[pfti]

Not that I am happy about it, (I agree with Jebus' thought process, but the rules don't currently support it) but Armus and Pfti are correct as BCSWowbagger pointed out. This leads to situations where someone wins by not playing and the one that played, lost. Do we really need to continue to foster this kind of shenanigans? The non-player did not outplay the one who actually played, they merely took advantage of (abused) an (IMHO) unintuitive manipulation of bonus points scored. Apparently, bonus points do not equal bonus points and they really should. Positive bonus points and Negative bonus points should be flip sides of the same coin and they are clearly 2 different coins. I guess is fine for Open, but in Modern, we care about mission points and bonus are extra. 2 players with no mission points should be a true tie, ALWAYS.

There is no difference in the game between positive and negative bonus points. You add and subrtact them from your score the same.

There is only a rule that says when calculating winning the sum of your bonus points cannot be greater than the sum of your points. That is not inconsistent, it is the rule saying clearly how it is applied.

We can aruge if the no mission win is a good thing (although it will take work to set it up)

but lets be clear that there is not a different standard for positive or negative bonus points

[JeBuS]

but lets be clear that there is not a different standard for positive or negative bonus points

Hmm, I wonder about this. If Alice scores 10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0. It's a True Tie. If Alice scores -10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0, Bob wins.
Those seem like different standards for positive vs negative bonus points.

[JeBuS]

Not that I am happy about it, (I agree with Jebus' thought process, but the rules don't currently support it) but Armus and Pfti are correct as BCSWowbagger pointed out. This leads to situations where someone wins by not playing and the the one you played lost. Do we really need to continue to foster this kind of shenanigans? The non-player did not outplay the one who actually played, they merely took advantage of (abused) an (IMHO) unintuitive manipulation of bonus points scored. Apparently, bonus points do not equal bonus points and they really should. Positive bonus points and Negative bonus points should be flip sides of the same coin and they are clearly 2 different coins. I guess is fine for Open, but in Modern, we care about mission points and bonus are extra. 2 players with no mission points should be a true tie, ALWAYS.

I think there's a false assumption that a player wins "by not playing". They're not playing a speed solver, sure. But unless we're claiming that this strategy is so good that you can literally draw-go the entire game and the opponent will still end up sub-zero points, clearly you're playing the game. You're just going full wrench.

Oh, my first thought was full wrench, using some of the stuff we saw in the Dual Decks at Worlds. Sure, shrug it off, but they play a different game anyway. I'm just thinking my shenanigan-brain is probably not what the rule change intended.

[pfti]

but lets be clear that there is not a different standard for positive or negative bonus points

Hmm, I wonder about this. If Alice scores 10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0. It's a True Tie. If Alice scores -10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0, Bob wins.
Those seem like different standards for positive vs negative bonus points.

Nope, those are different standards for calculating points towards winning (which doesnt care if specific pioints are positive or negative, on the sum total of points and total bonus points comparted to total mission points).

They are different concepts

Also bob could be at 0 after gaining and losing 10 points. Meaning the positive and negative counted the same.

[JeBuS]

but lets be clear that there is not a different standard for positive or negative bonus points

Hmm, I wonder about this. If Alice scores 10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0. It's a True Tie. If Alice scores -10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0, Bob wins.
Those seem like different standards for positive vs negative bonus points.

Nope, those are different standards for calculating points towards winning (which doesnt care if specific pioints are positive or negative, on the sum total of points and total bonus points comparted to total mission points).

I don't understand. You say "nope", which tends to make me think you're disagreeing, then the next part seems to agree with what I wrote?

They are different concepts

Also bob could be at 0 after gaining and losing 10 points. Meaning the positive and negative counted the same.

I don't understand how that's relevant.

[Professor Scott]

Not that I am happy about it, (I agree with Jebus' thought process, but the rules don't currently support it) but Armus and Pfti are correct as BCSWowbagger pointed out. This leads to situations where someone wins by not playing and the the one you played lost. Do we really need to continue to foster this kind of shenanigans? The non-player did not outplay the one who actually played, they merely took advantage of (abused) an (IMHO) unintuitive manipulation of bonus points scored. Apparently, bonus points do not equal bonus points and they really should. Positive bonus points and Negative bonus points should be flip sides of the same coin and they are clearly 2 different coins. I guess is fine for Open, but in Modern, we care about mission points and bonus are extra. 2 players with no mission points should be a true tie, ALWAYS.

