out after the 2nd round with two sweeps, and thus (say) I > > would have been coming 1st at the end of the 3 prelim rounds, do I still > > get to qualify? > Yes, just as if you had joined late (missing the first round). > Fair's fair. > > (If, say there are 5 qualifying spots). I'm pretty sure > > dropping before the start of the third round should put me at the bottom > > of the rankings, and I shouldn't get to qualify. >No, it doesn't put you at the bottom of the rankings. It puts you 6th. So I am coming 1st at the end of the third round, after only playing the first two because I left. I'm now placed 6th. ... but with 5 qualifying spots, I still qualify? (because before the finals I would have been 1st..) This seems a discrepancy to me. Shouldn't I be ranked 6th and not qualify? It doesn't seem too right that some games determine qualifying spots before the finals, and others after, all depending on how many spots there are. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > LSJ wrote: > I suspect I was pushing my disappointment and frustration as a past > event organiser who's had to deal with people dropping for fairly lame > (to me, as a biased observer) reasons, when I just want everyone to play > as much as they've earned. Quite right. Drops are quite frequent at the major conventions, which is where I do most of my judging these days -- the majority of drops coming for less than "critical" or even "unforeseen" issues (namely: I want to play in this other game that starts at 6pm). > > > if I pull out after the 2nd round with two sweeps, and thus (say) I > > > would have been coming 1st at the end of the 3 prelim rounds, do I > still > > > get to qualify? > > > Yes, just as if you had joined late (missing the first round). > > > Fair's fair. > > > > (If, say there are 5 qualifying spots). I'm pretty sure > > > dropping before the start of the third round should put me at the > bottom > > > of the rankings, and I shouldn't get to qualify. > > >No, it doesn't put you at the bottom of the rankings. It puts you 6th. > > So I am coming 1st at the end of the third round, after only playing the > first two because I left. I'm now placed 6th. ... but with 5 qualifying > spots, I still qualify? (because before the finals I would have been 1st..) First is first, so you qualify. If you're talking about rankings, though, you give up the bonus points for finalists by not playing the finals, so you effectively rank 6th. > It doesn't seem too right that some games determine qualifying spots > before the finals, and others after, all depending on how many spots > there are. Perhaps, but it is unavoidable -- if you have to play the finals to find out who qualifies, then you have to play the finals to find out. If you can determine who qualifies before the final round begins, then you don't need to wait.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Emiliano Imeroni wrote: >> 1) Consider the situation in which a player who has >> played all the preliminary rounds and has qualified to >> play the final has to leave without playing the final. >> >> What happens to his ranking in the tournament? >> Sections 3.1.4 and 3.3.2 of the V:EKN tournament rules >> do not entirely clarify the matter to me. >> >> This issue becomes of particular relevance in a Qualifier >> tournament. For instance, suppose there are 6 qualification >> "slots", and the player who has ended the preliminary rounds >> being 4th in the ranking cannot play the final round. Does he >> qualify or not? And what happens in the same situation if, >> say, the qualification slots are only 4? > > Assuming you have more than 4 qualifying spots, the person who doesn't > play in the final retains his or her qualifying position. If this is true, could we have the Archon updated to leave DQ'ed players in their ranked position on the STANDINGS tab instead of dropping all of them to the very bottom? I don't know Excel enough to do it, otherwise it seems a rather simple request. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > To qualify, it should be based on the standing at the end of > the final round. the end of the final round is the end of the > tournament, and it's the whole tournament that should decide > who qualifies. And *THIS* is why the rule should be changed so that everyone making the finals qualifies, in addition to the 25% rule we already have. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > To qualify, it should be based on the standing at the end of > > the final round. the end of the final round is the end of the > > tournament, and it's the whole tournament that should decide > > who qualifies. > > And *THIS* is why the rule should be changed so that everyone making the > finals qualifies, in addition to the 25% rule we already have. I don't believe having all 5 players in a 5-player tournament qualify is desirable. If anything, *THIS* is why only venues that draw more than 20 players should be holding qualifiers.

