You do realise that these warnings would be handed out maybe once or twice in a tournament? And it's not like the TO gets on a megaphone and calls both players out; he'd correct their mistake and tell both players to keep a closer eye on things before moving on. It's likely only the people at the next table over would even notice what had happened. I think that's a fair consequence for allowing your game to go far enough off course to require the TO's intervention in the first place.

As for your statement that no-one would attend events judged like this... well, MTG has this rule, and I don't think they're struggling.

We're talking about breaking the rules, and those have consequences as much as in-game mistakes do. Believing that you shouldn't be at least warned for breaking the rules is naive, and smacks of an inflated sense of self-entitlement. A person who thinks they're above the rules simply because they mean well isn't the kind of person I'd care to play against, especially at a tournament.

When you're trying to build a community of gamers it is a bad thing. You tend to scare off the shyest of players early on and the casual ones next, leaving you with a joyless, hardcore, condescending feel to your events. If that's what you want a tournament to be go for it. Don't expect attendance.

Allow questionable practices to go unchallenged and you can expect things to fall apart just as fast. At best you could just set the local player base up for disappointment should they ever play somewhere else where the rules are actually enforced. At worse you just create an environment where all you get are joyless, hardcore, and condescending events where everyone is just trying to figure out the next way to stick it to the opponent.

Because TO intervention is in and of itself embarassing. A warning is a step before disqualification. That's too far. More than thjat though, the tone this is being presented with is "Only idiots make mistakes, punish them." That's heavy handed authoritative nonsense.

That's up to the TO, but usually a match loss should precede a DQ. What does it matter why the rules are being broken, though? Deliberate attempt to cheat, idiot player, or rookie mistake, the result is the same. All a warning does is attempt to prevent the issue from reoccurring, so I see no need to construe a simple preventive measure as some kind of draconian policy.

Because every player makes a mistake. Those mistakes are almost always forgetting something, as in this case, and those come with in match consequences. Consequences outside the match are too much. Warning has far too much of an official tone to it. The players are already unlikely to make the same mistake. That's enough.

It isn't enough, because it isn't clear. Just fixing the situation in game does nothing to prevent further similar situations from happening between those players, because you've established no consequences for breaking the game rules. You are honestly encouraging a dishonest player to continue to make 'mistakes' because you've shown that you won't do anything about them. So the Jax allows similar to occur in a subsequent game now what do you do? Give them a game loss or DQ out of the blue? While likely warranted that seems harsh as you haven't even given him a proper warning first. Or do you just give him the warning then? Now you've just allowed a player to break the rules twice for an advantage before you've even told them not to let it happen again. That's an ineffective TO.

Seriously what players aren't adult enough to take a warning without it ruining their day. There is no Scarlett W involved, they don't have to disclose it on a job application, they don't have to register as a rules offender with their local municipality. You quietly and calmly say, "Hey guys this is a warning, pay more attention to what's going on". That's it.

You talk about how such a thing is going to scare off shy and casual players, but in reality who is more likely to get taken advantage of in an event by an opponent playing fast and loose with the rules? The experienced player that knows the rules and is willing to call their opponent on any shady play? Or the casual/new/shy player that doesn't have the knowledge or confidence to do so? By being unwilling to enforce the rules you just create an environment where shady/lazy play is encouraged, with the targets/recipients of it being your new/shy/casual players who don't know better.

Seriously, what players aren't adult enough to receive a warning without it ruining their day?

Apparently there are a few of those types posting on this very forum. You'd think the internet would have given them some thicker skin.

Some very interesting views on the Carnor Jax situation, quite likely something that does come up for time to time, the question is regardless of punishment or warning, how do you resolve the situation without one or the other player gaining a significant advantage.

I'm inclined to offer a situation that while not strictly within the rules results in the fairest solution.

Any ships that were within R1 of Carnor that were allowed to take Focus/Evade tokens should be allowed to spend them (that turn only) as though Carnors ability was not in effect for that ship for the rest of the turn. It doesn’t punish the player with the tokens for an ability that his opponent should have pointed out but forgot till it was more relevant, and doesn’t punish the Carnor player if the only solution was to go back and allow different actions to be taken with “Future Knowledge” so to speak.