I think there's a false assumption that a player wins "by not playing". They're not playing a speed solver, sure. But unless we're claiming that this strategy is so good that you can literally draw-go the entire game and the opponent will still end up sub-zero points, clearly you're playing the game. You're just going full wrench.

Naturally, a player could try 6 different missions and not solve any and still win under the current rules, but that is not what I am getting at. If both of the players fail to solve a single mission, it implies that both faced equal adversity and thus a true tie should be the result. What I am getting at is that a player COULD draw>go the entire game and still win and I am saying, that should not be possible, at least not in Modern.

[AllenGould]

Naturally, a player could try 6 different missions and not solve any and still win under the current rules, but that is not what I am getting at. If both of the players fail to solve a single mission, it implies that both faced equal adversity and thus a true tie should be the result. What I am getting at is that a player COULD draw>go the entire game and still win and I am saying, that should not be possible, at least not in Modern.

I think it depends on your framing.

When time runs out, I win if I'm closer to the victory conditions than you. But because I'm no good at speed decks, rather than try and score points, I'm going to play prevent defense - if I can make you lose more points than you can gain, than my zero points is closer to the victory conditions than your negative points.

I'm still playing the game - I'm just taking the Data School of Strategema route - If I make sure you lose, then I still win. We're still playing a race game, but now it's an endurance match rather than a sprint.

If I'm participating in each turn, playing cards, paying attention, and just going "full wrench"... did I not earn the win if the strategy worked, just as if you'd earn it if you got loose and scored points?

Now, if someone can build a deck that does the above but doesn't require any participation during the game once the seed phase is done - you just draw/go all game and let the seed deck win for you - then I'd agree that's a bad sign. But I'd be *very* interested to see a deck that can win that far on auto-pilot reliably.

[Professor Scott]

To be clear, I am not arguing what the rules say. I am arguing that they should be changed. Currently in Modern (From the OTF Rules Document):

7. VICTORY CONDITIONS
The game continues until one player wins the game by having at least one hundred (100) points
(except as modified below).
Each player who has not completed (or scouted) at least two (2) missions, including one Planet mission and one Space mission, must score an additional 40 points to win.
Each player who has not completed (or scouted) at least one (1) mission in the Alpha Quadrant must score an additional 40 points to win, unless neither player seeded any Alpha Quadrant missions.
If any player has more bonus points than non-bonus points, the excess bonus points do not count toward winning.
If, at any time, both players’ draw decks are empty, or if both players simultaneously achieve
victory conditions, the player with the most points is the winner.

The most points ONLY is a win condition IF 1 of those 2 conditions are met. In the absence of either condition, it is implied that the player with the most points IS NOT the winner; ergo a true tie. This is not explicit but I am saying it should be.

The winner should not be the person who failed at scoring positive points less than and the person who failed at scoring positive points more. I would cite that scoring negative points failed at scoring positive points more than the player you scored no points at all.

[BCSWowbagger]

So just so I'm clear... the example would yield a MW (+1) result for Player A, as Jon and I are both thinking... do you Concur?

Yes.

Here are some examples of how result / differential are calculated, ordered by most common to most weird:

GAME #1
ALICE: 100 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: FW Alice, differential +90
EXPLANATION: Only Alice has points that count toward winning, but Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential.

GAME #2
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +20
EXPLANATION: Again, only Alice has points that count toward winning, but Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential.

GAME #3
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 40 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +1
EXPLANATION: One more time, only Alice has points that count toward winning, so she wins. Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential. This time, though, Bob has more actual points than Alice. The OPG says that, when the loser has equal or more points than the winner, ignore the actual points and give the winner a +1 differential.

GAME #4
ALICE: 30 bonus points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: TT (true tie), differential 0
EXPLANATION: Neither player has points that count toward winning, so neither wins. Result is a True Tie. Even though Alice has more points, the OPG says that, when the result is a True Tie, ignore the actual points and give both players a +0 differential.