Kevin M. wrote: > If this is true, could we have the Archon updated to leave DQ'ed players > in their ranked position on the STANDINGS tab instead of dropping all of > them to the very bottom? I don't know Excel enough to do it, otherwise it > seems a rather simple request. :) No, since the DQ'ed player's qualifying rank of 4th is different than his placing-for-finals rank of 6th. The Archon also doesn't track previously-qualified players, or other things that are only interesting in qualifier tournaments. It tracks only the things interesting to "normal" tournaments.

LSJ wrote: > talonz wrote: > > > > Ah...wouldn't 5 be the breaking point here? > > No. With 5 spots available, the qualifiers are known before the finals > start. > Er...huh? Since when are final rankings known before the final round is complete?! I have scoured the tourney rules (admittedly my downloaded 2003 version...where the heck is the 2006 version??) and website for qualifier info...this pre-final round ranking you are suggesting cannot be found. And if it can, that is a horrible system of ranking qualifiers. You might as well ditch the final round at qualifiers and simply have X open rounds with the overall scores determining final ranking, like many other ccg events. I'd almost support that as an alternative in regular tournies anyways, as I lately find the concept of 'win all your previous games, but lose that final game and you lose it all' silly. G

LSJ wrote: > -- there should never be any incentive for an "I've gotta > go" player to be forced to sit down at the final and roll at his > earliest convenience (thereby ensuring his qualification status) as > opposed to being allowed to recuse himself from the final and allowing > the final to be played "properly". He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and leaves on time. No one is being penalized by encouraging people to play the final. If that player is so pressed for time that he didnt allow time to play the final round, they penalized themselves. G

[ quoted text not captured ] Finals is a *whole* different ballgame than open rounds. Average level of play and decks is seriously different. Purely open rounds would favor agressive players who can intimidate/manipulate weaker players, over those that have a good deck and play well. The finals is one of the few rounds that's not significantly based on popularity. And, if there's 5 people that qualify. Top 5 get automatically qualified, no matter what the outcome of the finals. If there's less than that, the finals would decide upon who'd get qualified or not. If someone has to cede his spot to someone, because of external circumstances, it would seem unfair he'd have to trade his hard won qualification that in no way was affected by the game he couldn't play.

talonz wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > -- there should never be any incentive for an "I've gotta > > go" player to be forced to sit down at the final and roll at his > > earliest convenience (thereby ensuring his qualification status) as > > opposed to being allowed to recuse himself from the final and allowing > > the final to be played "properly". > > He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done > and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game > is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and > leaves on time. And this is a result you prefer over him keeping his 5th spot, and a 5 player final?

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158681728....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > LSJ wrote: >> -- there should never be any incentive for an "I've gotta >> go" player to be forced to sit down at the final and roll at his >> earliest convenience (thereby ensuring his qualification status) as >> opposed to being allowed to recuse himself from the final and allowing >> the final to be played "properly". > > He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done > and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game > is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and > leaves on time. What existing rule is that? Or were you proposing one? And if you were proposing one, what "good" does it allow? Playing a tournament final with only four people? What if two people need to leave? Three-way? > No one is being penalized by encouraging people to play the final. If > that player is so pressed for time that he didnt allow time to play the > final round, they penalized themselves. Of course they do. But if it penalizes them a qualifying spot because they did TOO WELL - that is, because they finished fifth rather than sixth when both are qualifying spots and they don't have time to play the finals - then something is severely screwed up. Fred

talonz wrote: I lately find the concept of 'win all your > previous games, but lose that final game and you lose it all' silly. I find the concept "win all games against lousy prey and predators and dont need to play against the good players to win the tournament" more silly. Frank

To sum it up: In a tournament with 5 qualifying spots A, B, C. D and E are in the finals. E goes home but is still qualified. F now plays the finals and wins. F is now tournament winner, but not qualified?! Frank

[ quoted text not captured ] One example is not a summation of all the points that have been made, but the example is correct. F doesn't get to qualify just because E couldn't stick around for the finals. Similarly, with 6 spots, if A-E go to the finals and F doesn't stick around to watch the finals and then, after F is packed up and gone, A discovers he must leave as well and cannot play the finals. Then, when G gets promoted to the finals, F doesn't lose his qualification spot.