Would anyone else agree, or perhaps offer an alternative solution?

Right before our regional in Gatineau, the 3 judges announced how the game would be going, which judge had domain over player areas (i.e. a Montreal Judge could not make a call for a Montreal player) and how the rules were to be followed.

They clarified the wave 4 cards that were causing confusion, like "decloaking", and they reminded all players about the tournament version of certain actions (namely BR, Boost, and TL). The final thing they said, after a few questions, was if they could not figure it out they were to roll dice to determine it out. And only after that would you need to go get a Judge for a ruling.

I called a judge over to give a ruling when my round 2 opponent forgot to put Han's dial down, and he had initiative so his two blues had already moved and acted. I knew what the rule was but I didn't want the player to think I was trying to be mean (it was the first time I had ever had to pick a maneuver on any opponents dial) but that it was a rule in the game.

Right before our regional in Gatineau, the 3 judges announced how the game would be going, which judge had domain over player areas (i.e. a Montreal Judge could not make a call for a Montreal player) and how the rules were to be followed.

They clarified the wave 4 cards that were causing confusion, like "decloaking", and they reminded all players about the tournament version of certain actions (namely BR, Boost, and TL). The final thing they said, after a few questions, was if they could not figure it out they were to roll dice to determine it out. And only after that would you need to go get a Judge for a ruling.

I feel that this sort of announcement will become more prevalent (and I certainly hope they do) in terms of setting a standard of play expected at the event, this resolves a lot of issues before they can become problems, particularly in relation to following through with Actions once declared etc.

Any ships that were within R1 of Carnor that were allowed to take Focus/Evade tokens should be allowed to spend them (that turn only) as though Carnors ability was not in effect for that ship for the rest of the turn. It doesn’t punish the player with the tokens for an ability that his opponent should have pointed out but forgot till it was more relevant, and doesn’t punish the Carnor player if the only solution was to go back and allow different actions to be taken with “Future Knowledge” so to speak.

But the non-Carnor player now has an advantage, in that he has been allowed to ignore Carnor's ability for a turn. It's actually quite hard to correct situations like this without one player getting an advantage. In any event, it shouldn't be just the responsibility of each card's owner to make sure they're enforced; both players should be responsible for the game state.

I still think removing the tokens and leaving it there is the right way to do it. It does sort of hammer the non-Carnor player more, but it's the only reasonable way to get the "correct" game state back.

As for the Carnor situation stated before, I would remind the players that it is their responsibility to remember what abilities trigger and when and if they don't remember to call them when they are applicable then that ability would be passed on for this round. I don't see how a warning vs a reminder would work any differently but I think people are concerned that it would seem unduly harsh when in fact a reminder of the rules is just that. What a reminder does is work like a warning but you can use it if you get the same situation again, and use it to warrant further penalties. The first step is to correct the error without penalty if not sever enough to warrant it. The penalties can be escalated if the corrective measures are not working, but they have to be clearly used first.

On a side note, my 1st round opponent forgot to use R3A2 during the entire match. I did not remind him that he could stress me as that is his responsibility. If I had an ability that would affect one of his ships I would consider it my responsibility to remind him of the effect so he could choose actions appropriately.

I was reminded, by my opponent when I was defending against Wedge, that I should not be rolling 2 dice but only 1 for my x-wing ( I voided my original roll and rolled only 1 die). If he forgets, I would have kept the 2 dice roll completely forgetting about the lower agility requirement. If he reminded me later in the round, I would rewind and do over as I know he is being correct in the matter, if only a bit forgetful of the game state.

Any ships that were within R1 of Carnor that were allowed to take Focus/Evade tokens should be allowed to spend them (that turn only) as though Carnors ability was not in effect for that ship for the rest of the turn. It doesn’t punish the player with the tokens for an ability that his opponent should have pointed out but forgot till it was more relevant, and doesn’t punish the Carnor player if the only solution was to go back and allow different actions to be taken with “Future Knowledge” so to speak.