GAME #5
ALICE: -5 bonus points, 0 mission points
BOB: 0 points of any kind
RESULT: MW Bob, differential +1
EXPLANATION: Since Alice's total bonus points are negative, they are not "in excess" of her mission points, so they count toward winning (or, in her case, toward losing). We determine the winner based on a score of -5 Alice to 0 Bob. Result is MW Bob. In calculating differential, points below 0 are ignored. The "differential score" is therefore 0-0, for a total differential of zero. However, the OPG says that, when the loser has equal or more points than the winner, ignore the actual points and give the winner a +1 differential. Since we have a winner, Bob receives a +1 differential.

GAME #6
ALICE: -5 bonus points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: MW Bob, differential +10
EXPLANATION: First, determine the winner: Bob's bonus points are in excess of his mission points and are ignored. Alice's bonus points are not in excess and are counted. Score "that counts toward winning" is -5 to 0. Bob wins the MW. Second, apply rules modifying the differential: Alice's bonus points are below zero, so they are counted as zero. Bob's positive bonus points are above 0 and under 100, so they are not modified. Third, calculate differential: 10 for Bob minus 0 for Alice = +10 differential for Bob.

Remember that the final score only cares about your total bonus points and whether that total is positive or negative, so we do not have to break down the sources of your bonus points. -10 from Lack of Preparation +5 from Nanites = -5 bonus points, no matter how many mission points you have.

Whether the current rule is good or bad for the game, I don't know. However, I think that people who think it's bad for the game bear the burden of proof in this instance, because, as far as I can recall, it has always been the case that you can win by keeping your opponent below 0, and it's never been a big deal before. (Maybe it will be, now that more players have noticed it.)

[BCSWowbagger]

The most points ONLY is a win condition IF 1 of those 2 conditions are met. In the absence of either condition, it is implied that the player with the most points IS NOT the winner; ergo a true tie. This is not explicit but I am saying it should be.

This implication is there only because the rules assume an untimed game, which continues indefinitely until any of the "Rulebook win conditions" are met. (By the way, many people don't realize this, but winning by meeting the win conditions in the Rulebook always counts as a Full Win. Winning on a double deckout, final score 35-30, is a Full Win.)

The OPG introduces a time limit to First Edition (which, by the rules, is not a timed game), and the OPG is what extends the concept of "winner is the one with the most points" to include timed games.

P.S. I think we forgot to update the Rulebook's sidebar on the Organized Play Guide, Rule 9.0.2, particularly how concessions are scored. Should address that next month.

[nobthehobbit]

To a point made earlier, to me what would be incredibly unintuitive (and, frankly, flatly mathematically incorrect) would be for (net) negative bonus points not to count if you have 0 mission points. 0 is greater than any negative real number; ergo negative bonus points count toward winning if you have no mission points.

Playing against a "prevent defence" deck might not feel all that great, and as Allen noted, if there's one that can do it entirely with seed cards, that's probably a problem that needs to be looked at, but if someone's actually going about, playing cards, interacting, and playing in such a way that a standard solver can't solve missions and loses points overall, that's a viable strategy and should be permitted.

[Takket]

So just so I'm clear... the example would yield a MW (+1) result for Player A, as Jon and I are both thinking... do you Concur?

Yes.

Here are some examples of how result / differential are calculated, ordered by most common to most weird:

GAME #1
ALICE: 100 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: FW Alice, differential +90
EXPLANATION: Only Alice has points that count toward winning, but Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential.

GAME #2
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +20
EXPLANATION: Again, only Alice has points that count toward winning, but Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential.

GAME #3
ALICE: 30 mission points
BOB: 40 bonus points
RESULT: MW Alice, differential +1
EXPLANATION: One more time, only Alice has points that count toward winning, so she wins. Bob's excess bonus points count toward differential. This time, though, Bob has more actual points than Alice. The OPG says that, when the loser has equal or more points than the winner, ignore the actual points and give the winner a +1 differential.

GAME #4
ALICE: 30 bonus points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: TT (true tie), differential 0
EXPLANATION: Neither player has points that count toward winning, so neither wins. Result is a True Tie. Even though Alice has more points, the OPG says that, when the result is a True Tie, ignore the actual points and give both players a +0 differential.

GAME #5
ALICE: -5 bonus points, 0 mission points
BOB: 0 points of any kind
RESULT: MW Bob, differential +1
EXPLANATION: Since Alice's total bonus points are negative, they are not "in excess" of her mission points, so they count toward winning (or, in her case, toward losing). We determine the winner based on a score of -5 Alice to 0 Bob. Result is MW Bob. In calculating differential, points below 0 are ignored. The "differential score" is therefore 0-0, for a total differential of zero. However, the OPG says that, when the loser has equal or more points than the winner, ignore the actual points and give the winner a +1 differential. Since we have a winner, Bob receives a +1 differential.