I am confused. 5 qualifying spots. Assume none of the below players has qualified, and none has indicated that they are passing on their qualifying spot. ABCDE are in final, in that order of standings. D drops. F takes up slot. E wins tournament. A gets other VPs, BC and F get 0VP in final. Doesn't F get the qualifying spot? Conversely, same scenario with F filling in. E wins tournament, F gets other VPs, now ABC get 0VP in final. D does not qualify, correct? Since clearly, E and F came in 1st and 2nd, and AB and C came in 3rd 4th, and 5th respectively, unless they were tied going into the final. "The player with the highest total of Victory Points from the final round only is the tournament winner. The player with the next highest total of Victory Points from the final round only is the second place winner, and so on. In the event of a tie, the players' rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds will be the deciding tiebreaker." I think I am confused, because I feel like LSJ you are saying that the final has no bearing on whether someone qualifies or not. best - chris

librarian wrote: > I am confused. > > 5 qualifying spots. Assume none of the below players has qualified, > and none has indicated that they are passing on their qualifying spot. > > ABCDE are in final, in that order of standings. And, since there are five spots, this means that the five spots are taken by ABCDE. Nothing will change that. > D drops. F takes up > slot. E wins tournament. A gets other VPs, BC and F get 0VP in final. > > Doesn't F get the qualifying spot? No. F didn't qualify. The qualifiers were set when they were known -- which is after the preliminary rounds in this case. > Conversely, same scenario with F filling in. > E wins tournament, F gets other VPs, now ABC get 0VP in final. D does > not qualify, correct? Since clearly, E and F came in 1st and 2nd, and > AB and C came in 3rd 4th, and 5th respectively, unless they were tied > going into the final. Same thing -- the five qualifiers were ABCDE, as determined before the finals. See my other messages in this thread regarding a qualifier with 6 spots to see more reasons why. > I think I am confused, because I feel like LSJ you are saying that the > final has no bearing on whether someone qualifies or not. You have read correctly -- nothing to be confused about. If there are 5 or more qualifying spots, the the qualifiers will be known (and set) before the finals begin. If the qualifiers are not known before the finals (that is, if you must play the finals to determine who qualifies), then the qualifiers are not set before the final begin, and you must play the finals to determine who qualifies. This can only happen when there are fewer than 5 qualifying spots (although, depending on the number of previously-qualified players who finish in the top 5, it may be possible in some cases to determine the qualifiers before the final even if there are fewer than 5 spots).

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: > > I am confused. > > > > 5 qualifying spots. Assume none of the below players has qualified, > > and none has indicated that they are passing on their qualifying spot. > > > > ABCDE are in final, in that order of standings. > > And, since there are five spots, this means that the five spots are > taken by ABCDE. > > Nothing will change that. Why? I must not be looking at the right rules. Or perhaps it was ruled on the news group? > > > D drops. F takes up > > slot. E wins tournament. A gets other VPs, BC and F get 0VP in final. > > > > Doesn't F get the qualifying spot? > > No. F didn't qualify. The qualifiers were set when they were known -- > which is after the preliminary rounds in this case. > I am unclear where in the rules it says that the qualifier spots are determined after the preliminary rounds. Judging by this page: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship under "How to Qualify" it says: "For championships outside of Australia, the rule is the same as last year: The top 25% (round up) of the non-qualifed players at a Continental Qualifier become qualified. For example, 35 players attend a Qualifier. 2 are already qualified. So 35 - 2 = 33. 25% of 33 = 8.25. Round up to 9. So the top 9 (not already qualified) players qualify. The players who had already qualified before the event do not take any of the 9 slots away from non-qualified players." The phrase "top 25%" is I think what is tripping me up. I would assume that in a tournament, the top 25% would at least include people scored VPs in the finals? Even if they weren't qualified going in, but managed to slip in because someone dropped and then scored they scored a VP. Unless the finals aren't actually part of the tournament for some reason? best - chris