But the non-Carnor player now has an advantage, in that he has been allowed to ignore Carnor's ability for a turn. It's actually quite hard to correct situations like this without one player getting an advantage. In any event, it shouldn't be just the responsibility of each card's owner to make sure they're enforced; both players should be responsible for the game state.

I still think removing the tokens and leaving it there is the right way to do it. It does sort of hammer the non-Carnor player more, but it's the only reasonable way to get the "correct" game state back.

I agree that the non-carnor player might gain a technical advantage by ignoring carnors effect for the rest of the turn but severely punishing (naked Interceptors tend to die A LOT easier with out evade and focus tokens) the Fel player for an effect that his opponent should have reminded him of is far more advantageous to the Carnor player for conveniently "Forgetting" an ability on his own ship then reminding his opponent when it matters.

This I feel is too abuse-able for this very reason and if any advantage should be awarded it should be to the non carnor player, particularly as the solution I offered offers the least significant advantage to either player.

While forgetting mandatory effects does happen the owner of the effect shouldn't benefit more from the solution as it just incentivises that "situation" to occur again, but creating a small disadvantage to the carnor player I believe that it is far more likely that the ability will be more readily adhered to by its owner in the future.

I agree that the non-carnor player might gain a technical advantage by ignoring carnors effect for the rest of the turn but severely punishing (naked Interceptors tend to die A LOT easier with out evade and focus tokens) the Fel player for an effect that his opponent should have reminded him of is far more advantageous to the Carnor player for conveniently "Forgetting" an ability on his own ship then reminding his opponent when it matters.

This I feel is too abuse-able for this very reason and if any advantage should be awarded it should be to the non carnor player, particularly as the solution I offered offers the least significant advantage to either player.

But now we're almost encouraging the non-Carnor player to 'forget' Carnor's ability in the hope that his opponent does as well. And it's not just the fault of the Carnor player; his opponent is just as responsible for not paying attention to what is on the board.

Once mistakes like this are made and forgotten about until it's too late to go back, I think you have to forget about who gets an advantage and just get the game as close to what it should look like as is reasonably possible. That way, if someone does benefit from it, at least it's something like what would have happened anyway. In this case, I can't see another option but removing the tokens. And warning both players for allowing the illegal game state to develop in the first place.

But now we're almost encouraging the non-Carnor player to 'forget' Carnor's ability in the hope that his opponent does as well. And it's not just the fault of the Carnor player; his opponent is just as responsible for not paying attention to what is on the board.

Point noted, But its a lot easier to 'cheat' with your own cards than it is to 'cheat' with your opponents, regardless of weather its intentional or not.

For my mind there is no simple solution, and as others have said its not a players responsibility to babysit their opponents abilities and effects, particularly in this case where the owner of the ability will likely get a significant advantage from forgetting their ability at an appropriate time only to remember it again when it matters assuming the solution you have suggested is the one taken by the TO etc.

Funnily enough this whole discussion has ensured that should I ever be playing with or against Carnor I will remember the appropriate actions to take.

So, to get this wonderful can of worms back on topic. If I had just posted a Wedge scenario without posting the other 2 to contrast it, who would feel like its not cheating? (I saw a gray line with Wedge, saw a line with Biggs, and saw red with misreading the dice and felt it would stir up some good discussion)

Side note, I went to a casual tourny today, and watched a guy draw too many cards on his ship (he did not tell his opponent how much damage went through, I was going to remind him, but I saw something shiney and forgot until the round was over). -Might of been the guy talking about something to do with a rear arc added to a Lamda. My opponent misread the dice, and I was relaxed and would of cared less if he made a mistake when dealing cards to his craft (to his benefit). But when he announced how much damage he was about to draw, I corrected him.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

If you let honest mistakes slip, you're in danger of letting them happen again and again and again. A person's motivation for breaking the rules hardly matters in these circumstances. If you can't prevent if from happening in the first place, you should at least make some effort to prevent it from happening a second or third time. That's where warnings come into play. Warnings aren't nearly as harsh as you're making them out to be.

Is it really so hard to accept that there are penalties for screwing up? I mean really, take responsibility for your own actions. It's not that hard.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it. It's only if he got called over again and again that he would start thinking about penalising the players.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it.