GAME #6
ALICE: -5 bonus points
BOB: 10 bonus points
RESULT: MW Bob, differential +10
EXPLANATION: First, determine the winner: Bob's bonus points are in excess of his mission points and are ignored. Alice's bonus points are not in excess and are counted. Score "that counts toward winning" is -5 to 0. Bob wins the MW. Second, apply rules modifying the differential: Alice's bonus points are below zero, so they are counted as zero. Bob's positive bonus points are above 0 and under 100, so they are not modified. Third, calculate differential: 10 for Bob minus 0 for Alice = +10 differential for Bob.

Remember that the final score only cares about your total bonus points and whether that total is positive or negative, so we do not have to break down the sources of your bonus points. -10 from Lack of Preparation +5 from Nanites = -5 bonus points, no matter how many mission points you have.

Whether the current rule is good or bad for the game, I don't know. However, I think that people who think it's bad for the game bear the burden of proof in this instance, because, as far as I can recall, it has always been the case that you can win by keeping your opponent below 0, and it's never been a big deal before. (Maybe it will be, now that more players have noticed it.)

It would be fantastic to have these in the tournament guide maybe as an appendix. Also include the examples of scoring for players over 100 (because they got 140 for playing and all DQ deck or some such thing......) References back to the relevant rulebook section and/or OPG would be helpful too to "back it up". I'd even volunteer to write it if that would help.

I was just playing a game that was 10-4 and we were reading the play guide and could not honestly tell if it was a TT or MW (granted that was skimming it very quickly to decide before the time ran out LOL). Man I'm glad I got 5 points because I was sitting at -1 for most of the game. That salvaged me a TT instead of a ML!

[geraldkw]

I didn't wade through all the arguments but I think the basic idea here is that high score wins, and positive bonus points only count if they are matched or exceeded by mission points, but negative bonus points always count so a score with only positive bonus points will always be zero, but a zero always beats any negative score?

[JeBuS]

I didn't wade through all the arguments but I think the basic idea here is that high score wins, and positive bonus points only count if they are matched or exceeded by mission points, but negative bonus points always count so a score with only positive bonus points will always be zero, but a zero always beats any negative score?

Yes, I believe that is the resolution.

[pfti]

Hmm, I wonder about this. If Alice scores 10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0. It's a True Tie. If Alice scores -10 bonus points, and Bob scores 0, Bob wins.
Those seem like different standards for positive vs negative bonus points.

Nope, those are different standards for calculating points towards winning (which doesnt care if specific pioints are positive or negative, on the sum total of points and total bonus points comparted to total mission points).

I don't understand. You say "nope", which tends to make me think you're disagreeing, then the next part seems to agree with what I wrote?

They are different concepts

Also bob could be at 0 after gaining and losing 10 points. Meaning the positive and negative counted the same.

I don't understand how that's relevant.

Let me try to be clear.
None of the rules care if you score positive or negative points and do not treat those points differnely

totall score does if you the score is

100 to 12
13 to - 3
-3 to - 20
The bigger score wins

THe counts towards winning rule
works the same regardless of positives or negatives, it only cares about comparitive sums, not positives and negatives

if you score 30 positive bonuis poits and score 0 negative ones, but only have 25 mission points, you only have 50 points towards winning

If you have 50 positive bonus points and 20 negative ones and 25 mission points, you still have 50 points towards winning because the sum of my bonus points is still 5 greater than my mission points
all positive and negative points were counted

if I had - 10 mission points (while not possible with current cards posible under the rules) and -5 bonus points, I would have a score towards winning of -10 because the sum of of my bonus points would be in excess of -10

however, if I had -10 mission points and -10 bonus points my score towards winning would be -20. Since my sum of bonus points is no longer greater than my points towards winning they count.

Similarly the differential rules do not care if points are positive or negative, they just say that the number used to calculate the winners score for differential differential must be between 1 and 100 inclusive and the losers must be between 0 and the winners differential score -1) (all of this assuming someone won) But even here this is true regardless if the individual scores are positive or negative

None of these rules treat positive of negative numbers differently, they just ask you to do differnt math with the total points at the end