librarian wrote: > I am unclear where in the rules it says that the qualifier spots are > determined after the preliminary rounds. 1) It doesn't matter except in the case of a player dropping from the finals. 2) In that rare case, it is better to allow the player to drop than to create an artificial impetus for him to remain for the start of the final and find the quickest way out of the final.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1158780109....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think Chris's question was around the justification for the rule as much as its documentation. In short, where in the rules does it actually say that qualification is to be determined that way, as opposed to removing the player who dropped from the finals in favor his substitute? I think your reasoning is fine. But in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, unnecessary arguments, and perhaps erroneous lists of qualifiers, the point should be spelled out somewhere it can be easily found (if it is not already). Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I think your reasoning is fine. But in the interest of avoiding > misunderstandings, unnecessary arguments, and perhaps erroneous > lists of qualifiers, the point should be spelled out somewhere it can > be easily found (if it is not already). This is the first time it has been painted as an issue. Normally (the one or two times it has actually come up), the organizer emails WW and resolves the issue that way. If it is truly an issue, I'll ask that it be added to the qualification process description next time.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1158782081.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> I think your reasoning is fine. But in the interest of avoiding >> misunderstandings, unnecessary arguments, and perhaps erroneous >> lists of qualifiers, the point should be spelled out somewhere it can >> be easily found (if it is not already). > > This is the first time it has been painted as an issue. > > Normally (the one or two times it has actually come up), the organizer > emails WW and resolves the issue that way. Sure. But it may also be helpful for participants to be aware of ahead of time so they know what will happen given such a situation. (As you say, it probably doesn't come up all that much, but still...) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] No, I'd prefer he stay and play the final. If he leaves, he should risk losing his qualifying spot to the 6th ranked player who may get a .5 vp or better, and thus ranking higher in the final rankings. G

Frederick Scott wrote: > "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158681728....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done > > and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game > > is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and > > leaves on time. > > What existing rule is that? Or were you proposing one? > 3.1.4. Withdrawing from an Event Players choosing to withdraw from an event must inform the scorekeeper before the seatings for the next round are generated. Players leaving the tournament after the scorekeeper begins seatings for the next round receive a "Loss" in the upcoming round and will be removed from the event after that round. > And if you were proposing one, what "good" does it allow? Playing > a tournament final with only four people? What if two people need > to leave? Three-way? > Ideally, there would be no incentive to do this, and they would be replaced by substitute players according to ranking. > > No one is being penalized by encouraging people to play the final. If > > that player is so pressed for time that he didnt allow time to play the > > final round, they penalized themselves. > > Of course they do. But if it penalizes them a qualifying spot because > they did TOO WELL - that is, because they finished fifth rather than > sixth when both are qualifying spots and they don't have time to play > the finals - then something is severely screwed up. > We're talking about 5 q spots, not 6. They would lose nothing if there were 6. G

[ quoted text not captured ] Well thats what you get at qualifiers with 5 or more spots apparently. Setting aside your spurious assumption that all prelim games are against lousy prey and predators of course. G

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: > > I am unclear where in the rules it says that the qualifier spots are > > determined after the preliminary rounds. > > 1) It doesn't matter except in the case of a player dropping from the > finals. It might matter to those playing the event. I've played in 4 qualifiers now and never knew the final was largely pointless (given sufficient q spots). There is absolutely no way of knowing this until now. > 2) In that rare case, it is better to allow the player to drop than to > create an artificial impetus for him to remain for the start of the > final and find the quickest way out of the final. Well put, but what 'impetus' is there for the substitute player to play the final? They cant qualify (if ranked just short of Q before the final). Why not just eliminate the final then, and hold more open rounds? G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158873623....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > LSJ wrote: >> librarian wrote: >> > I am unclear where in the rules it says that the qualifier spots are >> > determined after the preliminary rounds. >> >> 1) It doesn't matter except in the case of a player dropping from the >> finals. > > It might matter to those playing the event. I've played in 4 > qualifiers now and never knew the final was largely pointless (given > sufficient q spots). Only for purposes of qualifying. And if there are less than 5 qualifying spots, I believe the final does matter if I understood the explanation correctly. > Well put, but what 'impetus' is there for the substitute player to play > the final? He could win the tournament. Prizes, fame, even those silly l'il worthless rating points could be his (or her's). And who knows? Maybe someday White Wolf will implement a rating points exchange program for something more valuable like 8-track tape decks and timeshares on 3-Mile Island. Fred