No, you're talking judiciary discipline after a single mutual slip up. That's nonsense. IF over the course of several games the player keeps making the same mistakes then deal with it. But the first time every time? Never. Let the players handle that. They're more than capable.

If the TO has been called over, then they are clearly not capable of handling it.

It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it.

It can be very difficult for a TO determine if a mistake is accidental, or not.

Patterns of behaviour can best be tracked by giving out warnings. Too many warnings defines a pattern of behaviour and should then result in an escalated penalty, such as a match loss. Cheating is an automatic DQ, without any question - ever.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it.

No, you're talking judiciary discipline after a single mutual slip up. That's nonsense. IF over the course of several games the player keeps making the same mistakes then deal with it. But the first time every time? Never. Let the players handle that. They're more than capable.

If the TO has been called over, then they are clearly not capable of handling it.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it.

No, you're talking judiciary discipline after a single mutual slip up. That's nonsense. IF over the course of several games the player keeps making the same mistakes then deal with it. But the first time every time? Never. Let the players handle that. They're more than capable.

If the TO has been called over, then they are clearly not capable of handling it.

The ruling, no. The next time it comes up though, they'll know what to do. A warning only serves to move them closer to being DQ'd losing the match. Beyond that, neither player is likely to make the mistake again. Players policing themselves is a far better state for the game. And they will. But if you make it clear as a judge that you will issue warnings for every slip up you're encouraging players to not call you. And you're encouraging them to not come back because the environment is focused to much on the rules and not enough on the play.

What does a warning really matter, unless you assume the player is just going to keep making mistakes? Maybe you're the one who thinks people are too stupid to figure out how to play the game properly.

So where do you draw the line, Aminar? What's the proper buffer for mistakes before you penalize someone? Two warnings? Three? Where do we draw this grey, non-uniform line?

Aminar, most of what you describe could be appropriate for non-sanctioned, casual, store-level, 'friendly' play. That's fine.

However, what you describe is far too lax for any real tournament environment.

Fact is, the rules are important, but enforcing them to the point you're enacting a procedure where mistakenly breaking them can disqualify a player or auto-lose them a game is still BS. It's not hard to tell when someone is cheating versus when something is an honest mistake. Unless a pattern of behavior with a player is seen it's best to let the players handle it. Judges warnings should be limited to obvious cheating, repeated negligent play, and poor sportsmanship. That's where the line sits.

Repeated negligent play is exactly what we're talking about. If you can't keep the game on course enough for the TO to hit you with a loss, then you've stuffed up repeatedly and in severe enough fashion to warrant the TO's intervention multiple times. If that is the case, you bloody well deserve it.

I'm starting to think you're imagining the TO patrolling the tables and hitting players with warnings whenever he's something not quite right. That is not what would happen here. The TO would get called over by players who have gotten themselves into an awkward situation by forgetting or misapplying something. The TO would help them sort it out, warn them not to do it again, and leave them to it. That's it.

No, you're talking judiciary discipline after a single mutual slip up. That's nonsense. IF over the course of several games the player keeps making the same mistakes then deal with it. But the first time every time? Never. Let the players handle that. They're more than capable.

If the TO has been called over, then they are clearly not capable of handling it.

The ruling, no. The next time it comes up though, they'll know what to do. A warning only serves to move them closer to being DQ'd losing the match. Beyond that, neither player is likely to make the mistake again. Players policing themselves is a far better state for the game. And they will. But if you make it clear as a judge that you will issue warnings for every slip up you're encouraging players to not call you. And you're encouraging them to not come back because the environment is focused to much on the rules and not enough on the play.

What does a warning really matter, unless you assume the player is just going to keep making mistakes? Maybe you're the one who thinks people are too stupid to figure out how to play the game properly.

So where do you draw the line, Aminar? What's the proper buffer for mistakes before you penalize someone? Two warnings? Three? Where do we draw this grey, non-uniform line?

Aminar, most of what you describe could be appropriate for non-sanctioned, casual, store-level, 'friendly' play. That's fine.

However, what you describe is far too lax for any real tournament environment.