talonz wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158681728....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >> > He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done >> > and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game >> > is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and >> > leaves on time. >> >> What existing rule is that? Or were you proposing one? >> > > 3.1.4. Withdrawing from an Event > Players choosing to withdraw from an event must inform the scorekeeper > before the seatings for the next round are generated. Players leaving > the tournament after the scorekeeper begins seatings for the next round > receive a "Loss" in the upcoming round and will be removed from the > event after that round. my understanding of the "removed from the event" part of that is that they would then have no ranking/standing/whatever in the tournament. Placed below last place, as it were. Not qualify. Not count for calculating the number of qualifying spots. Which reminds me, at what point do you calculate the number of players in a tournament for working out the number of qualifying spots? At the start, after the 3rd round, just the total number of unique players that played at least one round each? -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158873074....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1158681728....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> > He doesnt need to. Under the rules, he can allow seating to be done >> > and then inform the judge he is leaving. He gets a loss, and the game >> > is played with 4 players. And thus he both retains his 5th spot and >> > leaves on time. ... >> what "good" does it allow? Playing >> a tournament final with only four people? What if two people need >> to leave? Three-way? > > Ideally, there would be no incentive to do this, and they would be > replaced by substitute players according to ranking. Huh? You just got done saying they _wouldn't_ be replaced by substitutes, that the game is played with 4 players and the missing player would still qualify. Or were you suggesting that it's OK to remove one player from a final but were then switching gears and allowing a substitude if and only if two or more players were missed? If so, why switch gears? If you can replace the second player, might as well admit you can replace the first. The final should be played with five players. And I don't know what you mean by "ideally" but it has little power on real life. Write any rule you want; you'll never remove the incentive of dealing with planes to catch or other events to attend that are more important to the finalist, whatever the reason. >> > No one is being penalized by encouraging people to play the final. If >> > that player is so pressed for time that he didnt allow time to play the >> > final round, they penalized themselves. >> >> Of course they do. But if it penalizes them a qualifying spot because >> they did TOO WELL - that is, because they finished fifth rather than >> sixth when both are qualifying spots and they don't have time to play >> the finals - then something is severely screwed up. > > We're talking about 5 q spots, not 6. They would lose nothing if there > were 6. All right, I'll give you that one. I guess there's no way to do too well for your own good. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. Fred was right, just looking to see where it was spelled out. Thanks LSJ. Rarely does it come up, but when it does, the judge will be happier to know the exact situation, as will no doubt the folks participating as well. best - chris

talonz wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > librarian wrote: > > > I am unclear where in the rules it says that the qualifier spots are > > > determined after the preliminary rounds. > > > > 1) It doesn't matter except in the case of a player dropping from the > > finals. > > It might matter to those playing the event. I've played in 4 > qualifiers now and never knew the final was largely pointless (given > sufficient q spots). There is absolutely no way of knowing this until > now. ? How could you not know that if the top 7 players qualify then the finalists (the top 5) qualify? This is trivial to know -- it follows directly from the qualification process description. > > 2) In that rare case, it is better to allow the player to drop than to > > create an artificial impetus for him to remain for the start of the > > final and find the quickest way out of the final. > > Well put, but what 'impetus' is there for the substitute player to play > the final? They cant qualify (if ranked just short of Q before the > final). 1) It doesn't come up except rarely. 2) After having failed to qualify, the failed-to-qualify player's options are: a) to play no more, b) to play in the finals, or c) to play a pick-up game with other non-finalists. If #6 doesn't like option b), or if he has already left, then the option goes to #7 and so on. Obviously. > Why not just eliminate the final then, and hold more open rounds? Because players who make the finals like to play the finals to see who wins (where some combination of competitive spirit, bragging rights, prizes, and ratings appeal to them). Obviously.

Salem wrote: > my understanding of the "removed from the event" part of that is that > they would then have no ranking/standing/whatever in the tournament. > Placed below last place, as it were. Not qualify. Not count for > calculating the number of qualifying spots. No. It just means he wouldn't be seated at any subsequent rounds. > Which reminds me, at what point do you calculate the number of players > in a tournament for working out the number of qualifying spots? > > At the start, after the 3rd round, just the total number of unique > players that played at least one round each? Whenever the total number of unique players is known.